Feminist Companion to John: Volume 2 [1 ed.] 9780567461735, 9780826463326

Citation preview

A Feminist Companion to John Volume II

Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings, 5

This page intentionally left blank

A Feminist Companion to

John Volume II

edited by

Amy-Jill Levine with Marianne Blickenstaff

SHEFFIELD ACADEMIC PRESS A Continuum imprint LONDON •

NEW YORK

Copyright © 2003 Sheffield Academic Press A Continuum imprint Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX 370 Lexington Avenue, New York NY 10017-6550 www.continuumbooks.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Ltd, Midsomer Norton, Bath

ISBN 0-8264-6332-0 (hardback) 0-8264-6333-9 (paperback)

CONTENTS Preface Acknowledgments Abbreviations List of Contributors AMY-JILL LEVINE Introduction

vii viii ix xiii 1

ADELE REINHARTZ

Women in the Johannine Community: An Exercise in Historical Imagination

SATOKO YAMAGUCHI

'I Am' Sayings and Women in Context

14 34

DOROTHY LEE

Abiding in the Fourth Gospel: A Case Study in Feminist Biblical Theology

COLLEEN CONWAY

Gender Matters in John

64 79

ADELINE FEHRIBACH

The 'Birthing' Bridegroom: The Portrayal of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel

104

DEBORAH SAWYER John 19.34: From Crucifixion to Birth, or Creation?

130

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE 'Don't Be Touching Me': Recent Feminist Scholarship on Mary Magdalene

140

vi

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

JANE SCHABERG

Thinking Back through Mary Magdalene

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

167 190 215 223

PREFACE A feminist Companion to John, Volumes I and II, represent the fourth and fifth volumes in a new series with excellent precedent. These volumes on the texts and history of Christian origins adopt the model established by Athalya Brenner, editor of the enormously successful Feminist Companion to the Bible. This sister series to FCB marks an important new dimension in Sheffield Academic Press's list of titles in the areas of feminist hermeneutics and theology, and its contents underline the extent to which feminist critique is established as a core discipline of biblical, historical and theological research. The new series, like FCB, contains contributions by beginning as well as established scholars; it presents both previously published work (primarily from sources either out of print or difficult to find) and new essays. In some cases, scholars have been invited to revisit their earlier work to examine the extent to which their arguments and approaches have changed; in others, they have sought to apply their earlier insights to new texts. We wish to thank Marianne Blickenstaff for her numerous organizational contributions as well as her discerning insights, and Mary Kay Dobrovolny, Heidi Geib and Kathy Williams for help with proofreading. We also wish to thank the Carpenter Program in Religion, Gender and Sexuality at Vanderbilt Divinity School for financial and technical support. It is our hope that this series will quickly establish itself as a standard work of references for scholars, students and others interested in the New Testament and Christian origins. Amy-Jill Levine, Vanderbilt Divinity School Philip R. Davies, Sheffield Academic Press

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The editors and publisher are grateful to the following for permission to reproduce copyright material: Pacifica for 'Abiding in the Fourth Gospel: A Casestudy in Feminist Biblical Theology', by Dorothy A. Lee, from Pacifica 10; Continuum for 'Thinking Back through the Magdalene', from Continuum 1; Orbis Press for 'I Am (I Do) Sayings and Women in Context', by Satoko Yamaguchi, from Mary and Martha: Women in the World of Jesus.

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD

AGJU ANF BA BAGD

Anchor Bible David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Ante-Nicene Fathers Biblical Archaeologist

Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. William Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn, 1958) BARev BDF

Biblical Archaeology Review

Friedrich Blass, A. Debrunner and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian

BETL BG Bib Biblnt BIS BJS BN BR BTB BZ

BZAW BZNW CBQ CBQMS ConB ConBNT CSCO ETL EvQ EvT GCS HR HTKNT

Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961) Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Berlin Gnostic Codex Biblica Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches

Biblical Interpretation Series Brown Judaic Studies Biblische Notizen Bible Review Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblische Zeitschrift

Beihefte zur ZAW Beihefte zur ZMV Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Monograph Series

Coniectanea biblica Coniectanea biblica, New Testament Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Evangelical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie

Griechische christliche Schriftsteller History of Religions

Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

X

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

HTR IDE

Harvard Theological Review George Arthur Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible- (4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962) IDE, Supplementary Volume David L. Sills and Robert K. Merton (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (19 vols.; New York: MacMillan; Free Press, 1968-1991). Interpretation Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Loeb Classical Library Septuagint New American Bible New Century Bible New English Bible Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies Nag Hammadi Studies New International Bible New Jerusalem Bible Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift New Literary History: A Journal of Theory and Interpretation Novum Testamentum Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland et al (eds.), Novum Testamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 26th edn, 1979) Novum Testamentum, Supplements New Revised Standard Version New Testament Studies New Testament Tools and Studies Overtures to Biblical Theology James Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983-1985) Oudtestamentische Studien J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia cursus completa. Series graeca (166 vols.; Paris: Petit-Montrouge, 1857-83) Review and Expositor Revue thomiste Religious Studies Bulletin Revised Standard Version

IDBSup IESS

Int JAAR JBL JCS JFSR 7/S JR JSNT JSNTSup /SOT JSOTSup JTS

LCL LXX NAB

NCB NEB

NHMS NHS NIB NJB

NKZ NLH NovT NovTGr

NovTSup NRSV NTS NTTS OBT OTP OTS PG

RevExp RevThom RSB RSV

Abbreviations SBL SBLBSNA SBLDS SBLMS SBLSBS SBLSP SBLSS SBT SNTSMS SR ST TDNT

TLZ TS TTod TU UBSGNT VC VCSup

VT WBC WUNT

ZAW ZGB

ZNW

xi

Society of Biblical Literature SBL Biblical Scholarship in North America SBL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series SBL Sources for Biblical Studies SBL Seminar Papers SBL Semeia Studies Studies in Biblical Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses Studia theologica Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley; 10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1976) Theologische Literaturzeitung Theological Studies Theology Today Texte und Untersuchungen United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament Vigiliae christianae Vigiliae christianae Supplement Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft M. Zerwick, Graecitas Biblica (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute; 4th edn, 1960). Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

This page intentionally left blank

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Harold Attridge, Yale Divinity School, New Haven, Connecticut, USA Colleen Conway, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey, USA Adeline Fehribach, Spalding University, Louisville, Kentucky, USA Dorothy Lee, Queen's College, Parkville, Victoria, Australia Adele Reinhartz, Wilfred Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Deborah Sawyer, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK Jane D. Schaberg, University of Detroit, Detroit, Michigan, USA Satoko Yamaguchi, Center for Feminist Theology and Ministry in Japan, Nerima-ku, Tokyo, Japan

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION Amy-Jill Levine Feminist biblical commentary is remarkably diverse in its practitioners, its methods, its subjects, and its results. Like the living water offered to the Samaritan woman at the well, it can be life-giving, even if the process of obtaining it is linguistically and culturally strange, if it challenges conventional wisdom, if it requires the relinquishing of dearly held beliefs, if it causes family, friends and (worst of all) academic colleagues either to dismiss the venture or proclaim it aberrant, heretical, or simply weird. Like the bread of life the Johannine Jesus offers, it can nourish and it can cause schism; it is something many would find hard to swallow or even to think about and yet it is something that, unlike manna, will last. The eight essays in this volume offer a combination of living water and bread of life: they contest or even dismiss long-standing scholarly assumptions and approaches, they conjure unsettling images, they provoke. In the mother of Jesus who commands the steward because—despite evidence to the contrary—she recognizes the truth, the Samaritan woman whose own personal experiences prompt her acknowledgment of a higher power, Martha who complains effectively to the highest authority, Mary who acts despite the critiques of insiders, and Mary Magdalene who remains and believes when those insiders can only go home, feminist critics find their foresisters and their inspiration. For some interpreters, feminist and otherwise, the Gospel of John is the most sympathetic to women of the canonical narratives. As the 'Introduction' to Vol. I of The Feminist Companion to John notes, women frame the story of Jesus, women prove his more faithful followers, and the gospel is replete with feminine, especially birthing imagery. However, recognition of women characters or female images is insufficient if the reader's goal is liberation. The characters may be seen as role models, as negative exemplars, or simply as ambivalent; the imagery may be regarded as celebratory or cooptative. Feminist analysis thus must take the next steps to ask about the narrative's potential both for liberation, not just for women, but for anyone denied rights, denied voice, denied authenticity, and for the reinforcing of dualistic, hierarchical and exclusivistic systems.

2

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

The eight essays in Vol. I offer a variety of methods and conclusions. F. Scott Spencer explores the distinctions between male and female discourse in both affect and effect, and Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean demonstrates how reading John 2 in light of the story of Jacob brings order and comprehensibility to Jesus' enigmatic language and behavior. Jerome Neyrey interprets the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in terms of honor/shame conventions, Stephen Moore explores through Lacanian theory the desires of both characters to achieve wholeness, and Jane Webster demonstrates how the conversation leads the Samaritan from the Proverbial 'foreign/ adulterous/unknowing' Strange Woman to a model of Wisdom. Mona West introduces queer theory to this series in her reflections on Martha's letting go of her resistance to resurrection and so embracing of a new and ultimately lifegiving path. Holly Toensing adduces how two conversations, that between Jesus and the Pharisees who present to him the adulteress, and that between Jesus and the adulterous woman herself, may be less liberating for women than previously supposed, and Ingrid Rosa Kitzberger offers an interfigural reading that extends conversation beyond the boundaries of the Fourth Gospel. The articles thus place characters and texts in conversation with each other, and with us. But, as the essays reveal, communication is never transparent, gender configurations intrude, words and images proffer multiple meanings, and the task of the interpreter remains challenging. The eight essays in the present volume address still other aspects of the Fourth Gospel through new exegetical and hermeneutical programs. Some, taking a more broad-based approach, seek to locate the cumulative effect of all the stories concerning women, and these studies lead to general suggestions concerning both the evangelist's view of gender and the role of women in the Johannine community. Others look to christological language and theological categories in the search for an alternative to the androcentrism and exclusivity theologians typically associate with the Fourth Gospel. A third group highlights specific scenes, such as the crucifixion and the appearance to Mary Magdalene in the garden, to interrogate the function of feminine imagery, the implications of particularly troublesome verses, and the cultural appropriations of the narratives. Again, no consensus is reached. Adele Reinhartz opens this collection by going to the well of earlier works on both the status of women in John's gospel and the role of women in the Johannine community. Following Raymond Brown, Elisabeth Schlissler Fiorenza and Sandra Schneiders, she argues that the gospel's female characters indicate that women in the movement held central roles as leaders, representatives, and prophets; following Mary

LEVINE Introduction

3

Rose D'Angelo, she acknowledges as well that these activities may have generated some dissent in the church. She then advances the discussion by moving from general observations on the roles of women behind the text to an imaginative sociohistorical exploration of how those women perceived their own experience as followers of Jesus. Her goal is not to find 'real women' and the 'historical reality' of Christians in late firstcentury Asia Minor as if these could be excavated through textual archaeology. It is rather to construct plausible models that may prompt new insights into both text and sociological context. The methodological sophistication as well as humility Reinhartz brings to the exercise belies any supposition that the imagination employed is detached from the anchor of credibility. Explaining her presupposition that the fourth evangelist tells the overlapping stories of Jesus of Nazareth and of his later followers, she acknowledges the potential circularity of any claims regarding either text (interpreted on the basis of hypothetical context) or context (derived from clues in the text itself). However, the precision of the argument as well as its supports from materials outside the Fourth Gospel commends her approach. Reinhartz's study, like the gospel itself, has a dual focus. The essay investigates the construction of each female character, first, to determine the network of relationships in which they act and, second, to propose the plausibility of those structures as enacted within the group behind the text. The results concerning women's roles are provocative. The mother of Jesus (never named in the Fourth Gospel) appears as knowledgeable prophet and authoritative teacher, perhaps representative of elder wise women a generation older than the male leadership represented by the Beloved Disciple, who welcomes her into his home. The Samaritan woman is also not named, and her anonymity—a subject on which Reinhartz makes several notable observations — draws attention to her ethnic-religious identity. Perhaps she represents not simply nonJewish women in the Johannine community, but women who functioned as evangelists. Mary and Martha emerge as representatives of household believers; since other documents of early Christianity attest female partners in ministry (esp. Rom. 16), Reinhartz perceives that they may have been seen not as biological sisters but as co-workers. Martha may have functioned as a deacon in the capacities of both serving (a model also suggested in Luke 10) and in proclaiming the community's faith; Mary's anointing of Jesus may bespeak the role of women prophets. Finally, Mary Magdalene, although accorded the unique roles of first witness to the resurrection and 'apostle to the apostles', remains excluded from the inner circle of men. Her depiction creates the greatest difficulty for those seeking women's authoritative positions in both text

4

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

and community. As Mary's final marginalization indicates, although the Johannine women function as disciples in that they serve as teachers, evangelists, prophets and theologians, it is not clear that they functioned in the inner circle of leadership (if indeed the community had a formal leadership structure). The results Reinhartz achieves are also provocative in terms of the community's composition. Whereas the conventional view is that the Fourth Evangelist wrote to and for a sectarian group withdrawn from and hostile to the 'world' and the 'Jews', the women tell another story. The Samaritan woman, Mary and Martha remain within their original communities, and the gospel narrative depicts no tension in these cases between those who follow Jesus and those who do not. The Samaritan woman is well received by her own community, and the 'Jews' join Mary and Martha in mourning Lazarus. Thus, Reinhartz's feminist analysis destabilizes the constructs of an exclusivistic Johannine movement even as it locates within the text and possibly in the community behind it an alternative paradigm to both social and soteriological exclusivity. Recognizing the complicity of the Fourth Gospel in the perpetuation of women's oppression, racism, and colonialism, Satoko Yamaguchi also seeks to destabilize the text's exclusivistic and universalizing claims. Her investigation of the 'I am' sayings offers an alternative to both certain religious and scholarly orthodoxies. Rather than read the 'I am' logia as indicating Jesus' personal, divine self-revelation and therefore as supporting an imperialistic Christology, Yamaguchi interprets the sayings to reveal 'the god' not in an individualist sense but in terms of corporate personality and mystical expression. Thus she immediately precludes the notion that the deity is either exclusively male or revealed by a single voice. This step further allows her to locate women's participation in such sayings within the prophetic practices of both ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman cultures. After demonstrating how the notion of corporate personality wherein an agent is regarded as the sender permeates the worldviews of ancient Israel, formative Judaism, and early Christianity, Yamaguchi turns to the Fourth Gospel where the 'most authentic agent', the son sent by the Father, appears. Within the corporate personality system, the son speaks for the father, and to meet with the son is the same as meeting with the father who sent him, but the two are not identical, and the son remains subordinate. Thus Jesus, as son who says 'I am' and so speaks for the Father, engages in conventional prophetic discourse. The technique is comparable to the attribution by disciples of words and texts to their teachers, as is well known from the practice of pseudepigraphy. More-

LEVINE Introduction

5

over, as Yamaguchi observes, early Christians composed sayings that they attributed to Jesus. Although Christian thought traditionally regards 'I am' sayings as 'thoroughly male', Yamaguchi observes that historically the form is not gender-exclusive: Isis aretalogies, Sibylline Oracles, El-Shadday (translating 'Shadday' as 'my breasts'], Wisdom, the narrative voices of Thunder, Perfect Mind and the Odes of Solomon all adopt this phrasing. Further, both early Jewish and Christian texts attest to female prophets, and these women also spoke as agents of the divine. Of particular comparative value is the New Prophecy (also known as Montanism) of the second and third centuries CE, for its proponents, Priscilla and Maximilla, both used the rhetoric of 'I am'. These numerous and diverse voices may well have echoed in the ears of John's community, and their resonance has substantial implications for Christian practice and belief. If the Johannine sayings are regarded as relational rather than absolute, heard from the lips of both women and men, and recognized as stemming from not only male but also female disciples, then, as Yamaguchi eloquently argues, the 'I am' sayings do not offer a firm grounding for later absolutist and universalizing claims. Dorothy Lee's 'Abiding in the Fourth Gospel' complements Yamaguchi's decentering of the 'I am' statements from christological restriction. Rather than delineate the range of canonical and non-canonical examples of the same rhetorical form or inquire into the gender roles ascribed to literary character and, perhaps, some anterior reality, Lee explores an underdeveloped path in feminist biblical interpretation: biblical theology. Informed by the writings of feminist theorists Luce Irigaray and Evelyn Fox Keller, the theological rather than characteror plot-based focus offers a 'rich vein of meaning for women's and men's lives'. The kernel of Lee's study is the Johannine concept of 'abiding', a term used approximately 40 times in the Fourth Gospel. Connoting 'stay' or 'remain', the expression is neither static nor passive; instead, it is theologically nuanced to indicate such diverse connotations as the presence of Jesus among his followers, the disciple's dwelling in light and truth, and the community's existence as based in love, mutuality, familial intimacy and divine indwelling. Abiding with its resonance of indwelling functions as the 'antithesis of separation and seclusion', and as such, it offers an alternative to subject/object distinctions, dualism (including gender bifurcation) and hierarchy. It replaces the definition of 'redemption' as that which separates the worshiper from sin and evil with an emphasis on relationality and cooperation. In Lee's reading, Johannine 'indwelling' signals a mutuality between human and divine that is

6

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

vulnerable rather than condescending, self-giving rather than paternalistic. Evoking Yamaguchi, Lee asserts, 'The divine "I am" stands in personal relation to human becoming, so that human beings find themselves a subjective "I am", a self of selfhood that is the gift of an incarnate God/ Overcome are alienation, objectification, hierarchy, competition and autonomy. The feminist implications of these conclusions are abundant. Lee observes that abiding in the Johannine sense requires an 'authentic sense of self. Abiding as a relational category creates liberation from isolation, mandates a rejection of inauthentic self-denial, and replaces objectivist views. Moreover, Lee's essay—offering an alternative focus to the more expected 'feminist' interests in gender dynamics and female characters— epitomizes the importance of 'feminist' interpretation not only to an understanding of the Fourth Gospel, but to all of biblical theology. If the Gospel of John is to be viewed as the most sublime theological treatise in the Christian canon, then it must be viewed so in part because of its feminist implications. In contrast to Lee's focus on the erasure of gender dualisms and her bypassing of characterization, Colleen Conway's 'Gender Matters in John' highlights both. Within unvoiced questions (4.27), the direct address 'woman', intertextual allusions and especially the evangelist's deliberate contrast of male and female characters, Conway finds a cumulative model of gender dynamics. The Fourth Gospel's generally negative treatment of Nicodemus and generally positive presentation of the Samaritan woman, topics explored extensively in Vol. 1 and helpfully summarized here, provide the template of gender-based contrasts. Understanding the Fourth Gospel to have some direct relation to the Synoptics, Conway then finds initial indications of a second contrasting pair: the positively portrayed Johannine Martha and the often obtuse Synoptic Peter. The results of this comparison then illumine the presentations of both characters in the Fourth Gospel. Conway goes beyond simply contrasting Peter's lack of faith and ambiguous comments with Martha's full christological confession, 'I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who was to come into the world' (Jn 11.27). By recognizing how the evangelist presents Peter as the spokesperson for the Twelve, Conway reveals how a single woman's proclamation surpasses the corporate, and dubious, confession of the group of men. Conway then builds upon this result through analysis of her third example, Mary of Bethany and Judas, and her fourth, the trio of Mary Magdalene, Peter and the Beloved Disciple. All four pairs reveal not simply John's attention to women, and not simply hints of women's places within John's community. The Johannine women actually surpass

LEVINE Introduction

7

the men in terms of the narrative's values. Jesus frequently corrects men, associates them with Satan, or deliberately aborts their comments, but to the women he offers self-revelation and commission. The cumulative effect of these Johannine juxtapositions of men and women challenges several long-held interpretations of the gospel. For example, they prevent Conway from viewing the Beloved Disciple in his often-asserted role of 'disciple par excellence'. Although the gospel notes that at the empty tomb he 'saw' and 'believed' (Jn 20.8), as Conway perceptively notes, nowhere does the text state what he saw and believed. Indeed, the gospel explicitly states that he did not understand the scriptural predictions of resurrection (20.9). Instead of proclaiming the good news, the Beloved Disciple quite anticlimactically goes home (cf. Jesus' prediction in 16.32 that his followers would be scattered to their homes). Conway's analysis of the earlier pairings supports the thesis that what the Beloved Disciple believed was not resurrection faith, but Mary's assertion that the body was missing. Yet as Reinhartz recognizes as well, John's depiction of women and gender is not that clear-cut, and other categories such as ethnicity (Jew, Greek, Samaritan) and generational divisions (mother, son) disrupt any facile dualistic categorization. On the one hand, Conway observes that John's contrasts between men and women may indicate a challenge to traditional institutional authorities; on the other, she correctly sees that this very challenge requires that women be outside those authoritative structures. Only as outsiders is their challenge effective. Nor does she find subversion of gender dualism in the text. Rather, she reads the Fourth Gospel as accentuating the normative view of gender roles by depicting Jesus as the ideal male, the Logos, the image of the father, the Lord who displaces Sophia. And it is this ideal male, the locus of truth and knowledge, who confers instruction upon and revelation to women. And yet... as Conway concludes, for John the 'function of gender may have more to do with representing the proper relationship between humanity and the divine'. If so, a focus on earthly gender roles may be misplaced. There are no easy answers. Adeline Fehribach offers an alternative to Conway's reading of Jesus as the ideal man by finding the Johannine Jesus cast in the role not only of bridegroom, but also of bride and mother. In her assessment of pericopae depicting female characters (the Samaritan, Mary and Mary Magdalene) as well as the first sign at Cana, Jesus appears as the bridegroom. The term already indicates a certain liminality, for the bridegroom is not the 'husband'; the full masculine aspect of this role remains potential only. At the cross, flowing blood and water, the bridegroom in Fehribach's view becomes both bride and mother who, penetrated by the

8

A feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

(phallic) spear, turns death into life by giving birth to the community formed in his name. This gender-bending (or, viewed more perniciously, this dismissal of women's biological gift) is anticipated already in the encounter with Nicodemus, for it is Jesus who calls and compels his followers to be born 'from above'. Fehribach constructs her case for Jesus as bridegroom by advancing beyond such expected references as his catering the wedding at Cana, the type-scene of the man and woman at the well here replayed in Samaria, and Roman dining customs, such as the seating of the wife at the feet of her husband, which is where John locates Mary. Appealing to the cultural-anthropological theories of gift-exchange and their counterparts, feminist literary-critical studies of women as tokens of exchange between men, Fehribach locates the Johannine women as potential brides who mediate and thus create relationships between men; the list would include Jewish messiah and Samaritan community, and the crucified Jesus and the Beloved Disciple. In an equally provocative study, Fehribach moves beyond viewing the encounter between the weeping Mary Magdalene and the resurrected Lord in the garden as a return to Eden or the Song of Songs to compare the scene instead with the reunions of lovers or spouses as depicted in Hellenistic and early Roman novellae. In this configuration, Mary continues to function as the bride who unites families, for she is the one who will convey the news of the resurrection to Jesus' 'brothers' (20.17); she is also Levirate wife entrusted to the (dead) husband's brother. Yet Jesus is no ordinary bridegroom, and the scene in the garden is ultimately unconventional. The lovers do not remain together; the son/ bridegroom returns to his father; the family he creates, although mediated by Mary, is born not from a woman but 'from above'. It is his body, not that of his bride, that is exchanged and pierced, that bleeds and bears fruit. As Fehribach puts is, 'By willingly embracing the female role, Jesus transforms death into life'. Citing several examples from ancient medical texts, Fehribach then suggests that the blood and water, coupled with Jesus' spirit 'given over' (19.30) at the cross and later 'breathed' onto the disciples (20.22) may easily be interpreted as generative semen. Whether this role-reversal, with Jesus functioning not only as bridegroom but also as bride and mother, is liberating or not depends on how it is assessed. It could be read as a celebration of female biology or a glorification of childbirth. It could be seen as a rejection of Roman violence wherein the male body of Jesus models female receptivity and the militaristic phallic spear finds its true role in procreation rather than in death. Sometimes, however, a spear is just a spear. Jesus the bride could also signal full co-optation wherein the male figure assumes the

LEVINE Introduction

9

female's role, and does it better; as a blood sacrifice, he could just as easily reinforce patrilineality. As mother, only he is the ideal woman. Earthly mothers only give birth from the body, but Jesus gives birth from above; those born of women die, but those born from Jesus have eternal life. Jesus is, on the cross, much like the New Adam who gives birth from his side to those who will desire him and over whom he will rule (Genesis 3); the image is well known from medieval and Renaissance art and mystical speculation. Not only new Adam, Jesus is also the lamb of God who dies at the time of the Paschal sacrifice and so reinforces the importance of patrilineality. The bond he establishes with his 'brothers' (with whom he will later eat) is based only on his own relationship to his Father; being born 'from woman' is irrelevant (cf. 3.3-6). Finally, the model of submission, the glorification of the penetrated body and the spiritualizing of childbirth are potentially more dangerous than uplifting to those who have no choice but to submit, be penetrated, bear children. Like Conway, Fehribach finds good news as well as bad; it is up to the reader to choose which to proclaim. Deborah Sawyer's 'John 19.34: From Crucifixion to Birth, or Creation?' opens with neither biblical type-scene nor Hellenistic romance, but with collections rarely utilized by feminist biblical interpreters: Church Fathers and medieval theologians. With Augustine she begins to find suggestions recognized by Fehribach that Jesus' wound, like Adam's side, functions as a womb. From there, she traces the steps to the popular medieval image of Christ as mother, nursing her children with 'her' body's sacramental elements of water and blood, baptism and Eucharist. Echoing Fehribach, Sawyer acknowledges that the 'image reinforces androcentricity in Christian tradition, and it undermines the unique nature of female experience by subsuming it into maleness'. Yet Augustine's parturient Adam, with its consequent image of the maternal Christ, is not the only historical image available. From First Corinthians, Sawyer finds an alternate understanding of John's crucified Christ and so another means by which water and blood, baptism and Eucharist, might be understood. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul mentions Adam and Eve in his effort restore order to the chaos created by sexual undifferentiation. While he does assert a hierarchical distinction between men and women, in that 'man is the image of God and the mirror of his glory, whereas woman reflects the glory of man', he does not argue that Adam gave birth to Eve. Rather, he uses the language of 'creation'. According to Paul, God made Adam's body the source for Eve; emphasis remains on the divine act of creation, not the human act of birth. This same creative activity appears in both Philo's discussion of Eve and in the gospels' nativity stories

10

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

(cf. Lk. 3.23-38). According to Sawyer, the focus on divine action rather than human birth is also the way Jn 19.34 might, indeed should, be understood. Keeping the accent on the creative activity of God and maintaining Genesis 2 as primary correlative to John 19, Sawyer reads the Johannine crucifixion as presenting the Christ as a New Adam from whose body God creates a new humanity. By substituting language of creation for language of birth, she presents not merely an historically grounded interpretation; she precludes the potential co-optations and gender hierarchies that birth imagery so easily begets. The body of the Christ in this configuration is not specifically a gendered (male or female) body giving birth to another gendered (female, ecclesial) body; it is the material from which the church, comprised of both men and women, is created, and so the material by which humanity is perfected. The final two essays of this volume, Harold W. Attridge's 'Don't Be Touching Me: Recent Feminist Scholarship on Mary Magdalene', and Jane Schaberg's 'Thinking Back through the Magdalene', summarize several of the goals of this series even as they suggest several of the next steps feminist readers might take. As the first volume of this series remarked, [O]ne of the Feminist Companions' goals is to encourage established scholars who have not entered into extensive, or even any, conversation with feminist readings to familiarize themselves with this literature and, if they can be convinced, tempted, or even (gently) coerced, to respond to it or incorporate it into their own work.

Such was the case with Anthony J. Saldarini, whose essay on Matthew's household structures inaugurated this aspect of the series. This is also the case with Attridge's contribution on Mary Magdalene. As Attridge confirms, readers cannot responsibly address this pericope—or, by extension, any pericope—without attending to feminist voices. Nor can feminist studies be blithely classified either by method or by result. Offering a systematic summary of approaches to John 20, Attridge demonstrates how feminist concerns now permeate Johannine studies as well as how feminist thought is itself divided in its assessment of the gospel as a whole and of the phrase 'do not keep clinging to me' in particular. His summary serves almost as a microcosm of feminist approaches: sociohistorical reconstruction, resisting readings, theological speculation, interfigural analysis, cultural-anthropological observation, literary-critical sensitivity, tradition-historical investigation, philological reconstruction, extra- and intra-canonical recuperation, and more. Certainly Attridge is not the first to address the problematic relation-

LEVINE Introduction

11

ship of Jesus to Mary in Jn 20.11-18; his article itself is replete with footnotes to its various interpretations, feminist and otherwise. Nor is Attridge's work a new feminist reading per se, even though his article makes explicit his personal commitment to fostering an egalitarian vision of Christian discipleship. His contribution lies in his exploration of how and to what effect feminist interpretations have sought to resolve the numerous problems of John 20 (in effect, what 'feminist' work looks like to at least one reader who does not ground his work in feminist theory). Moreover, his work offers through both ideological stance and application of method an excellent comparison to both the preceding studies by Fehribach (whom he challenges) and Sawyer (who shares with him an interest in pre-Enlightenment readings), as well as to the final essay in this collection. Indeed, Attridge's article implicitly but forcefully prompts the inevitable question of what makes an article 'feminist'. Perhaps it is the willingness to see several possible readings rather than the singular one favored by historical-critical readings, such as the one he offers, and yet feminist historians can be just as forthright about their insights and conclusions as non-feminist historians. Perhaps it is the embracing of one's presuppositions and goals rather than the desire that personal views do not intrude on one's argument, and yet the explicit avoidance of solipsism is also familiar in feminist discourse. Perhaps it rests on the self-identification of the author, such that a 'feminist' writer is one who proclaims herself or himself to be one. None of these solutions, or any others for that matter, is secure. The decision of whether the article is 'feminist' or not rests in the reader's assessment. Jesus refuses Mary's clinging and invites Thomas's touch, but Mary Magdalene has had no choice in the legends that cling to her in the afterlife of the gospels. In the Fourth Gospel she is a figure of undeniable importance; the question then posed by many readers is the extent to which her authority matches (possibly, exceeds) that of the male disciples or represents opportunities for women in the Johannine community. It is she who shows unfailing loyalty at cross and tomb, obedience to her commission and the courage to carry it out while the men hide in fear. Yet Mary Magdalene becomes elevated in the hands of some later interpreters and despoiled in the hands of others. For John's gospel, her comparison with Thomas could be seen as a response to her growing role in those Christian movements (e.g. those who preserved the Gospel of Mary) eventually declared heretical, even as the picture of 'Doubting Thomas' may respond to the association of Thomas with docetic thought (e.g. The Gospel of Thomas). The occasional enhancement of Mary's positive role in the early

12

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

centuries of the church is countered by later appropriations of her story by both ecclesial and popular culture. The conflation of her identity with the unnamed 'woman who was a sinner' of Luke 7 and so the image of her as repentant prostitute (regardless of the fact that not even Luke calls the woman a prostitute) trumps the positive and ambivalent canonical accounts of Mary as cured demoniac and supporter of Jesus (Luke 8), and, as all four gospels proclaim, witness to the empty tomb. Invoking the spirit of Virginia Woolf, Schaberg seeks a different Mary and so a different form of Christianity than the one presently built upon such traditional readings of the New Testament. Her essay, ranging from archaeological studies of Mary's hometown, Migdal (or, rather, disinterest therein) to medieval and modern legendary development, demonstrates how depictions of Mary Magdalene can both empower and imprison. The associations that cling to her in Western thought include not only the sinner of Luke 7, but the anointing woman of Mark 14//Matthew 26, the Mary who anoints Jesus' feet in John 12, the Mary who sits at his feet in Luke 10, the woman taken in adultery (Jn 7.538.11), and even the Samaritan woman of John 4. The conflation creates a portrait of a woman of greater import than any individual pericope offers. In this manner, legendary accretions may be celebrated. However, such conflation diminishes the identities of individual women as well as supports the essentializing treatment of women as either virgin (the Virgin Mary) or sexual sinner (Mary Magdalene). Since the figure of Mary Magdalene encompasses more female characters, she then becomes definitive for gender-determined patterns. Consequently, the association of Mary with sexual sin serves several additional negative purposes: it suggests women need to be guarded and restricted; it determines them according to carnality as opposed to spirit or intellect; it is, as Schaberg argues, a reaction against female authority. By the seventeenth century, in both Catholic and Protestant thought, the Magdalene had become the archetypal penitent, and as such she was stripped of any association with evangelism. But, as Schaberg also demonstrates, this was not a necessary outcome. The account of Jacobus de Voragine (mid-thirteenth century) offers a post-ascension depiction of Mary as a successful evangelist in France. The slightly earlier De vita Beatae Mariae Magdalenae et sororis ejus Sanctae Marthae celebrates the Magdalene as Jesus 'special friend' as well as apostle, evangelist and prophet. Yet de Voraigne depicts Mary as ending her life by spending 30 years in isolation, and the vita ultimately emphasizes her penitence and devotion along with her subordination to male authority. A conflated reading based on Luke's gospel again trumps John's 'apostle', and legend supplants text.

LEVINE Introduction

13

Mary Magdalene's legacy mirrors that of the Gospel of John. The character and the text can be read as empowering to women, or to anyone outside institutional or ecclesiastical authority, and they can be read as supporting a restrictive and hierarchical system. As both Feminist Companions to John indicate, the Fourth Gospel narrative can be approached in different ways, with different questions, and can yield mutually exclusive results. This unsettling conclusion may be the most appropriate reading of the gospel: it alerts us that yet more dangers may lie within its pages, and it opens to the potential of ever-new moments of inspiration and liberation. There is much else that could be said. If it were all to be recorded in detail, I suppose the world could not hold the books that would be written' (Jn 21.25).

WOMEN IN THE JOHANNINE COMMUNITY: AN EXERCISE IN HISTORICAL IMAGINATION

Adele Reinhartz Introduction In their recent study of the Jesus movement, Ekkehard and Wolfgang Stegemann state categorically that 'significant socio-historical information about the situation of women in the Johannine community is not to be derived from texts' about women in the Fourth Gospel.1 If by 'information' is meant 'hard facts' —'facts' attested by multiple literary and material sources —then one can only agree with the Stegemanns' pessimistic assessment. Indeed, because the Fourth Gospel makes no explicit reference to the Johannine community at all, one might question the possibility of deriving any sociohistorical information whatsoever from this gospel. In the historiography of the Jesus movement and early Christianity, however, 'information' often has a much less definitive character. The meager literary evidence is probed from all angles and mined for any hints at all of extra-textual reality. Complex strategies and methods are developed and applied precisely for the purposes of wresting 'information'—hypotheses, speculations, constructions—from texts that seem rather uninterested in history as we would understand it in our own time. In this paper, I will argue that the Fourth Gospel, far from being silent about the situation of women in the Johannine community, is actually a rich resource. The representation of women in the Gospel of John can tell us much not only about the situation of women in the Johannine community but also about the situation of the community as a whole within the broader religious and cultural context of Asia Minor in the late first century. This claim is neither revolutionary nor iconoclastic. In reading the Fourth Gospel for the sociohistorical situation of women in the 1. Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social History of its First Century (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), p. 388.

REINHARTZ Women in the Johannine Community

15

Johannine community I follow along a path that has been cleared by others before me over the last quarter century or more. Among those who preceded me are Raymond E. Brown, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Sandra Schneiders and Mary Rose D' Angelo. These scholars' studies of the women in the Gospel of John share the assumption that the text tells two stories simultaneously: the story of Jesus in early first-century Palestine and the story, that is, the history and experience, of the Johannine community in late first-century Asia Minor. For Brown, the prominence of female characters testifies to the central role of women in the Johannine community and to women's social parity with men.2 Fiorenza examines closely the language used to describe the Johannine women and concludes that the representation of female characters not only reflects women's participation but also attributes formal leadership roles, such as deacon and apostle, to women in the Johannine community.3 Schneiders suggests that women, like men, functioned as the representatives of the community's faith and as witnesses to the gospel.4 D'Angelo explores the role of women in housechurches and as charismatic prophets. She notes that while gender was not an issue in the conflict between the Johannine group and the Jewish community, there was considerable tension within the Johannine community itself over the role of women.5 These scholars implicitly read the Gospel of John as both a story of Jesus and a story of the Johannine community. In this paper, I take this approach a step further by reading the pericopae depicting women in their interactions with Jesus rather strictly, perhaps even mechanically, as a direct reflection of the experience of women in the Johannine community. In doing so, I take my cue from J.L. Martyn, who argued that the gospel narrative allows one to discern the history of the community. In his book, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, Martyn 2. Raymond E. Brown, 'Roles of Women in the Gospel of John', TS 36 (1975), pp. 688-99; reprinted in idem, The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), pp. 83-198. 3. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist-Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (London: SCM Press, 1984), pp. 323-33. 4. Sandra M. Schneiders, Written That You May Believe: Encountering Jesus in the fourth Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1999), pp. 93-114. 5. Mary Rose D'Angelo, '(^Presentations of Women in the Gospels: John and Mark', in Ross Shepard Kraemer and Mary Rose D'Angelo (eds.), Women and Christian Origins (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 129-49. See also, in the same volume, D'Angelo's 'Reconstructing "Real" Women from Gospel Literature: The Case of Mary Magdalene', pp. 105-28.

16

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

applies this strategy to John 9. Martyn reads this chapter on two levels: as the story of the man born blind and also as the story of a Christian preacher engaged in a controversy with the Jewish leadership of his time.6 The key point in Martyn's argument concerns 9.22, according to which the blind man's parents evaded the Jews' interrogation out of fear, 'for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the messiah would be put out of the synagogue'. Martyn argues that the fear of the blind man's parents reflects a specific experience of the Johannine community, namely, its expulsion from the synagogue on account of its faith in Jesus as the Christ and Son of God. Elsewhere I have expressed in detail my reservations about this theory on the basis of historical, literary and theological considerations. That the Jewish community possessed the mechanisms for expelling non-conformists is doubtful. From a literary perspective, other passages within the gospel present a rather different model for the relationship between the Johannine and Jewish communities. From a theological point of view, the attempt to account for, or to excuse, the anti-Jewish rhetoric of the gospel by calling it a response to expulsion is merely another way of casting responsibility back upon the Jews themselves.7 These considerations raise some questions that have yet to be addressed within the mainstream of Johannine scholarship. The two-level reading strategy itself is also problematic. On the one hand it seems eminently plausible in that it follows the basic insight that the gospel reflects 'what ancient authors and audiences took as plausible, unremarkable and the givens of ordinary social life'.8 On closer inspection, however, the strategy seems flawed in several ways. First, there is no indication within the gospel itself that it is meant to be read as anything but a story of Jesus, set within the context of the story of the cosmos.9 When the narrator stresses that his story is true, he refers to its status as a true story of Jesus. John 19.35 declares that the testimony of the 6. J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York: Harper & Row, 1968; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2nd edn, 1979). The approach was also taken up by R.E. Brown in his The Community of the Beloved Disciple. 7. See especially my 'The Johannine Community and its Jewish Neighbors: A Reappraisal', in Fernando F. Segovia (ed.), What Is John?: Literary and Social Readings (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), II, pp. 111-38. 8. Ross Shepard Kraemer, 'Jewish Women and Christian Origins: Some Caveats', in R.S. Kraemer and MR. D'Angelo (eds.), Women and Christian Origins, pp. 35-49. 9. On the various narrative levels in the Fourth Gospel, see Adele Reinhartz, The Word in the World: The Cosmological Tale in the Fourth Gospel (SBLMS, 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), and idem, Befriending the Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John (New York: Continuum, 2001).

REINHARTZ Women in the Johannine Community

17

one who witnessed the emission of water and blood from the wound in Jesus' side 'is true and he knows that he tells the truth'. John 21.24 makes a similar point in its reference to the implied author of the gospel as a whole: 'This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.' Second, the twolevel reading strategy is circular, for it reads the text as a reflection of the history of the community and then uses that history as a way of accounting for the features of the text itself. For example, proponents of the expulsion theory argue that the hostile remarks Jesus makes about and to the Jews, as in 8.44, where he declares that their father is the devil, are a response to the trauma of expulsion and express the ongoing hostility between the Johannine and Jewish communities. These arguments, however, do not militate against the use of the twolevel reading. Rather, they emphasize the need for both caution and humility. They remind us that as we engage in the historical enterprise of constructing the Johannine community and the roles of women within it, we must not lose sight of the hypothetical nature of our results. The very existence of a Johannine community, while it is obvious to Johannine scholars and has taken on a solid reality, is itself hypothetical. The letters of John seem to demand the existence of such a community, as does our understanding of the Fourth Gospel as being addressed to a specific audience. But the absence of external evidence for a specifically Johannine community must not be forgotten. It is all too easy to attribute historical reality, complete with floor plan, demographic statistics and detailed chronology, to what is only a constructed model, and a highly speculative one at that. Keeping these cautions in mind, I will proceed with a two-level reading of the Fourth Gospel's stories featuring women. I do not expect to uncover the historical realities of women's lives in the Johannine community, if indeed there was such an entity. Rather, I view this enterprise as an exercise in historical imagination. A two-level reading will provide some raw materials with which to construct one or more models for the role of women that may prompt a rethinking not only of the gender roles in this hypothetical community but also of the structure and social situation of the community as a whole. In applying this strategy, I take the following steps. I begin with the narratives in which women have central roles. In examining these passages, I will focus primarily on the structure of relationships in which the women figures act. I will then move to a second-level reading by positing that this structure is plausible within the extra-textual experience of a community. Next, I will make a rather mechanical set of identifications that remain constant throughout the analysis. It must be

18

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

emphasized that these are not the only possible or plausible identifications. I restrict myself to this set in order to illustrate simply and clearly the potential inherent in this method for sociohistorical investigation of the role of women within the hypothetical community. In this study, therefore, I will make the following assumptions: (a) that the Beloved Disciple represents the leader of the community; (b) that the disciples and the other believers who travel with Jesus represent the core of the Johannine community; (c) that other characters represent particular religious or ethnic communities, such as the Jews, the Samaritans or the Gentiles; (d) that those who are sympathetic to Jesus may be seen as being in some sort of positive relationship with the Johannine community, as members, sympathizers or hangers on (those who are shown as not believing would be in conflict with the Johannine community); (e) that the unaffiliated crowds represent the unaffiliated population among whom the Johannine community lives; (f) that Jesus represents, or rather is himself the content of Christian faith, the gospel that is preached within and by the community and encountered in a variety of ways, including the activity of the paraclete, the testimony of witnesses and other disciples, and through reading the gospel itself (cf. 20.30-31). I now turn to a two-level reading of each of the female characters in the gospel. In each case I will address two questions. First, what does such a reading suggest with respect to the women's roles within the Johannine community? Second, what might such a reading contribute to our construction of the community as a whole? The Mother of Jesus (2.1-11) The mother of Jesus appears in two pericopae: the wedding at Cana (2.111) and Jesus' crucifixion (19.25-27). At the wedding, she notices that the wine has run out. She points this out to her son Jesus, thereby implying her confidence that he is capable of remedying the situation. He responds with a mild rebuke that sets a distance between them: 'Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come' (2.4). Jesus' mother seems unperturbed at this apparent refusal to comply with her implied request. She goes ahead and instructs the servants that they should do whatever he tells them to do. Contrary to expectations, Jesus now sets about addressing the problem by instructing the servants to fill the water jars, present for the Jewish rite of handwashing before the meal, and then to draw out the wine that has miraculously replaced the water. The quality of the wine is confirmed by the chief steward, who remarks, 'Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now' (2.10). This sign demonstrates Jesus' glory, and the disciples

REINHARTZ Women in the Johannine Community

19

believe in him. Jesus' mother, the rest of the family and the disciples then depart Cana for Capernaum. Within the Johannine story, Jesus' mother emerges as a figure of prophetic knowledge and authority. Her authority with respect to Jesus is expressed in her knowledge of him and her confidence in his abilities. This knowledge and confidence form the basis of the authority she has with respect to the servants, and her ability to initiate events will reveal Jesus' glory publicly and become a basis for belief. In addition, she specifies the response that is needed in order to bring about these revelatory events, namely, obedience to Jesus' word. The water will not turn into wine and reveal Jesus' glory unless the servants obey Jesus by filling the water jars and drawing out the wine. The call to obedience is reinforced elsewhere in the gospel, as in 14.21, in which Jesus declares that 'they who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them'. Although the narrator defines her as Jesus' mother, Jesus himself does not refer to her in this way, but calls her 'woman'. This label draws attention away from her unique role as the one who gave birth to him, a role that is not narrated or stressed in this gospel. While it might appear to draw attention in particular to her gender as woman, a quick glance at the places in which Jesus calls other women in this fashion indicates that in fact it draws attention to a revelation he is about to grant them. In 4.21, Jesus declares to the Samaritan woman, 'Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem,' and so reveals an important element of future faith. In 20.15, Jesus asks Mary Magdalene, 'Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?' as a prelude to revealing himself to her as the risen Lord. This pattern suggests that in 2.4 the use of the vocative 'Woman' signals the revelation of Jesus' glory that will come about through the miracle that Jesus' mother has initiated by her request and her confidence that he will comply. At the same time, the narrator's references to her as Jesus' mother stress the generational element, that is, the fact that she is a generation older than Jesus. Finally, Jesus' mother is closely associated with Jesus, his disciples and his brothers, all of whom travel to Cana for the wedding and then to Capernaum afterwards. If we transpose this picture to the story of a community, the mother emerges as a woman at its core. She is not necessarily a unique figure, but rather may signal the presence or prominence of elder wise women in the community.10 She has prophetic powers that stem from a 10. That women elders (or elderly women) had a valued role in some first-century

20

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

profound knowledge of and faith in Jesus. She exercises leadership insofar as she teaches the importance of obedience and thereby facilitates the sort of events that will strengthen the faith of those who participate in and witness them. Some of these same elements emerge in the second passage in which she appears, 19.25-27. The narrator tells us that the mother of Jesus, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene were present at the foot of the cross. Just before he dies, Jesus gives his mother into the care of the Beloved Disciple and declares that she is now his mother while he is now her son. On one level, this act suggests that the Beloved Disciple replaces Jesus as his mother's son and that he must now care for her— take her into his home —as Jesus would have done had he remained in this world. But on a second-level reading, this scene reinforces the image of Jesus' mother as representing elder female leadership at the core of the community. This role should be understood not as a reference to age per se, but rather as a generational designation. Jesus' mother is a generation older than the Beloved Disciple, who, as her new son, is in effect Jesus' brother and hence of the same generation.11 The suggestion that the mother of Jesus represents elder wise women in the community is supported by her anonymity in the two passages in which she appears. That the mother remains anonymous is often overlooked by readers who freely supply the name 'Mary' based on the gospels of Matthew and Luke.12 David Beck has argued that from a literary point of view the anonymity of this woman, as well as of other significant characters in the gospel, facilitates the readers' identification communities is suggested by a number of texts. A fragmentary text from the Dead Sea, 4Q502, apparently refers to an assembly of male and female leaders (zekanim and zekanot). See Florentine Garcia Martinez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar (eds. and trans.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. II. Q272-11Q31 (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1998), pp. 995-97. For an analysis, see Joseph Baumgarten, '4Q502, Marriage or Golden Age Ritual?', ]]S 34 (1983), pp. 125-35. See also Philo, Vit. Cont. 68, which refers to women elders among the Therapeutae, and Hypothetica 11.13, which may refer to older women among the Essenes. 1 Tim. 5.9-15 implies that early Christian communities may also have included orders of older widows. 11. This move may also suggest that the true heirs of Jesus' revelation are not Jesus' brothers, whom one might have expected to have been entrusted with their mother's care, but rather the Beloved Disciple, that is, the founder of the Johannine community. This may be one way for the community to legitimate its own authority as the authentic locus of ongoing Christian revelation, in opposition or contrast to other Christian communities. Many thanks to Amy-Jill Levine for this suggestion (oral communication, 17 Nov, 2000). 12. This error is committed by the Stegemanns (Jesus Movement, p. 388), who incorrectly indicate that Jesus' mother is explicitly named Mary in the Fourth Gospel.

REINHARTZ Women in the Johannine Community

21

with these figures and thereby invites readers to place themselves within the narrative.13 My own analysis of anonymity in Hebrew narrative from Genesis through 2 Kings suggests that anonymity of significant characters draws attention to the social roles by which they are identified. In the case of Jesus' mother, it is difficult to argue that her anonymity invites identification precisely because the social role that defines her is a unique one to which no reader can aspire. But if she is understood as representing wise female elders, then the 'mother' designation could underscore this generational difference between herself and the male leaders represented by the Beloved Disciple. The Samaritan Woman (4.1-42) The second woman who appears in this gospel is the Samaritan woman (Jn 4.1-44). Like Jesus' mother, she is unnamed, though we learn, from Jesus' insight into her background, that she (apparently) has had several husbands and that she is not married to her current partner.14 The Samaritan woman meets Jesus at the well in Sychar, or, from the context, just outside of the city (cf. 4.8,28). She is surprised when he asks her for water, for, according to the narrator, 'Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans' (4.9). An intense theological discussion ensues, during which Jesus promises an imminent transformation in spirituality, when worship will not occur on Mount Gerizim or on Mount Zion, but all will worship God 'in spirit and in truth' (4.23). During this encounter, the Samaritan woman begins to suspect that Jesus is the Messiah (4.25). She goes back into the city to testify to her fellow Samaritans (4.28). That she has undergone a fundamental change through this encounter is indicated by the fact that she left her water jug behind; as one who possesses the water of eternal life, she no longer needs the tools associated with the tasks of everyday life, including drawing water from the well. The Samaritans invite Jesus to stay with them and declare that their faith is now no longer based on her testimony. The woman's role as an apostle is confirmed by the conversation between Jesus and the disciples 13. David R. Beck, 'The Narrative Function of Anonymity in Fourth Gospel Characterization', in Adele Berlin and Elizabeth Struthers Malbon (eds.), Characterization in Biblical Literature (Semeia, 63; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), pp. 143-58. 14. The Samaritan woman's five husbands have at times been interpreted symbolically or allegorically, for example, as the five books of Moses, or as the five gods that the Assyrians introduced in the course of their conquest of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. None of these interpretations is convincing, however. For a brief discussion, see R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (2 vols.; AB, 29; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), I, p. 171.

22

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

that interrupts the narration of her departure for the city and the Samaritans' approach to Jesus. The disciples have brought Jesus some food from the city, presumably the Samaritan city to which the woman has returned. He engages them in discourse about the harvest, in which he declares: The reaper is already receiving wages and is gathering fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. For here the saying holds true, 'One sows and another reaps7.1 sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor (4.36-38).

The conversation is obscure, that is, it is difficult to determine who the reaper is and exactly what the harvest is, and most problematic, how is it that 'one sows and another reaps' (4.37). Nevertheless, the context identifies the Samaritan woman as someone who has sown the divine word in her community. Like Jesus' mother, the Samaritan woman remains anonymous. In her case, anonymity draws attention to her identification as a Samaritan. This woman is defined by an ethnic-religious marker, in contrast to the named women, Mary and Martha of Bethany and Mary Magdalene, who are never referred to as Jews though they are. This observation suggests that she is unique precisely as the only non-Jewish apostle and witness. Her anonymity may imply the presence of non-Jewish women in the community, and it allows us to credit them with success in leading others of their group to the Johannine understanding of Christology. That the disciples remark upon the fact that Jesus speaks with a woman may suggest some tensions within the community regarding the role of women, but these are silenced by Jesus —the paraclete? the leadership? — himself. It is also significant that she, like Jesus' mother, is called 'woman'. In 4.21 Jesus declares, 'Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.' The declaration serves to draw attention not so much to her gender but to the revelatory content of Jesus' message to her. This implies that she is capable of receiving, and potentially understanding, such revelation. On a second-level reading, Jesus' address marks her as a recipient of divine revelation. The age of the woman in this case is not known; the references to her husbands indicate that she is an adult; the allusion to the biblical betrothal motif ('boy meets girl at well') implies that she is of the same generation as Jesus.15 The fact that she encounters Jesus at a well near 15. For a detailed analysis of John 4 against the background of biblical betrothal stories, see Lyle Eslinger, "The Wooing of the Woman at the Weir, Journal of Literature and Theology I (1987), pp. 167-83.

REINHARTZ Women in the Johannine Community

23

but not within the geographical boundaries of her community may imply that she has gained her knowledge of and commitment to this message while she was away from the community, and that she then returned in order to preach to them. Mary and Martha (11.1-44; 12.1-8) The siblings Mary, Martha and Lazarus of Bethany are believers in and followers of Jesus, and are loved by him. When Lazarus falls mortally ill, his sisters call on Jesus to heal him. Jesus delays, however, and arrives in Bethany only after Lazarus has died. Jesus finds the sisters in mourning, in the company of many Jews. He converses first with Martha and then with Mary. Martha engages Jesus in a discussion of resurrection, during which he promises eternal life to those who believe. Martha then confesses Jesus to be the Messiah and Son of God (11.27). This is followed by a separate conversation between Jesus and Mary. Mary kneels at Jesus' feet and repeats the accusation, but he does not respond to her directly. This instead leads into the miracle itself, the rolling away of the stone from the tomb and Jesus' calling Lazarus out to renewed life. Shortly before the Passover, Jesus and his disciples, and perhaps others, were hosted for dinner by the Bethany siblings. Martha serves; Mary anoints Jesus' feet with a pound of expensive perfume made of pure nard. This act, criticized by Judas as a waste of money, is interpreted by Jesus as a prophecy of and preparation for his imminent death and burial. On a second-level reading, the Bethany siblings represent a household of believers in the Johannine form of Christianity. Their identification as siblings does not necessarily denote a familial relationship as such but could refer to close partners in the work of the church.16 In her confession, Martha articulates the faith of the community. For this reason Schiissler Fiorenza refers to her as a spokesperson of the Johannine community.17 This role is underscored by the note that Martha served (SiccKoveTv) at the table, hinting at the role of women as deacons who formally 'serve' the community. Before the raising of Lazarus, Mary kneels at Jesus' feet, implying the utter commitment of at least some women to Johannine Christology. Mary's anointing Jesus may represent the activity of women prophets in the community. That a large number of Jews come to console the sisters in their mourning suggests that they consider the Bethany siblings to be part of 16. Or, or even, in the case of the sisters Mary and Martha, to intimate friends, though this seems unlikely from the context. D'Angelo, 'Reconstructing "Real" Women', p. 108. 17. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, p. 349.

24

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

their own community, in contrast to the impression that some of the hostile rhetoric in other parts of the gospel might suggest. These neighbors clearly know about the connection between the family and Jesus, since they too express the view that Jesus could have come earlier and so healed Lazarus. But this connection does not seem to bother them or render them anything but curious. It is also notable that Martha and Mary do not engage in any evangelizing activity in this story. The fact that some witnesses to the raising of Lazarus become believers while others go to the authorities is not related to any direct effort on the sisters' part. John 11 therefore implies the existence of followers who do not live in a closed community but who live among others, most likely of their own ethnic and religious background. Such living arrangements would allow for proselytism but would not require it. The absence of hostility may indicate the possibility that the Jewish community, in some places at least, did not exclude those who professed faith in Jesus as messiah. That Mary and Martha continue to practice their forms of religiosity raises the question of whether or not converts to the Johannine form of Christianity relinquished their previous faith practices and affiliations. Because the Bethany sisters, like the Samaritan woman, continued to live within their communities of ethnic and religious origin, we may speculate that believers were not required to give up their previous lifestyles and practices upon affiliating with the Johannine community. The portrayal of Mary and Martha within John 11 raises the possibility that the hostility between the followers of Jesus and the Jews that is fundamental to the plot and rhetoric of the gospel was not part of the historical experience of the Johannine community. Perhaps Jewish believers in Jesus, like the Bethany siblings, lived their lives fully supported socially within the Jewish community. This construction is plausible if we understand first-century Judaism as focused more on praxis than on belief; as long as the Jews within the Johannine community continued to live, worship and die as Jews, then perhaps their specific christological beliefs may not have been of grave concern to the Jews around them. Mary Magdalene (20.1-18) Early on the morning of the third day after Jesus' death, Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb only to find that the stone that had sealed the tomb's opening has been removed and Jesus' body gone. Mary runs to report this distressing fact to Simon Peter and the other disciples. Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple hasten to the tomb, enter, and see that it is empty, but they do not understand what has happened. They depart,

REINHARTZ Women in the Johannine Community

25

leaving Mary once again alone. Mary, continuing to weep, looks into the tomb, where she sees two angels in white who ask her why she is weeping. She replies, They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him' (20.13). She then turns around and sees Jesus. She does not recognize him but believes him to be the gardener. He too asks why she is weeping, and she asks whether he has removed the body, and if so, if he could tell her where it is so that she can claim it. Jesus then calls her by name, and she responds, 'Rabbouni', 'my teacher' (20.16). Jesus warns her not to touch (or hold onto) him, because 'I have not yet ascended to the Father'. She should instead go to the disciples and tell them that 'I am ascending to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God' (20.17). She complies, and so departs from the narrative. Mary Magdalene's devotion to Jesus is clear. She stands at the foot of the cross, is apparently the first or initially the only person who has the idea of visiting the tomb, and she is concerned about the fate of Jesus' body. The erotic overtones of the passages also speak to a close relationship.18 Her receiving the first vision of the risen Lord and being given a message to carry to the other disciples speak to her role as witness and 'apostle to the apostles'. In asking Mary, 'Whom are you seeking?' Jesus evokes the call of the first disciples in 1.38 and thus establishes continuity between them and Mary.19 In identifying her by name, Jesus is acting out the role of the good shepherd who calls his own sheep (10.26). Mary's recognition of Jesus as 'Rabbouni' indicates that she is a member of his flock (10.27) and demonstrates that she is a true disciple who recognizes the resurrected Jesus as teacher.20 On a second-level reading, this portrayal supports the possibility that women participated in the Johannine community and that their knowledge, understanding and devotion were valued by the community. But the story also implies that despite her special role, Mary Magdalene was not among the leadership. That she runs to the disciples with the news of the empty tomb implies that she ascribes to them an understanding and authority superior to her own. This ascription is undermined to some extent by the rest of the story, but the structure of her relationship with 18. For a detailed analysis of Jn 20.1-18, see Adele Reinhartz, 'To Love the Lord: An Intertextual Reading of John 20', in Fiona Black, Roland Boer, Christian Kelm and Erin Runions (eds.), The Labour of Reading: Desire, Alienation, and Biblical Interpretation (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), pp. 56-69. 19. Gail O'Day, 'John', in Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (eds.), The Women's Bible Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), pp. 293-304 (301). 20. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, p. 333.

26

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

the disciples is not altered. After seeing and interacting with the risen Jesus, she reports his words to the disciples but she does not become one of them. These elements complicate the attempt to see Mary Magdalene as representative of women in the inner circle of community leadership. Women in the Johannine Community A second-level reading of the pericopae featuring women provides a basis for speculating about women's roles in the Johannine community. The prominence of women in the gospel suggests that women were included within the community, and that most of them were Jewish. It is noteworthy, though not decisive, that the gospel's only non-Jewish woman is a Samaritan; the absence of Gentile women may imply their absence from the community at the time the gospel reached its final form. The positive tone of the passages and the respectful, even admiring, attitude that the Fourth Evangelist conveys towards these women implies that they were respected and admired within the community itself. The specific roles that the women play may mirror the roles they may have held within the community, as teachers, spiritual leaders, prophets, apostles, theologians. Within the narrative, the women's authority for these roles is grounded in and derives from their direct encounters with Jesus and their profound acceptance and understanding of his message, identity and significance for humankind. Within the community, their roles imply that they are in possession of the paraclete—the Spirit of truth—that Jesus promised to send to his followers (14.16; 16.7). The activity of the paraclete is to teach, to remind Jesus' followers of all that he had said (14.26), to testify on his behalf (15.26), and to prove the world wrong about sin, righteousness and judgment (16.8). The acts of these women within the narrative, and, on a second-level reading, within the Johannine community, fit into these definitions. For this reason, we may see them as vehicles through which the paraclete carries out his activities within the community. These factors imply that women were not only participants but also leaders in the community, at least in the sense that they helped to gather new members from outside and to impart knowledge to those within. Yet the question remains: were women included in the formal leadership of the community? This question presumes that there existed a formal leadership, a point that not all scholars would accede. On the one hand, the scene in which Jesus washes the feet of his disciples is seen as accentuating the essential equality of all, master and servant alike (13.16). On the other hand, the portrayal of the Beloved Disciple and Peter implies a competition between two men for leadership, or at least

REINHARTZ Women in the Johannine Community

27

some tension between them on this point. This is apparent in John 13, in which Peter asks Jesus for the identity of his betrayer through the mediation of the Beloved Disciple (13.24), and in 20.3-9, in which the two disciples apparently race each other to the empty tomb. These two disciples belong to a group that travels with Jesus and appears to be his closest associates. Their existence in the narrative implies that within the community itself an inner circle takes on formal leadership. The portrayal of Jesus' mother in 19.25-27 implies that at least she, or the category of elder wise women whom she may represent, was included in the core of community leadership by virtue of her maternal relationship with Jesus and then the Beloved Disciple. Whether other women were similarly included is more difficult to ascertain. One way to address this question is to look at the gospel's understanding of discipleship, as it may be extrapolated from the usage of the term 'disciple' within the narrative. In doing so, however, a problem arises immediately, for the term Ma6r|Tai, 'disciples', is used in two distinct ways. In some passages |JC(0TiTai, as well as the related term a5EAoi (literally, 'brethren'; possibly meaning 'brothers and sisters', 20.17),21 seems to be understood broadly as referring to followers of and believers in Jesus as the Christ and Son of God. This usage is apparent particularly in John 6, which describes the difficulty that 'many of his disciples' had with some of Jesus' teachings (6.60). The fact that Jesus' brothers urge him to travel to Judea 'so that your disciples may also see the works you are doing' (7.3) implies a following that extends beyond the people who customarily traveled with Jesus. The man born blind is reviled by the Pharisees as a disciple of Jesus because he believes in Jesus' healing abilities (9.27). A broad understanding of the term is also evident in 15.8, in which Jesus urges his listeners to bear much fruit and become his disciples. Because all of the women characters in the gospel are, or become, followers of Jesus, they can be called 'disciples' under this general definition. Other passages in which the term 'disciple' occurs imply a more formal and specific usage referring to those followers who accompanied Jesus on his travels and were his most regular audience. This narrower usage is apparent in the stories describing the call of the first disciples (1.35-51) and in John 4, in which the disciples' role seems to be to provide Jesus with the necessities of life as they travel through the countryside. The restrictive use of the term is implied particularly in the 21. Cf. Sandra M. Schneiders, 'John 20.11-18: The Encounter of the Easter Jesus with Mary Magdalene — A Transformative Feminist Reading', in Segovia (ed.), 'What Is John?': Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel, I, pp. 155-68.

28

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

passages describing Jesus' final meal, his farewell discourses and his passion. In these sections, spanning John 13-21, Jesus is secluded with the disciples, and the settings imply that these are a small number of his closest associates. Nowhere is the precise number or identity of these disciples specified.22 This gap provides an opening for those who wish to argue that the women portrayed in such positive terms could have been included among this group within the narrative, and hence within the Johannine community as well. Yet the Beloved Disciple's account contains too much ambiguity to allow for this case to be made as forcefully as I might like. No individual woman is explicitly designated as a disciple nor are women included among the group identified as such. The fact that Jesus' disciples marvel that he was talking with a woman in 4.27 suggests that no women were among them. No women are mentioned in John 6, in which the disciples follow Jesus from one side of the Sea of Galilee to the other, nor in the foot-washing scene in John 13. The strongest female candidate for inclusion among the disciples is Mary Magdalene, who alone is granted the first vision of the risen lord and is commissioned to carry the message of resurrection to the others. Yet here too the matter is difficult to resolve. Alison Jasper, for example, argues that although Mary is commissioned as a messenger, she is no more than this. The message she takes to Jesus' brethren is addressed not to her but to them.23 In Jasper's reading, Mary is a mere vehicle for the message; what is important from Jesus' perspective is not that she understand, but that the disciples hear and comprehend. Claudia Setzer points to a more straightforward exegetical basis for questioning whether Mary is a disciple. Jn 21.14 enumerates the risen Jesus' appearance in Galilee as the third of his encounters with his disciples. This enumeration implies, of course, that there were two previous visits. John 20 clearly recounts two such appearances — 20.19-23 and 20.26-29—in which Jesus appears to a group of disciples in Jerusalem. One may therefore infer that the narrator does not consider 20.1-18 to be an account of an appearance to a disciple and hence that Mary is not among the group designated as disciples.24 22. The 'Twelve' are mentioned only in 6.67, perhaps to distinguish Jesus' closest associates from the multitude of disciples who had abandoned him in the wake of his difficult teachings. 23. Alison Jasper, 'Interpretative Approaches to John 20.1-18: Mary at the Tomb of Jesus', ST47 (1993), pp. 107-18 (113). 24. Claudia Setzer, Jewish Responses to Early Christians: History and Polemics, 30-150 C.E. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1994), p. 268. It must be noted, however, that the Johannine narrative is not always consistent in its enumeration. John 4.54 refers to the

REINHARTZ Women in the Johannine Community

29

To complicate matters, John 20 implies that there is considerable tension between Mary Magdalene and the group explicitly designated as disciples. Mary runs to Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple immediately after discovering that the stone has been removed from the tomb. Although she has apparently not yet looked within the tomb, she reports that 'they' — some unnamed group — have taken the Lord (20.2). That she turns to them so quickly demonstrates her recognition of their authority, to which she is subordinate. Her report implies not only their 'need to know7 but also the hope that they will be able to remedy the situation, that is, to find the body or explain its absence. The disciples disappoint her. Although they respond to her report with some urgency, they fail to understand, and they fail to remain. Without investigating further, they simply return home and leave Mary at the tomb without answers or help. Mary's response to encountering the risen Lord both recalls and reverses this set of events. She now runs to the disciples again. Her second report reveals the location of Jesus' body, thereby solving the puzzle that the disciples could not answer earlier. Her prefatory comment, 'I have seen the Lord' (20.18), is not simply a description of a wondrous experience but her badge of authority as messenger. Mary's exclusive knowledge of the risen Lord could have signaled a shift in the formal structures of authority. The narrative could have continued with a series of events that would have consolidated Mary's own authority based on the pivotal fact that Jesus provided her alone with the solution to the puzzle and acted through her to convey the solution to the disciples. He could have had the disciples rejoice at hearing the word, just as the noble father of the ill child in 4.53 rejoiced when his servants reported that his child was now well. Such a scenario would have fit in very well with the gospel's emphasis on belief through hearing the word as expressed by Jesus to Thomas: 'Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe' (20.29). How delightful it would have been had Jesus conferred the Holy Spirit and its attendant authority over sin upon Mary, as the one who had remained at the tomb, sought him and believed. But the narrative does not unfold in this way. Instead, the gospel is healing of the nobleman's son as the 'second sign that Jesus did after coming from Judea to Galilee', though it would seem that in fact this healing was Jesus' third sign as narrated in the gospel. For this reason, the enumeration of Jesus' appearances may also be construed as inconsistent, in that it omits the appearance to Mary Magdalene. On the other hand, the present enumeration implies that the appearance to Mary did not count in the enumeration of appearances to disciples because she was not considered to be a disciple.

30

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

silent about the disciples' reception of Mary's proclamation. This silence dismantles Mary's authority that had been built up so carefully in 20.1718 and instead restores the reader's attention, as well as the locus of authority, to the disciples through the three resurrection appearances they are granted and, even more so, through the elevation of Simon Peter to the role of shepherd of the flock (John 21). Mary appears no more. Therefore, as a communication to the disciples, Mary's report is superfluous and abortive. This is not to undermine the importance of Mary to the narrative and to the implied author. After all, she is the first to see the risen Lord, and she is entrusted by him with a message to the disciples. Nevertheless, the text falls short of describing her as an important leader. A second-level reading would therefore refrain from identifying her with formal female leadership within the church. The gospel's portrayal of women is fraught with ambiguity; arguments can be mounted both in favor of their inclusion among the disciples and for their exclusion from that group. Rather than choose one option or the other, we may consider the ambiguity significant itself. Perhaps ambiguity within the narrative is evidence of ambivalence within the Johannine community. We may speculate that the Fourth Gospel testifies to a struggle over the place of women within the community, particularly with respect to women of the same generation as the male leadership. At the same time, a second-level reading suggests that the community may have viewed at least some women as vehicles of revelation, prophecy and instruction. A charitable and even more speculative view might suggest that the Fourth Evangelist, the implied author, may have been caught among several forces. One was received tradition, according to which the group of close disciples, perhaps numbering 12, did not include women. Another may have been the resistance of the community, which may have constrained him from using the term 'disciple' explicitly for women even in the broader sense of follower or believer. A third may have been his own inclination to include women in such leadership, as evidenced by his giving women such prominent roles in his narrative.25 Nature of the Johannine Community The portrayal of women in the Fourth Gospel has implications not just for the role of women in the Johannine community but also for the 25. My use of the masculine pronoun to refer to the Fourth Evangelist is deliberate; despite the prominence of women in this gospel compared to the synoptics, the predominant point of view is masculine. I see no basis on which to attribute female authorship or female-implied authorship to this gospel.

REINHARTZ Women in the Johannine Community

31

nature and structure of the group itself. Most discussions of the community imply that it was self-contained, tightly knit and concentrated in a particular location, such as Ephesus, where it existed in a hostile relationship to the larger Jewish community. The theory that the Johannine group was closed and inward looking was convincingly argued by Wayne Meeks in his classic essay, 'The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism'.26 Meeks views the Johannine community as a group that had to defend and define itself over against other groups, including the non-believing Jews as well as other non-Johannine believers in Jesus as the Messiah. The story describes the progressive alienation of Jesus from the Jews. At the same time, those who do respond to Jesus' signs and words are drawn into intense intimacy with him and become similarly detached from the world. This pattern signals the insularity of the Johannine group, and its alienation from the Jewish community. Says Meeks: Now their [the believers'] becoming detached from the world is, in the Gospel, identical with their being detached from Judaism. Those figures who want to 'believe7 in Jesus but to remain within the Jewish community and the Jewish piety are damned with the most devastating dualistic epithets... But something [other than expulsion] is to be seen: coming to faith in Jesus is for the Johannine group a change in social location. Mere belief without joining the Johannine community, without making the decisive break with 'the world', particularly the world of Judaism, is a diabolic'lie'.27

For this group, faith in Jesus meant a removal from 'the world' and transfer to a closed community that saw itself as living in some sense beyond the bounds of this world. The Fourth Gospel not only describes the birth of that community but also reinforces the community's isolation. But if we read the passages about women, a different impression emerges. A second-level reading suggests that at least in some cases — represented by the Samaritan woman, Mary and Martha —believers remained within their own communities, thereby creating a network of believers to whom the leaders of the community or other communities could travel. This possibility may also be intimated by Jesus' revelation to the Samaritan woman that the time is coming when worship will not be localized in a particular site such as Zion or Gerizim, but rather will focus on the Father in a way unmediated by sacred place. Because the stories about women are relatively free of tension between 26. Wayne Meeks, 'The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism', JBL 91 (1972), pp. 44-72. 27. Meeks, 'Man from Heaven', p. 70.

32

A feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

the Jews and the believers, we may speculate that at least in some situations, believers lived in a relatively easy relationship with Jews and other non-believers around them. This possibility provides an interesting perspective on Jesus' last prayer, in which he refers to those whom God had given him (Jn 17.6), thereby denoting the entire community in its diversity: I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one. They do not belong in the world, just as I do not belong in the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world (17.14-18).

In light of the observations above, this prayer may be read as a reference to the scattering of believers among 'the world', that is, within a variety of communities in which the majority perhaps does not agree with their views. The protection that believers require in such a situation may be physical; this is intimated by 16.2 where Jesus warns his disciples that they will be persecuted or even killed. But it is also possible that believers will need religious or spiritual protection as well. It may be that, from the point of view of the Johannine leadership, those believers who continue to live among their communities of origin are in danger of backsliding, an eventuality that would be seen as the work of the evil one and as a retreat from the truth.28 Conclusions A second-level reading of the stories about women in the Fourth Gospel challenges at least part of the consensus both about women in the Johannine community and about the nature of the community as a whole. With respect to women, this approach allows us to fill in some of their roles but also draws attention to the ambiguity of their situations. The 28. This possibility is suggested by a number of commentators. R. Alan Culpepper, for example, suggests that the gospel may be tacitly warning Johannine Christians against seeking to return to the Jewish fold, which, from the Johannine perspective, is incompatible with full faith in Jesus as the Messiah. See R. Alan Culpepper, 'The Gospel of John and the Jews7, RevExp 84 (1987), pp. 273-88 (281). Reuven Kimelman raises the possibility that 'the whole charge [of exclusion and persecution] was concocted to persuade Christians to stay away from the synagogue by making them believe that they would be received with hostility'. Reuven Kimelman, 'Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity7, in E.P. Sanders et al (eds.), Jewish and Christian SelfDefinition (3 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), II, pp. 234-35.

REINHARTZ Women in the Johannine Community

33

stories also suggest that the community itself may have been a more complex, or perhaps a more amorphous, more worldly and less beleaguered group than has emerged from other studies. Both of these areas warrant further study, perhaps drawing into the discussion external evidence for the structure of other early Christian communities. It is well to remember at the conclusion of this brief study the warnings issued at the beginning, namely, that this exercise can only be speculative. First, the second-level readings proposed here are not definitive; each of the stories featuring women can be read, at both the first and second levels, in a variety of ways.29 Second, the cautionary words regarding the very enterprise of reading the gospel for the history of the Johannine community still remain. Nevertheless, the exercise suggests that the Stegemanns may have been too hasty, or perhaps too rigid, when they dismissed these stories as providing no sociohistorical 'information' about the situation of women in the Johannine community.

29. I am grateful for the many excellent alternative readings proposed by the students in 'Feminist Interpretations of Scripture' (Professor Amy-Jill Levine, Vanderbilt Divinity School, Nashville, TN), to whom I presented part of this material on 17 Nov. 2000.

'I AM' SAYINGS AND WOMEN IN CONTEXT* Satoko Yamaguchi What we choose to remember about the past, where we begin and end our retrospective accounts, and who we include and exclude from them—these do a lot to determine how we live and what decisions we make in the present.1

Introduction For many Christian women in the world, and particularly for feminists who struggle against all kinds of patriarchal oppressions, the conventional christology is problematic. The exclusivist and universalist claims of this christology— that Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish man who lived in first-century Palestine, was the Only Son of God, the Messiah (christ), the Savior of the world, and the once-and-for-all incarnation of God — have been used not only to oppress women but also to justify Christian white racism and various forms of Western colonialism throughout Christian history. However, since the New Testament does not provide a unique, coherent christology, from where did such extraordinary claims come? It is commonly recognized among scholars that the Gospel of John became the primary foundation for the orthodox Christian faith, first defined at Nicea in the fourth century and later developed as the dominant christology of the church.2 * A revised version of this article appears as a chapter in Man/ and Martha: Women in the World of Jesus (Mary knoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002). Used by permission. 1. George Lipsitz, Time Passages: Collective Memory and American Popular Culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1990), p. 34. 2. For example, Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), p. 45; James D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM Press, 1989), pp. 253-65.

YAMAGUCHI 7 Am' Sayings and Women in Context

35

Yet some Johannine scholars say that the Gospel of John was 'hijacked' or 'used' as 'the tool'.3 I am one of those who suspect that the Gospel of John was misused for the formation of the 'orthodox' christology, and I suggest close re-examination of the texts of the gospel to see how relevant such claims of the 'orthodox' christology are in light of the Gospel of John. For example, this study questions the dominant interpretation of Johannine Jesus' 'I am' sayings as Jesus' divine selfrevelation. In the following essay, after a brief review of the scholarship, I hope to illustrate that Jesus' 'I am' sayings should be understood not as his selfrevelation, but as a revealing of the god—not in a modern individualistic sense, but in the sense of a culture of corporate personality. Then, I will attempt to re-member women in the historical picture of Jesus' 'I am' sayings, by locating them in the broader social contexts of prophecy in the ancient Near East, from archaic to Greco-Roman times.4 Finally, in order to shed new light on our shaping of christologies, I will explore the relationship between women and Jesus' 'I am' sayings, particularly in the context of Johannine communities. One explanatory note regarding the inclusive language is necessary. As we read 'I am' sayings in the Hebrew Bible, the sayings may appear exclusively male. This may be partially due to the male-centered languages of both the biblical texts and their translations, as well as our modern, individualistic, gender-oriented concept of personality. We know that the god of Israel is neither male nor female, but more than both. Yet, as we read these words, particularly with the gendered personal pronoun 'he', the god is rendered male in our imagination. Furthermore, in the Septuagint (LXX: Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), Yahweh is translated as Kuptos (lord), which enforces our perception of Yahweh as male. However, in the culture of corporate personality, which we will explore in detail in the following section, even a 3. James D.G. Dunn, 'Let John Be John: A Gospel for Its Time', in P. Stuhlmacher (ed.), Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (WUNT, 28 ; Tubingen: J.CB. Mohr, 1983), pp. 309-39, esp. p. 311; John A.T. Robinson, The Priority of John (London: SCM Press, 1985), p. 395. Margaret Davies also argues that the gospel should be read in its own historical context, not in the light of later dogma (Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992], pp. 13-16). 4. I use the hyphenated word 're-member', following Mary Rose D'Angelo, who says that 'it conveys together the ideas of bringing what has been hidden out of the shadows of history, of putting together what has been dismembered and of making someone a member of oneself/of the community in a new way' ('Re-membering Jesus: Women, Prophecy and Resistance in the Memory of the Early Churches', Horizons 19 [1992], pp. 199-218 [202]).

36

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

patriarchal figure is perceived neither exclusively as male nor in an individualistic way. Therefore, in reading references to the god and Yahweh in biblical texts, it is necessary that we use inclusive language in order to free ourselves from our narrowly individualistic, male-centered perception of these words. In this article I strive for an inclusive language. For the words el/eloah (singular) and elim/elohim (plural), English versions translate both as 'God' (in the capitalized singular) if the reference is to the god of Israel, but as 'a god' or 'gods' (in the lower case) if it is to those of other religions. The explanation commonly given for this practice is that the god of Israel is the one and only god and the grammatical plural signifies the greatness of the god, while the grammatical plural for the gods of 'pagans' simply signifies the polytheism. I refrain from such a JudeoChristian elitist treatment and avoid capitalization in the case of any god, since there is no capitalization in the ancient Hebrew or Greek texts. In the same way, I will not capitalize any occurrences of such words as 'christ', 'father', 'son' and 'lord', because capitalization of these words depends heavily on our theological interpretation of them.5 Remaining faithful to the ancient texts, I will keep the differences in the translation between singular and plural as 'god' for the singular el/eloah and 'gods' for the plural elim/elohim. In this way, I hope that we can perceive the fluidity between the words in the culture of corporate personality. I will also replace 'he' with 'the one' for the references to the divinity (which are often missing in the original language but are complemented for English translations) in order to avoid perpetuating our modern individualistic gender-oriented perception of the god.6 Admittedly, such a translation looks odd and does not allow us a smooth reading. However, this may be a good reminder that both the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts have neither capitalization nor punctuation, and that their translations depend heavily on later interpretations. Not only for biblical quotations but also everywhere in my writing, I will use inclusive expressions as much as possible, even when they sound odd. They may also be good reminders of how our English language customs are deeply Judeo-Christian elitist as well as sexist. This recognition will also be crucial in our search for new christologies. 5. I will, however, use capitalization for the first letter of a sentence and for the words that are (or seem to be) used as proper names, as practical compromises. 6. In this article, biblical texts are quoted from The Interlinear Bible with these modifications, unless otherwise noted. I have chosen this version because it is more oriented toward a literal translation than the RSV or the NRSV, and it shows more conveniently how the 'I am' (eyco etjji) phrases occur in the texts (J.P. Green [ed.], The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew-Greek-English [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2nd edn, 1986]).

YAMAGUCHI 'I Am' Sayings and Women in Context

37

'I Am' Sayings in Scholarship In his study of prophecy in early Christianity, David Aune points to the widespread and diverse nature of Christian prophecy and emphasizes the importance of seeing it in the context of centuries of Israelite-Jewish tradition as well as in the Greco-Roman environment. According to him, there are six basic forms of early Christian prophecy. Of these, the 'I am' sayings were most particularly used for legitimization oracles, in which 'the speaker claims to be an authentic vehicle of divine revelation'.7 In the Gospel of John, there are 25 instances of Jesus' words that include the emphatic 'I am' (eyco elm) phrase —some with an explicit predicate, some with an implied predicate, and some without a predicate.8 Those with explicit predicates are such phrases as 'I am the bread of life' (6.35) and 'I am the light of the world' (8.12). They are the most frequently used, and we shall discuss them later. Those with implied predicates are such phrases as 'But he said to them, / am (syco ei|Jt)- Do not fear' (6.20), and 'I told you that I am (eyco sijji); then if you seek me, allow these to depart' (18.8, and similarly in 18.5,6) (italics mine). Those without predicates, the so-called absolute 'I am' sayings, however, are the most seriously discussed 'I am' sayings in terms of Johannine christology. There are four of them [italics mine]: 8.24: .. .For if you do not believe that I am 8.28: ...then you will know that I am (syco ei|Ji), and from myself I do nothing... 8.58: .. .before Abraham came into being, I am 13.19: .. .when it happens you may believe that I am

This use of the 'I am' (eyco si MI) phrase echoes such phrases as 'lam the one' (ani hu) and 'I, Yahweh' (ani yahweh), which are interpreted as the direct speaking of the god in the Hebrew Bible, and that are translated as eyco eiMI in the Septuagint. Some of them read as follows (italics mine): Exod. 3.14: And the god said to Moses, / am that I am (ehyeh asher ehyeh. eyco e'i|Ji the being); and the god said, you shall say this to the sons of Israel, I am (eyco e'ljji) has sent me to you.

7. The six forms are oracles of assurance, prescriptive oracles, announcements of salvation, announcements of judgment, legitimation oracles and eschatological theophany oracles (David Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983], pp. 16-17, 68-70, 320-21). 8. They are 4.26; 6.20, 35,41,48, 51; 8.12,18,23 (twice), 24,28,58; 10.7, 9,11,14; 11.25; 13.19; 14.6; 15.1, 5; 18.5, 6, 8. Classification of these differ slightly among scholars.

38

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II Isa. 43.10:.. .that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am the one (ani hu: eyco eipi).

Mainly because of this echoing of Yahweh's 'I am' sayings, scholars' opinions differ regarding who is revealed in Jesus' 'I am' sayings. There are two ways of understanding this. The first one takes Jesus' 'I am' sayings as Jesus' divine self-revelation; the other takes Jesus as not revealing himself, but as revealing the god. The first one sees that Jesus is taking upon himself the very name of the god in his absolute 'I am' sayings, and that Jesus' 'I am' sayings are his divine self-revelation. Rudolf Bultmann states that Jesus' words are utterances about himself, and that Jesus is 'the absolutely transcendent one whose place is at the side of God'. At the same time, Bultmann states, 'In Jesus' words God speaks the eyco EIJJI. We should, however, reject the view that syco EIJJI means 'I (Jesus) am God'; 'Jesus is not claiming his ontological identification with the god, but the "existential embodiment" '.9 Henceforth, this interpretation became the basis for the dominant understanding of Jesus' 'I am' sayings as the divine selfrevelation. On the other hand, David Ball strongly argues for the ontological identification. He states that the Johannine Jesus' absolute 'I am' sayings 'deliberately refer to similar sayings in Isaiah and thus identify Jesus with God of the Old Testament', and that they claim Jesus' 'very nature of God', and it is 'ontologically and not just confessionally'.10 Recently, more Johannine scholars take the second view with different nuances. This view sees that Jesus' 'I am' sayings in the gospel point not himself but to the god, and that these sayings do not claim Jesus' identification with the god, nor his equality to the god. Rather, they express the functional equivalence or mystic unity of Jesus with the god. Pointing out that 'every religious tradition rooted in a historic figure develops claims for the uniqueness of the founder's person as well as his or her revelation', Robert Kysar interprets Jesus' absolute 'I am' sayings 9. Rudolf Bultmann, The Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; New York: Scribner's, 1951-55), II, pp. 64, 66); idem, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (ed. and trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray et al; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964,1971), p. 327 n. 5. Rudolf Schnackenburg also rejects the idea of Jesus' identification with God, but takes Jesus' 'I am' sayings as Jesus'self-presentation as the revealer (Gospel According to St. John [3 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1980-82], II, pp. 86-88). 10. David M. Ball,' "My Lord and my God": The Implication of "I am" Sayings for Religious Pluralism', in A.D. Clarke and B.W. Winter (eds.), One God One Lord in a World of Religious Pluralism (London: Tyndale Press, 1991), pp. 53-71. Early on, E. Stauffer has taken this view in Jesus and his Story (London: SCM Press, 1960), pp. 142-49.

YAMAGUCHI 'I Am' Sayings and Women in Context

39

in the gospel as an example of such efforts by the earliest Christians. He states that the gospel intends to claim that Jesus is the true revealer, and that Jesus' absolute 'I am' sayings 'underline the functional equivalence of God and Christ'.11 Charles K. Barrett also sees the functional equivalence of Jesus with the god. He points to the basic scheme of the gospel as not christocentric but theocentric by asking three questions: Jesus was sent, by whom?; Jesus was dependent, on whom?; and Jesus reveals, whom? The god is at the center of Jesus' presentation. Based on this observation, he interprets Jesus' 'I am' sayings as revealing not himself, but the god. The Johannine Jesus means to say, 'Look at me for I am the one by looking at whom you will see the Father' (14.9), 'since I make him known' (1.18).12 John Robinson also asserts that the center of the gospel is not Christ but god, and that the Johannine Jesus is completely the father's agent, claiming nothing for himself, but everything for the god the father. He interprets that Jesus was misunderstood 'precisely for speaking without so much as a "Thus saith the Lord"', and that the T of the Johannine Jesus is 'the "I" of the mystics, who makes the most astonishing claims to be one with God, without of course claiming to be God'.13 Similarly, Paul Trudinger interprets Jesus' 'I am' sayings in the gospel as the language of mystics, and the gospel's presentation of Jesus as confessional outpourings, not doctrinally oriented descriptions. He illustrates it by such contemporary examples as Herbert von Karajan's words, 'Beethoven, I, and the orchestra were one, tonight!' and a more common expression, 'You are the most wonderful person on earth!' In the gospel, Trudinger argues, the mystic or confessional phrase 'I and the father are one' is presented in conjunction with the plain statement, 'The father is greater than I', that testifies to the non-deity of Jesus.14 Generally, we can observe a gradual shift among Johannine scholars in interpreting Jesus' 'I am' sayings in the gospel from the view of Jesus' divine self-revelation to that of Jesus' revealing not himself, but the god. At the same time, we can also observe that, regardless of the differences 11. Robert Kysar, John the Maverick Gospel (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, rev. edn, 1993), pp. 27-28. For similar interpretations, see Charles H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), pp. 93-96; and R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (2 vols.; AB, 29-29A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966,1980), II, pp. 86-88, 533-538. 12. E.M. Sidebottom, The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (London: SPCK, 1961), p. 194; Charles K. Barrett, Essays on John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), pp. 1-18. 13. J. Robinson, Priority of John, p. 387. 14. Paul Trudinger, 'John's Gospel as Testimony to the Non-Deity of Jesus', faith and Freedom 48.2 (1995), pp. 106-110.

40

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

in these views, the imaginative divine worlds of the 'I am' sayings have been very individualistic and thoroughly male. These are the aspects that I intend to question. Prophecy in the Culture of Corporate Personality The Culture of Corporate Personality The term 'corporate personality7 was coined by H. Wheeler Robinson to designate the ancient concept of personality in which a household or a social unit, however widely conceived, is perceived as a single person, or a psychical whole, representing the extended personality of the head of the hierarchy.15 So, in the ancient patriarchal society, the patriarchal figure was thought to have a variety of extensions of his personality. A servant sent by the master acts and speaks as an extension of the master's personality, and through the agency of the servant, the master is regarded as being present. That is, the agent/messenger 'is treated as actually being and not merely representing' the master.16 We can see the corresponding conception of the extension of the god's personality present in the Hebrew Bible. In the third Commandment, the god's name is taken as an extension of the god's personality: 'You shall not take the name of Yahweh your god in vain' (Exod. 20.7). The god of Israel is conceived not only as Yahweh but also as Wisdom/Sophia in the female figure. We also observe fluidity of reference to the divinity both in the singular forms el/eloah and in the plural forms elim/elohim.17 Some examples include the following (italics mine): In the beginning gods created the heavens and the earth... And gods said, Let us make adam (sg. earthling) in our image, according to our likeness, and let them rule over... And gods created the adam in his image; in the image of gods he created him, male and female, he created them (Gen. 1.1-27).

15. H. Wheeler Robinson, 'The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality', in P. Volz, F. Stummer and J. Hempel (ed.), Werden und Wesen des Alien Testaments (BZAW, 66; Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1936), p. 49, quoted from Aubrey R. Johnson, The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1961), p. 8; Susan Thistlethwaite, 'Inclusive Language and Linguistic Blindness', TTod 43.4 (1987), pp. 533-39. 16. Johnson, One and the Many, p. 6. 17. Although the god of Israel is understood to be only one, not only is the god sometimes referred to in the plural form; some texts in the Hebrew Bible tell us that Yahweh was once worshiped as the chief member of a pantheon, or a heavenly court or a divine assembly, where the 'sons of god(s)' and 'gods' were imagined to be present (Gen. 6.1-4; Job 1.6; 2.1; Ps. 82.1).

YAMAGUCHI 'I Am' Sayings and Women in Context

41

And you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am Yahweh your gods (Joel 2.27).

In the same way, the spirit of god, as an extension of god's personality, was perceived as manifested in various 'servants' of the god. The prophets, particularly, were commonly thought of as messengers of the god and were held to be more than mere representatives. They were, in their active agency, god in person. In Exodus, Yahweh tells Moses, 'He (Aaron) shall be a mouth for you, and you shall be gods for him' (Exod. 4.16). The Switching of Subjects and Ambiguous Borderlines Some prophetic utterances show the ambiguous borderline between the prophets' own speaking and their speaking in the person of god, as well as quite a fluid switching between the two within the corporate personality. It seems that prophets occasionally insert the phrase 'thus says Yahweh', or the like, in order to make it clear to listeners that the T of the speech is not the prophet but the god, speaking directly through the servants of the god.18 Some examples follow (italics and bracketed notes are mine): And Moses called to all Israel, and said to them, You have seen all that Yahweh did before your eyes [Moses in his own person starts speaking.]... I have led you forty years in the wilderness [Who is speaking? Is it still Moses?]... so that you might know that I am Yahweh your gods. [The god is now speaking, but where did the switching occur?] (Deut. 29.1-5). Behold, Yahweh hurls you [Isaiah speaks]... And I will drive you from your position [now Yahweh is speaking]. And he will pull you from your station [returned to Isaiah's speech]. And in that day it shall be even I will call to my servant [switched to Yahweh again] (Isa. 22.17-20). Oh that I had a lodging place for travelers in the wilderness, that I might leave my people and go away from them! [Jeremiah in his own person is speaking.] For they are all adulterers.. .for they go from evil to evil. They do not know me, says Yahweh [Here, 'me' is Yahweh. Where did the switch of the speaker occur?] (Jer. 9.1-2).

From some instances we can see that this concept of corporate personality was still relevant in the time of early Christianity. For example, some words of Jesus in the gospels illustrate the shared assumption of various extensions of the god's personality, such as name, finger and spirit, as well as the fluid borderline between the words of the prophets' own and of god in person. To his disciples Jesus teaches to pray, 'let be 18. See Johnson, One and the Many, pp. 35-38.

42

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

sanctified your name' (Mt. 6.9; Lk. 11.2). To those who are suspicious of Jesus, he says, 'But if I cast out the demons by the finger of god' (Lk. 11.20) or 'But if I cast out the demons by the spirit of god' (Mt. 12.28). Jesus also tells to his disciples, 'But whatever may be given to you in that hour, speak that. For you are not those speaking, but the holy spirit' (Mk 13.11; Mt. 10.19-20; Lk. 21.15). At the same time, the occasions of these speech show that there is no external guarantee whether 'the finger' and 'the spirit' are extensions of the god or of 'the demons' (Mt. 12.24,27; Lk. 11.15,19), and whether a prophet is a true prophet or a false prophet (Mk 13.22). Hence, a lot of controversies and suspicions arise. In the gospels, there are times when Jesus speaks as if the divine Sophia herself is speaking in person. Sophia is the personified Jewish wisdom of god, or the god of Israel in the female imagery (italics mine): Jesus said, 7 praise you, father, lord of heaven and of earth... [Jesus is speaking on his own] Come to me, all those laboring and being ladened, and I will give you rest. [Is this still Jesus in his own person, or in the person of Sophia?] Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me... For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. [It surely sounds like Sophia speaking. From where?] (Mt. 11.25-30; cf. Sir. 51.23-27, 6.24-28). Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her! [Jesus starts speaking in person?] How often I desired to gather your children in the way a bird gathers her chicks from under her wings... [It is Sophia speaking, isn't it? From where? Was it from the beginning?] For I say to you, in no way shall you see me from now on, until you say, 'Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the lord'. [Returned to Jesus' own speaking?] (Mt. 23.37-39; Lk. 13.34-35. cf. Deut. 32.10-12; Jer. 22.5; Pss. 36.7; 61.4; 118.26).

The Odes of Solomon, a Jewish-Christian text, probably written in the second century, offers other examples of a prophet's free switching of T from the prophet's own speaking to the Christ directly speaking through the prophet. In this case, the Christ is being an extension of the god's corporate personality (italics mine): [The odist begins speaking in his own person.] Then I was crowned by my god and my crown is living. And I was justified by my lord, for my salvation is incorruptible... And the thought of truth led me, and I went after it and did not err. [He switches to the Christ's.] And all who saw me were amazed, and I seemed to them like a stranger. And he who knew and exalted me is the most high in all his perfection (Odes 17.1-7) ,19

19. James H. Charlesworth made notes as to where the 'odist' is speaking and where the 'christ' is speaking in his translation, 'Odes of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction', OTP, II, pp. 725-71.1 am following his notes here.

YAMAGUCHI 7 Am' Sayings and Women in Context

43

In all of the above texts, it is very difficult to distinguish between the prophets' own speaking and their speaking in the person of Yahweh, Sophia, the spirit, or the Christ, without being given clear reminders. They seem to indicate not only the free switching but also the ambiguous borderlines within the extended corporate personality in prophetic speeches. The Son Sent by the Father as the Best Agent In the culture of corporate personality—where a servant sent by the master speaks, acts and is treated as the master in person—the son sent by his father is regarded as the most authentic agent. In the field of commerce, where the trade is hereditary and the techniques are handed down from father to son, it is customary that the father commissions his son and the son travels and makes trade contracts in accordance with the father's will. When it comes to legal issues, the son functions as the most fully qualified agent of the father. Consequently, to deal with the son is the same as dealing with the father who sent the son. In such a society, the father and the son are one —although they are definitely not identical, and the son is totally subordinate to the father.20 This conventional relationship between the father and the son is exactly what we find in the Gospel of John: 'I and the father are one' (10.30); 'My father is greater than I' (14.28); 'the word which you hear is not mine, but of the father who sent me' (14.24); 'The one believing into me does not believe into me, but into the one sending me' (12.44). Then, it should not surprise us when Jesus in the gospel speaks in the person of god, includeing in the 'I am' sayings, following a conventional prophetic practice in the culture of corporate personality. The Attribution of Disciples' Words to their Teachers There is another ancient practice that is difficult for us to understand and is probably related to the concept of corporate personality: the customary attribution of disciples' words and authorship to their teachers. Regarding the writing of biographical and historical works during Greco-Roman times, it was the standard practice of writers to compose 20. Peder Borgen, 'God's Agent in the Fourth Gospel', in Jacob Neusner (ed.), Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory ofErwin Ramsdell Goodenough (Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1968), pp. 137-48; Marinus de Jonge, Jesus, Stranger from Heaven and Son of Cod: Jesus Christ and the Christians in Johannine Perspective (SBLSBS, 11; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1977), pp. 147-48; Davies, Rhetoric, pp. 131-4; Thistlethwaite says that the father metaphor also 'conveys a sense of corporate life of God's kin group'. 'When the will of God is done, none is excluded from this extended family' ('Inclusive Language', p. 536).

44

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

appropriate speeches and put them in the mouth of their protagonist. Writers made no clear distinction between the historical teacher's or philosopher's actual words, as spoken during his or her lifetime, and the sayings attributed to them posthumously. These later attributions were composed by students/disciples, or delivered through someone's dream or seances (meetings with the spirit of the dead). Posthumous sayings could be included in the body of the teacher's sayings, and these words would have the same authority as the words spoken by the teacher during his or her lifetime.21 In accordance with the accepted practice of the time, early Christians did not hesitate to compose 'Jesus' sayings', in order that the protagonist Jesus in their narratives would be presented in more appealing ways to their audiences, in their own contexts. In such practices, they used the name Jesus and the later christological titles, such as 'Christ' or 'lord', in referring both to the historical Jesus of Nazareth and to the risen Jesus of their faith. Accordingly, the distinction between 'sayings of Jesus' and 'words of the lord' were ambiguous from the beginning; such 'sayings' and 'words' could expand in the various contexts of faith-communities.22 Summary Seen against this background of corporate personality, Jesus as a prophet could quite likely speak fluidly in his own person and in the person of god, be it Yahweh or Sophia. Or, Jesus could be easily imaged in this way by the early Christians. In the same way, it is likely that some of the earliest Christian prophets delivered their prophetic speeches as the 'sayings of Jesus', or as the revelations of the christ. On the other hand, there is no external guarantee whether a prophet is a true one or a false one, and this fostered diverse controversies, suspicions and rejections, as well as ways of believing. The 'I am' sayings of 'Jesus' as well as those of others should be heard in this cultural context of corporate personality.

21. Aune, Prophecy, pp. 235-6; M. Eugene Boring, The Continuing Voices of Jesus: Christian Prophecy and the Gospel Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991), pp. 39,43. The culture of corporate personality is the eponymous aspect of Jewish ancestor traditions. That is, the narratives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, as well as those of Sarah and Hagar in the Hebrew Bible are more appropriately understood as those of tribes, rather than those of individual persons (see Norman K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985], pp. 161-62). 22. Boring, Continuing Voices of Jesus, p. 43. See also D'Angelo, 'Re-membering Jesus'.

YAMAGUCHI '/ Am' Sayings and Women in Context

45

'I Am' Sayings and Women in Various Religious Traditions In the church the imaginative world of Jesus' 'I am' sayings has been thoroughly male. The sayings have been read predominantly as Jesus' divine self-revelation in relation to those of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible. Combined with the gospel's father-son language, this male image is not changed even among scholars who interpret Jesus' 'I am' sayings as the revelation of the god, rather than as self-revelation. Scholars widely recognize, however, that there were numerous 'I am' sayings used in various religious traditions in the ancient Near East, from archaic times to the time of the early Christians.23 Furthermore, as we look at 'I am' sayings in the broader context, the world of 'I am' sayings is not dominated by males. Rather, female figures loom large in our imaginative religious world. In the following, let us look at various 'I am' sayings in a broader context that will help us re-member women in the historical imaginative world of 'I am' sayings. They will also help us hear Jesus' 'I am' sayings with the various echoes that have been lost to us, but which were probably familiar to the ears of the first-century audience. In the Ancient Near East As we look at extant texts from the ancient Near East, we find many oracles and aretalogies uttered in the first person singular T, as well as hymns uttered in the third person singular 's/he'.24 From the archaic past of the Near East, probably from the second to first millennia, there were many great female gods, among them the Egyptian Isis, the East Semitic Ishtar (identified with Sumerian Inanna), and the West Semitic Astarte (identified with Greek Aphrodite and some others).25 23. Eduard Norden sees the origin of the 'I am' formula in archaic Babylon and Egypt where they were originally reserved for gods and later adopted by rulers as the earthly representatives of the gods. See D. Bruce Woll, Johannine Christology in Conflict: Authority, Rank, and Succession in the First Farewell Discourse (SBLDS, 60; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), pp. 59-60. See also Bultmann, Gospel of John, p. 225 n. 3. 24. Aretalogy (arete = virtue, logia = words) means the words of praising a god or hero, inclusive of both male and female. 25. Instead of using the word goddess, I use the word god regardless of the gender. In English, it is customary to use standard forms primarily for males and the derived forms for females, such as god and goddess, prophet and prophetess, etc. At the same time, standard forms can be inclusive of both genders. This English custom not only makes the male as standard and the female deviant but also renders the female invisible, being absorbed in the male form. This, I believe, has a devastating effect on women's (and men's) self-identities. Therefore, I do not follow this type of sexist

46

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Isis was a powerful god who became the universal god in the Hellenistic period, and there are numerous Isis aretalogies. Since her influence on Jewish-Christian T style aretalogies seems to be significant, we will look at her aretalogies in a later section. Both Ishtar and Astarte were popular gods, and they seem to have strongly influenced the image of the Queen of Heaven whom generations of people of Judah worshiped (Jer. 7.16-20; 44.15-19).26 Let us look at some oracles of Ishtar, delivered through women prophets in 'I am' sayings, written in the seventh century BCE (italics mine):27 [Esarhad]don, king of the lands, fear not!... J am the great Belet—I am the goddess Ishtar of Arbela, she who has destroyed your enemies at your mere approach... O king of Assyria, fear not!... I, the god of Bel, am speaking to you. I watch over your inner heart as would your mother who brought you forth... / am Ishtar of Arbela... I am Ishtar of Arbela, O Esarhaddon, king of Assyria. ..lam the great midwife, the one who gave you suck, who has established your rule under the wide heavens... I will not abandon you. ..lam... for you. I am your good shield...

From the ancient Near East, we also have the famous Sibylline Oracles, a large collection of oracles uttered by the Sibyl. The extant texts come from the second century BCE to the seventh century CE, encompassing Asian, Greek, Jewish and Christian traditions as their matrixes. Her T and 'I am' sayings recount and prophesy history from the beginning of the world, and they have a strong political anti-Roman sentiment. Some scholars assume that a historical woman existed behind this phenomenon, and by the fifth century BCE, she was already a legendary figure. A coin from Asia Minor refers to her as Thea Sibylla (the god Sibyl). The proliferation of the Sibylline oracles among various religious traditions for several centuries attests to a long-term, wide recognition of women's prophetic abilities and activities as well as vigorous cross-cultural or interreligious borrowings in the ancient Near East.28 We may assume custom in my writing in English. Instead, I use the standard forms, regardless of their gender. 26. Susan Ackerman, '"And the Women Knead Dough": The Worship of the Queen of Heaven in Sixth-Century Judah', in P.L. Day (ed.), Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 109-24. 27. R.D. Biggs (trans.), 'Akkadian Oracles and Prophecies', in J.B. Pritchard (ed.), The Ancient Near East (2 vols.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), II, pp. 16869. 28. John J. Collins, 'Sibylline Oracles: A New Translation and Introduction', OTP, I, pp. 317-472; Aune, Prophecy, pp. 19-79,83; Amy-Jill Levine, 'The Sibylline Oracles', in E. Schiissler Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures: A feminist Commentary (2 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1993,1994), II, pp. 99-108. We should remember, however, that

YAMAGUCHI 'I Am' Sayings and Women in Context

47

that in the T style aretalogies and oracles, including 'I am' sayings, the imaginative divine world in the ancient Near East was inclusive of both genders. In the Ancient Jewish Traditions The interreligious borrowings of divine images probably occurred to enhance the wonderful and mighty images of one's own deity in the midst of vigorous competition between deities in the ancient Near East. As we turn to 'I am' sayings in the Hebrew Bible, we find the exclusive claims of Yahweh as the only god for Israel, emphasizing Yahweh's creating and saving actions for Israel. The so-called absolute 'I am' sayings of Yahweh are grounded in an exclusive caring relation that Yahweh showed to the people of Israel. (In the following, my italics of I am indicate [eyco si MI] in the Septuagint.) / am Yahweh your god, who has brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage (Exod. 20.2; see also Isa. 43.3; Hos. 13.4). See now that /, I am the one, and there is no gods with me (Deut. 32.39; see also Isa. 43.11; 44.6; 45.5-7,18, 22; 46.9). For I am Yahweh your god, the holy one of Israel, your savior (Isa. 43.3; see also Isa. 51.12).

From these sayings, it may become clear that 'I am' sayings of the god of Israel, as well as their exclusive claims for the only god and the savior for Israel, are made as relational claims in the context of a communal faith-confession, but not as objective or absolute truth-claims. For their early audience, these 'I am' sayings of Yahweh would have not been heard exclusively in the male image. We expand our imagination to the religious context where various 'I am' sayings reveal both male and female deities, each of whom has a variety of extensions in the corporate personality. Furthermore, in the Hebrew Bible, there are some 'I am' sayings in which Yahweh can be perceived more clearly in a female figure (italics mine): Yahweh appeared to Abram, and said to him, / am El-Shadhay [the god of the breasts].. .and I will make my covenant between you and me, and will multiply you exceedingly (Gen. 17.1-2).29 oracles uttered in a woman's name do not necessarily derive from women prophets. A woman's name can be used by men to counter some women prophets. Actually, the extant oracles available to us seem to be those written or edited by men. 29. El-Shadhay is now predominantly translated as the 'God [of] Almighty' (shadday). Translation of this word depends on how we complement vowels, which the ancient Hebrew texts do not have, and the word can equally be read as 'god of

48

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II So says Yahweh, your redeemer and your former from the womb; I am Yahweh who makes all things (Isa. 44.24). Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel; who are borne from the belly, who are lifted from the womb; even to old age I am the one; and I will bear to gray hair; I made, and I will carry; and I will bear and deliver (Isa. 46.3-4; cf. Pss. 22.8-11; 71.5-6; 71.18).

It is commonly recognized that, from the sixth century BCE, the wisdom of god was personified in a female figure. Scholars assume that the female imagery of the god was gradually developed and enhanced to counteract attractive religious propaganda of many female deities in the ancient Near East.30 Some of the T sayings in the Jewish wisdom traditions read (italics mine): Wisdom cries aloud in the plaza; she gives her voice in the square... Turn at my warning; behold, I will pour out my spirit [breath] to you; I will make my words known to you (Prov. 1.1, 23). I am the mother of beautiful love, of fear, of knowledge, and of holy hope; being eternal, I am given to all my children, to those who are named by the one... Do not cease to be strong in Yahweh... Yahweh-Shadhay alone is the god, and besides the one there is no savior (Sir. 24.18,24; omitted from the text of the NRSV, but kept in footnotes).

In the ancient oral world, there might have been many 'I am' sayings of the god of Israel in which female aspects of the god were much more clearly expressed to their early audience, although they are lost to us. Let us now turn to the Hellenistic world.31 field/land' (sadhay) or 'god of my breasts' (shadhay). Since the word appears mostly in connection to reproduction ('make you fruitful' and 'be fruitful and multiply', similarly in Gen. 28.3; 35.11; 48.3; Exod. 6.3), the last translation seems more probable than the others. Besides, it is the most likely one to be suppressed in later translations. Shadhay (my breasts) also appears in the Song of Songs 1.13; 8.10. 30. Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, 'Wisdom Mythology and the Christological Hymns of the New Testament', in Robert L. Wilken (ed.), Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1975), pp. 17-41; Martin Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus (JSNTSup, 71; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), p. 80; Silvia Schroer, 'The Book of Sophia', in E.S. Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 17-38. 31. I use the term 'Hellenistic world' as referring to 'roughly those large portions of the extended Mediterranean basin characterized by the interaction of Greek language and culture with the variety of local languages and cultures, in the period from Alexander to Constantine, 330 BCE to 300 CE, the 'Greco-Roman world'. See M. Boring, 'Introduction to the English Edition', in M.E. Boring, K. Berger and C. Colpe (eds.), Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995) pp. 11-17, esp. 11-12.

YAMAGUCHI 7 Am' Sayings and Women in Context

49

In the Hellenistic World In the Hellenistic world, as the Greek koine, or common language, became widespread and people's mobility was facilitated by Roman road construction, some regional religions spread widely with the universalizing tendencies of their claims, and prophecies were made vigorously in competition between deities. There were many regional gods, both male and female, but female gods seem to have outnumbered male. Some of them include Aphrodite, Artemis, Athena, Cybele, Demeter, Diana, Eileithyia, Hera, Isis, Kore, Maat, Pithia, Psyche, Roma and Selene. In propagating deities, 'the equality in spirit' offered many women as well as men the opportunity to prophesy actively, and female priests and prophets seem to have been especially active in revealing female deities.32 Among these popular deities, Isis was extraordinarily powerful. Popular from the time of archaic Egypt, she became a universal god in the Hellenistic world. She claimed that all the other names of both female and male gods were only variant names of her own. Diodorus Siculus (first century BCE) writes, '[S]he was the discoverer of many healthgiving drugs and was greatly versed in the science of healing'; she even discovered the drug for immortality, and she not only raised from the dead to immortality her son Horus (Apollo), but also instructed him to become a benefactor of the world.33 There are numerous Isis aretalogies in the T sayings. Some of them eloquently express her eternal and universal authority, while showing the relational language in the context of faith-confession (italics mine): I am Isis, the lord (KUpia/Kupios) of every land... / gave and ordained laws for men, which no one is able to change. I am eldest daughter of Kronos. / am wife and sister of King Osiris... / divided the earth from the heaven. / showed the paths of the stars. I ordered the course of the sun and the moon. / devised business in the sea. / made strong the right. / brought together woman and man. / appointed to women to bring their infants to birth in the tenth month. I ordained that parents should be loved by children... / broke down the governments of tyrants... / established penalties for these who practice injustice.

32. Jonathan Z. Smith, 'Native Cults in the Hellenistic Period', HR 11.1 (1971), pp. 236-49; Fiorenza, 'Wisdom Mythology', p. 28; Ross Shepard Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings: Women's Religions among Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 81. 33. Diodorus Siculus (12 vols.; LCL, 279; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950-67), I, p. 25.

50

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II I decreed mercy to suppliants. With me the right prevails... I set free these in bonds... I overcome Fate.. .34

In the Hellenistic Jewish and Christian Traditions As though competing with such powerful and attractive female deities, the personified female imagery of the Jewish wisdom of god, Sophia, was fully developed by the first century. In her creating and saving relationship to the people of Israel, and to the world, she was coterminous with Yahweh. Scholars assume that a Jewish wisdom tradition lies behind the prologue of the Gospel of John. Although there is no such extant text, we can infer it from some texts in the Hebrew Bible and intertestamental literature, such as Job 28, Proverbs 1-9, Sirach 24, Baruch 3-4,1 Enoch 42, and the Wisdom of Solomon: Wisdom/Sophia is the pre-existent being, and the partner of the god in creation. She called to people to listen to her and sent messengers to every generation to reveal her, so that the people have knowledge to life. She sought a place to dwell in her own created world, but found no place and returned to her heavenly world. Nevertheless, she dwells among the people.35 Some of Sophia's T sayings appear in Jewish and Christian documents from Greco-Roman times.36 Among them, 'I am' sayings in the Thunder, Perfect Mind deserve our special attention in connection with Jewish and Christian women's prophetic activities and their divine visions in the Hellenistic world.37 34. R.S. Kraemer (ed.), Maenads, Martyrs, Matrons, Monastics: A Sourcebook on Women's Religions in the Greco-Roman World (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 368-70. See also Rose Hofman Arthur, The Wisdom Goddess: Feminist Motifs in Eight Nag Hammadi Documents (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984), pp. 161-62; Frank Trombley, 'Prolegomena to the Systemic Analysis of Late Hellenic Religion: The Case of the Aretalogy of Isis at Kyme', in J. Neusner, E.S. Frerichs and A.J. Levine (eds.), Religious Writings and Religious Systems (2 vols.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), I, pp. 95-113; Boring, Berger and Colpe (eds.), Hellenistic Commentary, pp. 242-43,272-75. 35. Elizabeth A. Johnson, 'Jesus, the Wisdom of God: A Biblical Basis for NonAndrocentric Christology', ETL 61 (1985), pp. 261-94; idem, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse (New York: Crossroad, 1992), p. 91; Boring, Berger and Colpe (eds.), Hellenistic Commentary, p. 238; Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus, pp. 81-89, 94-115. 36. For example, Ingvild Saelid Gilhus, 'Trimorphic Protennoia', in E.S. Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 55-65; Karen L. King, 'The Book of Norea, Daughter of Eve', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 66-85. 37. I understand that during the first century and probably to the middle of the second century, some Christians identified themselves as Jewish, since the early Christian movements were part of diverse Jewish movements. So Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale

YAMAGUCHI 'I Am' Sayings and Women in Context

51

In the Thunder, Perfect Mind The Thunder, Perfect Mind is a revelation discourse, included in the Nag Hammadi library (documents discovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in the mid-twentieth century). A striking feature of the document is the repetition of 'I am' sayings with antithetical paradoxical predicates. These sayings are uttered by a female divine figure who proclaims 'I am the wisdom [of the] Greeks and the knowledge of [the] barbarians'. Her 'I am' sayings are voiced also in relational language in which she invites all walks of people to encounter her. The sayings begin in this way (italics mine): / am the first and the last. / am she who is honored and she who is disgraced. / am the harlot and the holy one. I am the woman and the maiden. 7 am and the daughter... / am the barren one and many are her children... 7 am the solace of my labor pains... 7 am the bride and the bridegroom. The one who begot me is my husband, and 7 am the mother of my father, And the sister of my husband, and he is my offspring... 7 am the silence which is unattainable... 7 am she who is called Law and you have called me Lawlessness... 7 am unlearned, and they learn from me... 7 am the audibleness which everyone receives and the word which cannot be understood. 7 am a mute unable to speak, and great is the quantity of my words. Hear me gently and learn about me rigorously.. .38

Here we can see that there are numerous similarities as well as contrasts between the 'I am' sayings in the Thunder and Isis aretalogies. On the one hand, the T of Isis inclusively appropriates and attributes all the attractive and good things to her. On the other hand, the T of the Thunder has both good and bad things attributed to her in antithetical paradoxical juxtaposition. It seems that in competing with the allinclusive universality of Isis, the Thunder's 'I am' sayings intend to express the transcendence of Sophia.39 By attributing both good and bad University Press, 1983), p. 33; Luise Schottroff, Lydia's Impatient Sisters: A Feminist Social History of Early Christianity (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995), p. 14. In this article I use the expression Jewish and Christian when referring to Jewish women and men who include Christians, for the sake of convenience. 38. Arthur, Wisdom Goddess, pp. 218-25. See also Kraemer, Maenads, pp. 371-77. 39. George MacRae thinks that while the Gospel of John does not use this paradoxical form in the 'I am' sayings of the Johannine Jesus, the gospel as a whole

52

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

things as well as the male and the female to one female deity, Sophia, the sayings transcend or ignore the dualistic patriarchal values of good/bad and masculine/feminine. Furthermore, Thunder's 'I am' sayings place both the experience of women's pains (of childbirth and infertility) and the power to comfort these pains within her identity. As Anne McGuire notes, recitations of the 'I am' revelations of the Thunder may have had strong influence on imaging both the divine and the self very differently from the way these are imaged in the world of patriarchal values.40 If the 'I am' sayings of the Thunder were survivals of some very old Jewish views of the deity, as Quispel and Arthur suppose, the sayings seem to present female images of their god, not only as competing with attractive Hellenistic female gods, but also as an example of subversive imagination in the midst of more patriarchally oriented divine language in the Hebrew Bible.41 In the Odes of Solomon T sayings in the extant Syriac manuscript of the Odes of Solomon provide other information regarding Jewish and Christian women's prophetic activities and their divine visions. We have seen the odist's switching between speaking as a human and as the divine, or the ambiguous borderline between the two. Not only this; the odist also imagines the christ and the god in both male and female images freely, and sometimes invertedly. Let us look at hymns that present the christ and the god with the imagery of lactation (italics mine).42 I fashioned their members, and my own breasts I prepared for them, that they might drink my holy milk and live by it (Odes 8.14).

aims at presenting Jesus as a figure of transcendence ('The Ego-Proclamation in Gnostic Sources', in E. Bammel [ed.], The Trial of Jesus [SET, 2.13; London: SCM Press, 1970], pp. 122-34). 40. Anne McGuire also points out that by including the conflicting, though sometimes overlapping, roles of women in the patriarchal society, these 'I am' sayings open 'new possibilities for the critique and reinterpretation of such polarities, the identities they shape, and the values they ascribe to the female gender. At the same time, by paradoxically mixing gender and kinship relations, the sayings undermine patriarchal stratification ('Thunder, Perfect Mind', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 39-54. 41. See Arthur, Wisdom Goddess, p. 157. In the 'Book of Dinanukht' in the Right Ginza, 'I am' sayings of a female divine figure have contrasting and antithetical predicates and show striking parallels with those in the Thunder. See Jorunn J. Buckley, 'Two Female Gnostic Revealers', HR 19.3 (1980), pp. 259-69. 42. Charlesworth, 'Odes of Solomon' 2.742, p. 752; See also Susan Ashbrook Harvey, 'The Odes of Solomon', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 86-98.

YAMAGUCHI 'I Am' Sayings and Women in Context

53

A cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the sweetness of the lord's kindness. The son is the cup, and the father is he who was milked; and the holy spirit is she who milked him; because his breasts were full, and it was undesirable that his milk should be released without purpose. The holy spirit opened her bosom, and mixed the milk of the two breasts of the father. Then she gave the mixture to the generation [world] without their knowing, and those who have received (it) are in the perfection of the right hand (Odes 19.1-5).

The mother and the holy spirit whose breasts are full is god the father as well as the christ. Susan Ashbrook Harvey analyzes: male is more than male—it is also female; female is more than female—it is also male; the divine exceeds any clear boundaries; even the human is more than human... One gender does not and cannot suffice even as metaphor to express identity, especially in the divine persons.

The poetic language of the odes fits well in revealing 'glimpses of the divine without in any way seeking to define or limit that which is beyond human comprehension'.43 If we had access to the oral world of the early Jewish and Christian time, one wonders how many more 'I am' sayings we would hear in which both the god and the christ speak to us—both in male and female figures. Women Prophets in the Jewish and Christian Traditions In the Hebrew Bible and Other Jewish Sources

From the above observations, we can assume that Jewish women should have actively participated in prophecy. When it comes to historical Jewish women figures, however, we do not have much literary evidence. In the Hebrew Bible, we find only a few women introduced as prophets: Miriam (Exod. 15.20), Deborah (Judg. 4.4), Huldah (2 Kgs 22.14; 2 Chron. 34.22) and Noadia (Neh. 6.12-14). Other Jewish sources add Sarah, Hannah, Abigail, Esther and Rebecca as prophets, as well as various manifestations of Sibyl and the Therapeutrides as the Jewish women's circles with prophetic activities.44 These brief references come from very different time periods of the Jewish history, and they may be only the few remaining representatives of many other Jewish women prophets, 43. She also points out a change that occurred in the Syriac literature at the end of the fourth century: the holy spirit that had been previously referred to in feminine terms was changed to be almost exclusively referred to in masculine terms. This is the time when Christianity was established as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Harvey, 'Odes of Solomon', pp. 94-96. 44. See Levine, 'Sibylline Oracles', p. 101.

54

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

whose historical memories have been filtered out in the later male-centered redaction processes.45 In the New Testament The New Testament also mentions only one woman as a prophet: the widow Anna who stayed at the temple (Lk. 2.36). Other than Anna, only a few Jewish and Christian women prophesy: Elizabeth and Mary (Lk. 1.39-55), Philip's four daughters (Acts 21.9) and a woman in the church of Thyatira (Rev. 2.20-23). Unfortunately, the New Testament does not tell us much about these prophets. According to Eusebius, however, Philip's daughters were so famous that the churches of the province of Asia Minor even derived their apostolic origin from them.46 Furthermore, feminist studies have reconstructed some historical figures of women prophets. Through a critical analysis of Paul's rhetoric in his first letter to the Corinthians, Antoinette Wire has reconstructed the historical figures of women prophets in the church. According to Wire, the Corinthian women prophets understood that they were no longer constrained to the old identity of 'male and female'; they obtained their new identity as 'putting on christ', who is the human image of the god. These women considered themselves 'already filled, already rich, already ruling', and

45. Thomas Overholt's analysis is that both prophets and diviners facilitated communication between the divine and human spheres, and that the different labelling was made by the vested interests of those in power (Channels of Prophecy: The Social Dynamics of Prophetic Activity [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989], pp. 126-27). If this is the case, then we may assume that continuous denunciations leveled at women diviners in the Hebrew Bible testify to the continuous activities of dissenting women prophets throughout the time of the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, along with the Sibylline Oracles, a narrative in the Testament of Job speaks for the wide recognition of women's prophetic talents within Jewish circles in the Hellenistic world. In the Testament of Job, probably written between first century BCE and first century CE, Job's three daughters are introduced as being bestowed with prophetic talent; their oracles are written down (Rebecca Lesses, 'The Daughters of Job', in E.S. Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 139-47). Regarding historical Jewish women's religious activities, see Bernadette J. Brooten, 'Early Christian Women and their Cultural Context: Issues of Method in Historical Reconstruction', in A.Y. Collins (ed.), Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship (SBLBSNA, 10; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 65-91; R.S. Kraemer, Hellenistic Jewish Women: The Epigraphical Evidence (SBLSP 1986), pp. 183-200. 46. Eusebius, Ecclesial History 3.39.7-17, quoted from E. Schiissler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983), p. 299.

YAMAGUCHI 7 Am' Sayings and Women in Context

55

were 'eager for manifestation of the spirit' (1 Cor. 4.8; 14.1,12,39).47 Paul had a different opinion, and he attempted to discourage these women in his letters, although his repeated arguments might imply that he was not so successful. Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza's critical rhetorical analysis of the Revelation to John has reconstructed the historical figure of the woman prophet whom the author called Jezebel. In the church of Thyatira, the participation in eating meat used as sacrificial offerings in Roman imperial worship was a lively issue. For poor people, the participation was a survival issue, not only because of their otherwise inadequate diet but also because the social setting was a place where one could find job opportunities and maintain trade connections. The woman prophet and her group argued for poor Christians who participated in eating such meat, saying that participation in such an everyday part of life under Roman colonial rule would be harmless for spirit-filled Christians. The author of the Revelation had a different opinion and fiercely denounced the woman prophet, naming her Jezebel (2 Kgs 9.22; 1 Kgs 18.19), with its associated pejorative sexual connotation. There is no textual evidence, however, that the woman prophet and her group were dissuaded by the author.48 Thus we have strong evidence that women actively participated in prophetic activities and that there were diverse theological opinions, not only in inter-religious contexts but also in intra-religious, or possibly intra-community contexts in the first century. It is unfortunate that we don't have these women's voices on their own. From the second to the third century, however, we have some women prophets' oracles that include 'I am' or T sayings as well as the revelation of the christ in a female figure. They include some of the surviving sayings of Maximilla and Priscilla in the New Prophecy movement, although these sayings survived in their opponents' writings. Let us now turn to them.

47. Antoinette C. Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul's Rhetoric (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1990), pp. 138-40. See also E. Schiissler Fiorenza, 'Rhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in 1 Corinthians7, NTS 33 (1987), pp. 386-403. 48. E. Schiissler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 133-35. The woman prophet's speech might be refracted in some of the many T sayings in Revelation, such as 7 know your works, and your labor, and your patience, and that you cannot bear evil ones' (Rev. 2.2); 7 know your works, and the affliction, and the poverty; but you are rich' (2.9). Regarding Jezebel in the Hebrew Bible, see Gail Yee, 'Jezebel', ABD, III, pp. 848-49.

56

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

In the New Prophecy Movement This movement deserves a closer examination for two reasons. First, in the patriarchalization process of early Christianity, participants in the movement were severely persecuted because of their practice of women's leadership. Second, some scholars think that this movement derived from the Johannine communities, and that the founding members might have been those women who were part of the large number of members who dissented with the author.49 If this is the case, our careful examination of the women in the New Prophecy movement will give us important historical imagination for re-visioning 'I am' sayings as well as re-visioning women in the Johannine communities. The New Prophecy movement emerged in Asia Minor in the second century CE. Initiated by Maximilla and Priscilla, this movement was called the New Prophecy movement by its supporters. Soon they formed a co-leadership of three prophets: Maximilla, Priscilla and Montanus. Its opponents called the group Montanist, identifying the two women coleaders as the followers of the male leader Montanus.50 While the movement's own writings did not survive, there are many denunciations of them in the extant texts of various church fathers. In all of the church fathers' comments, however, there is no real theological criticism, as if they could not find anything to criticize. All they denounced was the fact that women engaged in revelation, prophecy, healing, writing books, and so forth. Tertullian, who was a supporter of the movement, writes during the late second century: We have now amongst us a sister whose lot it has been to be favored with gifts of revelation.. .she converses with angels, and sometimes even with the Lord; she both sees and hears mysterious directions for healing for such as need them.. .she is in the regular habit of reporting to us whatever things she may have seen in vision; for all her communications are examined with the most scrupulous care, in order that their truth may be probed.51

Their revelations were so highly valued by their communities that the communities wrote them down, collected them into books, and circulated them widely. All the other comments come from opponents. 49. Brown, Community, pp. 166-67. 50. Karen Jo Torjesen, 'Reconstruction of Women's Early Christian History', in E.S. Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures (2 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1993), I, pp. 290-310. See also Elaine C. Huber, Women and the Authority of Inspiration: A Reexamination of Two Prophetic Movements from a Contemporary Feminist Perspective (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985), p. 20. 51. Tertullian, On the Soul 9, quoted from Kraemer, Maenads, p. 224.

YAMAGUCHI 'I Am' Sayings and Women in Context

57

Hippolytus (early third century) says that the communities had 'an infinite number of their books' that the oracles of these women prophets were revered more than the christ, and that 'they [the communities] magnify these wretched women above the Apostles and every gift of grace, so that some of them presume to assert that there is in them a something superior to christ'.52 Origen (early third century) writes: '...even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since they come from the mouth of a woman/ Further, women in the movement were denounced because they dared to compose books under women's names.53 Epiphanius (fourth century) writes that not only did the communities 'revere Priscilla and Quintilla as prophets and founders of the movement, but women among them continued to prophesy and served as bishops, presbyters, and so forth'.54 Since these women's writings were utterly destroyed and our only sources are scattered fragments found mostly in their adversaries' writings, it is difficult to reconstruct what their messages were, but we can still assume certain things. They claimed that they were compelled to learn the knowledge of the god by the power of the spirit, and that the power of the spirit is given to every believer. One fragment tells us about the visionary appearance of the christ in a female figure. Some of the surviving sayings of Maximilla and Priscilla (second century) come from the opponents' writings (italics mine): Maximilla: Hear not me; rather, hear christ [through me]... The Lord sent me to be partisan, informer, interpreter of this task, and of the covenant and of the pronouncement; compelled, willingly or unwillingly, to learn the knowledge of the god.55 Priscilla: Appearing in the form of a woman, radiantly robed, christ came to me and implanted wisdom within me and revealed to me that this place Pepuza: is holy, and that here Jerusalem is to come down from heaven. Priscilla: I am driven away as a wolf from sheep. I am not a wolf. lam Word and Spirit and Power.56

52. Hippolytus, Refutation of Heresies 8.12, quoted from Kraemer, Maenads, p. 225. 53. Origen, fragments on I Corinthians, quoted from Huber, Women and the Authority, p. 28 54. Epiphanius, Medicine Box 49.2, quoted from Kraemer, Maenads, p. 163. Epiphanius uses the term 'founder' for Quintilla, about whom we unfortunately do not know much (Kraemer, Maenads, p. 163). 55. Epiphanius, Medicine Box 48, quoted from Kraemer, Maenads, p. 230. 56. Epiphanius, Medicine Box 49.1.3, quoted from Kraemer, Maenads, p. 230; Eusebius, Ecclesiat History 5.16.17 from Huber, Women and the Authority, p. 28. Eusebius, Ecclesiat History 5.18.13, quoted from Huber, Women and the Authority, p. 28; Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, p. 309; Kraemer, Her Share, pp. 161,165.

58

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

In the fourth century, when Christianity became the Roman state religion and those who held power in the church obtained Roman political and military support, persecution of the New Prophecy movement became a deadly practice. Their churches were confiscated, their writings destroyed. It is written that, in the sixth century, they shut 'themselves up in their own sanctuaries...set their churches on fire, so that they were destroyed'.57 We have to be suspicious about how actually 'they were destroyed' in the end. It is even amazing that they could survive until the sixth century under such a horrifying persecution. A brief glance at the New Prophecy movement tells us that their struggle was the struggle against the power that defined women's prophecy and leadership as heresy and silenced women into patriarchal submission. The centuries of constant denunciation and violence against women in the early Christian literature suggest how common and influential such activities of women were in the earliest Christian period.58 Summary From these observations, we may point to three things. First, 'I am' sayings and their deity's exclusive claims were made in the context of competing religious propaganda, imbedded in the cultural milieus. The emphases of these 'I am' sayings are the creating and saving actions of the god for the people. As such, they are relational, faith-confessional statements in their community contexts. Therefore, to take them as objective, logical, and absolute truth-claims is inadequate. Second, the historical background of Jesus' 'I am' sayings is not exclusively male. Throughout the time of the Hebrew Bible, and particularly in the Hellenistic period, both participants and the imaginative divine world of 'I am' sayings seem to have been inclusive of both male and female. Third, there were diverse interpretations of the god and the christ, even among the earliest Christians, which were voiced in their prophetic speeches as well as in a variety of 'I am' sayings. 7 Am' Sayings and Johannine Women How are we to see the relation between the Johannine Jesus' 'I am' sayings and women in the Johannine communities? In the previous section, we observed that prophetic activities were widespread in the Hellenistic world, and religious claims were often articulated in the 'I 57. Procopius, Anecdota, quoted from Huber, Women and the Authority, pp. 62-63. 58. For example, see Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, pp. 285-315; Karen L. King, 'The Gospel of Mary Magdalene7, in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 601-34.

YAMAGUCHI 7 Am' Sayings and Women in Context

59

am' or T sayings of their deities, both male and female. Women seem to have been active participants in Jewish and Christian groups as well as in other religious groups. In accordance with the cultural milieu of the time, early Christians felt free to compose and expand the traditions of Jesus' sayings, and did not differentiate between 'I am' sayings of the historical Jesus and those of the earliest Christian prophets, whose words were understood as the immediate inspiration from the risen Jesus or the christ. Some prophets may well have been freely crossing the borders between divine and human voices as well as between female and male images. Given the pervasive imagery of female deities in the Hellenistic world, in competition with which the Jewish female divine image became well known, it seems more than likely that many of the women prophets, including some Johannine women prophets, identified themselves as Sophia's prophets and co-workers with Jesus. This seems especially so in the Johannine communities because Jesus is presented as the teacher and the friend of the followers (Jn 13.13; 15.14-15). Some scholars consider that the Johannine communities contained a significant group of prophets —both male and female—among its leaders.59 D. Bruce Woll assumes that some charismatic leaders considered themselves not subordinate to Jesus. Some of them were the messengers for new manifestations, their authority being derived from the indwelling spirit. Woll suggests that the expression that disciples will do 'greater works' than those performed by Jesus (Jn 14.12) came from the self understanding of such leaders in the Johannine communities. For the author of the gospel, however, it was a misunderstanding, and the purpose of the gospel's peculiar introduction of the Spirit Paraclete is to subordinate the community-leadership to Jesus, as he is interpreted by the author.60 A similar observation is offered by M. Eugene Boring, who suggests that the purpose of writing the gospel was to 'contain' the continuing and expanding voices of the risen Jesus in the narrative, keeping them from floating freely further. That is, it sought to 'contain' only certain voices, as selected by the author, while disqualifying all the other different prophetic voices and their further developments.61 59. See Boring, Continuing Voices of Jesus, p. 77; Sandra M. Schneiders, 'Women in the Fourth Gospel and the Role of Women in the Contemporary Church', BTB 12 (1982), pp. 35-45; Adele Reinhartz, 'The Gospel of John', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 561-600. 60. Woll, Johannine Christianity, pp. 91,95. Alan Culpepper says that Jesus' speech is 'contaminated' by authorial speech pattern (Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983], p. 40). 61. Boring, Continuing Voices of Jesus, pp. 39, 267.

60

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Then, it is possible that some voices of women prophets were interwoven as part of the gospel. I suspect it is likely, however, that more exclusions than inclusions, more suppressions than articulations, and more refractions than reflections occurred to women prophets' messages in the redaction processes. Some of the fragments of their messages, too well grounded in the communities, may be embedded in marginalized or obscured ways in the gospel. Some of the prophetic 'I am' sayings of the Johannine Jesus, or some of his farewell discourses (chs. 14-17) may derive originally from these women's prophetic voices, now fragmented or refracted in the text. Let us now take a closer look at Johannine Jesus' 'I am' sayings with predicates. If the 'I am' sayings without predicates evoked the images and the presence of Yahweh to the audience, what do those with predicates tell us? The predicates presented are the bread of life (6.35,41, 48, 51), the light (8.12), the one witnessing myself (8.18), from above (8.24), not of this world (8.4), the door (10.7,9), the good shepherd (10.11, 14), the resurrection and the life (11.25), the way (14.6) and the true vine (15.1, 5). The imaginative world, is not exclusively male. For example, women were the primary care-takers of the life (birthing and nursing), the bread, and possibly even of the light by keeping the fire for heat. Women were also workers in the field, be it as shepherds or in the vineyard.62 Thus, all are metaphors that are familiar to Palestinian agrarian life and Jewish religious experiences, probably reflecting the communities' social position and the daily experiences of both women and men. On the other hand, the adjectives attached to these predicates, such as 'good' and 'true', may imply the existence of similar claims made in competing religious traditions. These are not the only examples of pertinent metaphors. The early audience may have been hearing some echoes between the metaphors of these 'I am' sayings and the images of Sophia in the Jewish wisdom traditions. Martin Scott observes that the Johannine Jesus' 'I am' sayings are 'thoroughly rooted in Sophia speculation' ,63 According to him, by the first century CE, not only was the image of Sophia developed into 'a fullblown expression of the god in female terminology',64 but also the concepts of ooc()ia and Xoyos (word) became interchangeable within some Jewish circles. While the image of Sophia was attractive to the Hellenistic audiences who were familiar with images of various female deities, the 62. Schottroff, Lydia's Impatient Sisters, pp. 80-98. 63. Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus, p. 161. 64. Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus, p. 81.

YAMAGUCHI 'I Am' Sayings and Women in Context

61

term Aoyos was also a familiar and attractive one in the Greek-speaking philosophical environment. Thus, in the prologue of the Gospel of John, Jesus is introduced by the male term Aoyos—but in the image of Sophia from Jewish wisdom traditions. Then, in the body of the gospel the theme of Jesus Sophia, or Jesus revealing Sophia, was worked out, most distinctively in the 'I am7 sayings. This includes the image of Sophia as the provider of sustenance, bread and water or wine (Prov. 9.5; Sir. 24.21); the vine (Sir. 24); the door/access to knowledge of life (Prov. 3.1618; 8.34-35; Sir. 4.12); the following in the way of Sophia to salvation (Sir. 24.16-19); the everlasting light (Eccl. 2.13; Wis. 7.26-30); and the giver of life/the gift of eternal life (Prov. 3.16-17; 8.25,32-35; 9.11; Sir. 6.26; Wis. 8.13). Thus, Jesus' 'I am' sayings echo the principal themes of the Prologue—light, life, and truth—that strongly reflect the Jewish wisdom traditions.65 May it be that the Johannine women's prophetic voices are reflected or contained in these 'I am' sayings, evoking the presence of Sophia? Surely, for the audience in the Hellenistic world, these sayings were more strongly reminiscent of Sophia's invitation than for those of us today who are so used to having the same sayings evoke only the male imagery of Yahweh. At the same time, we may need to ask another question. If there were some in the Johannine communities who thought of themselves as working in co-ministry with Jesus, as children/ messengers of Sophia, is it not more likely that there were additional 'I am' sayings? And perhaps were they not only attributed to Jesus but also to the christ, using broader images in both male and female terms, as well as attributed directly to Sophia herself? We have seen that the Jewish-Christian odist of the Odes of Solomon could imagine both the christ and the god in female images and reveal them in the 'I am' sayings. We have also seen that women prophets in the New Prophecy movement imaged the christ not only as a male figure but also as a female figure. Should we not expect that the Johannine women had much more 'I am' sayings, some of which are specifically attuned to women's experiences and subversive to patriarchal religious imaginations, such as those in the Thunder? It seems that many of these 'I am' sayings of women prophets would have been filtered out in the redaction processes of the writing of the Gospel of John. This does not mean, however, that messages of women prophets were marginal in their first-century communities' oral culture. We have seen 65. Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus, pp. 83-173. See also Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, pp. 133-34; Davies, Rhetoric, p. 87; Elaine Wainwright, 'Jesus Sophia: An Image Obscured in the Johannine Prologue', Bible Today 36.2 (1998), pp. 92-97.

62

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

that Paul repeatedly tried to persuade or silence women prophets in Corinth. The author of the book of Revelation fiercely denounced the woman prophet in Thyatira. We have abundant evidence of the silencing of women in the New Testament as well as in other early Christian literature. Furthermore, it took centuries of severe persecution to destroy the New Prophecy movement. The 'I am' sayings of women prophets, either slightly or very different from those written in the gospel, may well have been vigorously delivered and strongly supported by women, and perhaps also by men, in the Johannine communities as well as in other Christian communities. Concluding Remarks I have argued that 'I am' sayings should be heard as prophetic utterances in the culture of corporate personality as well as in the context of competing religious propaganda. In this way, I hope to have illuminated the relational aspect as well as the cultural imbeddedness of these sayings in their historical matrix. For both the author and audience —consenting or dissenting—the Johannine Jesus' 'I am' sayings were faith-confessions in the midst of competing religious propaganda in the Hellenistic world. These sayings may be presenting Jesus as the best agent of the father as well as the true revealer of Sophia. For some believers, Jesus is one with the father and Sophia herself in their concept of corporate personality. Such a presentation would not discourage, but rather invite, everyone to follow Jesus the teacher and the friend, to join in the extended family of the god, Sophia. We should hear them as such, but not read them through the lens of later christological dogma. The Johannine Jesus' 'I am' sayings do not offer a firm grounding for later exclusivist, absolutist, and universalist christology. I also hope to have illustrated the diverse ways of understanding the god and the christ that existed among the earliest Christians, even among those in the Johannine communities. If the Johannine author attempted to subordinate everyone to his/their Jesus the christ, there were other voices, some of which probably had more egalitarian understandings of Jesus as well as broader images of the christ. Robert A. Kraft says, That which resulted when a certain type of Christianity achieved official status in the Roman Empire of the fourth century.. .should not be used to judge the earlier centuries.'66 Otherwise, 66. Robert Kraft, 'The Multiform Jewish Heritage of Early Christianity7, in J. Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults (4 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975), III, pp.174-99, esp. p. 176.

YAMAGUCHI 'I Am' Sayings and Women in Context

63

we will end up with appreciating only the voices of the historical winners in power struggles, while ignoring or forgetting all the diverse and resisting voices in our religious traditions. Searching for suppressed and marginalized women's voices will be of crucial importance in the shaping of our new christologies and sophialogies.67

67. This paper is expanded from a section of my dissertation, 'Revisioning Martha and Mary', Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, MA, 1996, published by Orbis Books, 2002. I would like to express my gratitude to my friend and editor Bonnie Woods, who edited this paper.

ABIDING IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL: A CASE STUDY IN FEMINIST BIBLICAL THEOLOGY* Dorothy Lee Introduction Feminist exegesis has tended to focus attention on two aspects of the biblical text. In the first place, it is concerned with questions of method. How can the Bible be read in a way that empowers rather than disempowers women, breaking the androcentric stranglehold that has bound both the text and its interpreters? How might women, once excluded from the interpretative task, begin to participate from the basis of their own experience rather than patriarchal presuppositions? What theoretical framework might such a re-reading require? Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza has given perhaps the most thorough response to these questions, developing a methodology arising from women's historical and political experience of marginalization. The hermeneutical methodology she has developed is based on a revisioned historical criticism that endeavors to enter the text imaginatively and critically, making contact with women's hidden traditions. Employing a 'hermeneutic of suspicion', Fiorenza's model incorporates remembrance and re-actualization of women's reclaimed history in the struggle to develop a community of equality and liberation.1 This struggle has led, for her, to the breaking down of canonical boundaries and the widening of the canon to include other texts from the ancient world that contain resources for women's liberation.2 This hermeneutical model—whether or not it owes allegiance to the work of Fiorenza—has three distinctive characteristics: its interest in the text as a literary and theological whole is generally secondary to its interest in the world behind the text, despite some rhetoric to the con.

* Originally published in Pacifica 10 (1997), pp. 123-36. Reprinted by permission. 1. E.S. Fiorenza, Bread Not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist Biblical Interpretation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1985), pp. 15-22. 2. See Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, Searching the Scriptures: a Feminist Commentary (2 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1994), II, pp. 1-14.

LEE Abiding in the Fourth Gospel

65

trary; it regards women's experience as the ultimate norm for authority in interpreting the text, creating arguably an 'alternative magisterium',3 and it uses 'suspicion' as a prime exegetical tool in order to expose and critique the patriarchal bias assumed to lie within the text.4 Secondly, feminist exegesis has also been interested in the presence or absence of female characters and their mode of presentation within specific biblical texts. The argument here is that women in the Bible have been ignored or marginalized. A feminist re-reading examines various biblical documents in order to draw women from the shadows, exploring the roles they play (or don't play) and assessing their literary and theological function. Here the enemy is the unconscious androcentrism of both the text itself and its interpreters. Already perched precariously on the edges of the text, women have been pushed over the cliff by commentators from early Christian times onwards. As ancestors of Israel, judges, prophets, disciples, missionaries and apostles, women are almost invisible; as part of the company of God's people they are virtually left out of the reckoning. Thus the task of feminist exegesis, in this view, is to bring to front stage the female characters of the text, to draw attention to their absence, and to examine the textual presuppositions that shape their characterization.5 This work of retrieval for scholarship in general, and for feminist theology in particular, has been of immense importance. Yet a significant limitation is the lack of attention to biblical theology—in particular the theological diversity inherent in the biblical text—and a tendency to foreclose on the canon as a fruitful resource for women's theology. Here I understand 'biblical theology' to be the study of the various theologies 3. Pamela Dickey Young, Feminist Theology/Christian Theology: In Search of Method (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1990), p. 81. 4. According to Fiorenza, the purpose of the women's commentary Searching the Scriptures is to 'scrutinize and interrogate the scriptures to uncover their "crimes" of silencing and marginalization' (hermeneutics of suspicion) and to 'seek to bring to the fore and make audible again the subjugated voices and suppressed traditions that have left traces in ancient writings' (hermeneutics of remembrance) (Fiorenza, Searching the Scriptures, II, p. 4). For a critique of suspicion as a feminist hermeneutical tool, see Dorothy A. Lee, 'Reclaiming the Sacred Text-Christian Feminism and Spirituality', in Joy Morny and Penelope Magee (eds.), Claiming our Rites: Studies in Religion by Australian Women Scholars (Sydney: Australian Association for the Study of Religion, 1994), pp. 80-84; and, especially, Dorothy A. Lee, 'Beyond Suspicion? The Fatherhood of God in the Fourth Gospel', Pacifica 8 (1995), pp. 140-54. 5. See Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (eds.), The Women's Bible Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1992), p. xviii, whose editorial policy is to include 'portions of the Bible that deal explicitly with female characters and symbols but also sections that bear on the condition of women more generally'.

66

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

found within Scripture.6 Feminist work on the Gospel of John, for example, has tended to concentrate on the female characters of the gospel, a trend initiated by Raymond Brown. The Fourth Gospel is arguably the most sympathetic of all the gospels in its portrayal of women.7 This is the gospel in which key narrative moments are dependent on female discipleship. Women are present at the beginning and end of Jesus' ministry as faithful disciples (the mother of Jesus, 2.1-11; 19.25-27, the latter including Mary Magdalene and two others);8 they act in 'apostolic' ways (the Samaritan woman, 4.1-42; Mary Magdalene, 20.1-18); they make confession of their faith in word and deed (Martha and Mary of Bethany, 11.27-39; 12.1-8); they are exemplary in their openness to seek and find, no matter how painful the search (Samaritan woman, 4.1-42; Magdalene, 20.1-18).9 This kind of investigation is of great value in challenging the androcentrism and narrowness of 'malestream' interpretation. Nevertheless, study of female characterization is not the only or even the most reliable guide to a text's meaning.10 It does not automatically follow that a 6. To speak of 'biblical theology' risks entangling us in definitions. Are we referring more narrowly to the theology contained in Scripture or more broadly to a theology that arises from, and moves beyond Scripture? The problem is complicated by the biblical theology movement associated particularly with neo-orthodoxy and Karl Barth, which understood the term in a specific sense. In this article I understand biblical theology to refer to the various theologies found within Scripture that are to be valued for their diversity, whatever schema we may find to hold them together. Further on this, see James Barr, 'Biblical Theology', IDBSup, pp. 104-11. 7. See Adele Reinhartz, 'Gospel of John' in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, p. 594, who describes John from one perspective as 'proto-feminist'. 8. Assuming that Jn 19.25 lists four, rather than three women: the mother of Jesus, the sister of Jesus' mother (who surely cannot also be called Mary), Mary the wife (mother?) of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. 9. Raymond E. Brown, 'Roles of Women in the Fourth Gospel', in R.E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), pp. 183-98. See Sandra M. Schneiders, 'Women in the Fourth Gospel and the Role of Women in the Contemporary Church', BTB12 (1982), pp. 35-45; Turid Karlsen Seim, 'Roles of Women in the Gospel of John', in L. Hartman and B. Olsson (eds.), Aspects on the Johannine Literature (ConBNT, 18; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1987), pp. 56-73; Martin Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus (JSNTSup, 71; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), pp. 174-240. See also: Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (London: SCM Press, 2nd edn, 1994), pp. 323-33; Gail R. O'Day, 'John', in Newsom and Ringe (eds.), Women's Bible Commentary, pp. 294-302; Reinhartz, 'Gospel of John', pp. 561-600; and Sjef van Tilborg, Imaginative Love in John (BIS, 2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993), pp. 167-208. 10. To argue for a revival of biblical theology for feminist exegesis is related to

LEE Abiding in the Fourth Gospel

67

literary text that gives scant or dubious attention to women has no positive contribution to make to feminist theological discourse. Clearly the two aspects are connected, since to sever completely the link between the characters in a text and the symbolic universe in which they are embedded — to drive a wedge between form and content—would lead to a kind of literary docetism. Yet analysis of female characters is not the only gateway into the text; meaning cannot be made to hang on one literary dimension. As Adele Reinhartz has pointed out, more is at stake than the presentation of women characters, whether they are portrayed in positive or negative terms: the feminist reading of scripture goes far beyond the words about and images of women... Rather, it seeks to expose the question of liberation not only from the perspective of women qua women but from the point of view of the marginalized, whether defined in terms of gender, race, class, sexual orientation, physical capability, or in any other way.11

Ancient texts—particularly biblical ones — are susceptible to a 'surplus of meaning' that cannot be too hastily foreclosed. A focus on biblical theology can open the text to its manifold meanings, even where women and women's concerns are not at the forefront of the text's intentions.12 If we understand tradition as the dynamic interchange between past and present, then feminist biblical theology is vital for the creative passing on of tradition. Hermeneutics is not about immediacy. Feminist theology has the difficult task of bringing together in critical yet creative ways the ancient past and women's present—a past that is radically different from, yet not necessarily and not even in all respects antipathetic to feminist struggle. This is the task of theology for which biblical theology is a major resource. We need now more than ever to re-read the past in a theological rather than narrowly gendered fashion if we are to find, like the lost coin, a rich vein of meaning for women's and men's lives. issues of reader response. Even if it can be demonstrated that the implied reader, as an objective component of the text, is conceived in masculine terms, the question of gender remains open. The oft-quoted statement that the Bible was written 'by men, for men' is simplistic in this regard. If the actual reader (female as well as male) plays a role in the unfolding of meaning—if interpretation is a dialogue created by the fusion of two horizons — then the issue of gendered reading becomes, from a feminist viewpoint at least, much less problematical. Women readers are not bound to read as men. 11. Reinhartz, 'Gospel of John', pp. 594-95. 12. See, for example, the extension of the 'prophetic-liberating' strand of biblical theology to the particularities of contemporary women's experience, in Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a feminist Theology (Boston: Beacon Press, 1983), pp. 22-33.

68

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II Abiding in the Fourth Gospel

My specific concern in this paper is with the Johannine concept of abiding: an example of biblical theology that, in my view, has much to offer feminist theology. An examination of a theological concept like this may enable women and men to read the text, not just through female characterization, but also through the lens of biblical theology. The word 'abide' (JJEVSI v) is scattered throughout John's gospel, occurring some 40 times, with a significant number of instances clustered in the Farewell Discourse (see also the Johannine epistles).13 'Abiding' is an important theological term in the Fourth Gospel, often occurring in the formulaic expression neveiv EV, but it is also used in the colloquial sense of 'stay' or 'remain';14 in some instances it is difficult to determine whether the ordinary or the extraordinary meaning is required.15 In its theological sense JJEVSIV overlaps with other Johannine conceptions, such as unity, oneness, love and indwelling.16 The verb MBVEIV first appears in the opening chapter of the gospel. In the context of the witness of John the Baptist, who testifies to Jesus' identity and sets in motion the gathering of the first disciples, M^VEIV is used to describe both the Spirit's presence with Jesus (1.32-33) and the meaning of discipleship (1.38-39). Departing from the synoptic tradition, John sees discipleship primarily in terms of witnessing and abiding (see Mk 1.16-20 and parallels). While the ordinary meaning seems uppermost, the verb JJEVEIV is carefully and theologically nuanced in the light of later usage.17 The first two disciples ask Jesus where he 'stays' 13. On the Old Testament background of the term, see F. Hauck, 'MEVCO', TDNT, 4, p. 574, and Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB, 29-29A; 2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1966), I, pp. 510-11; also Jiirgen Heise, Bleiben: Menein in den johanneischen Schriften (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1967), pp. 22-28. Both the sense of God (God's word, dominion, covenant, counsel) abiding for ever (e.g., LXX [pevEiv] Ps. 9.8; 111.3, 9; Isa. 40.8; Wis. 7.27) and God's indwelling in Zion (e.g., LXX [KCXTaoKrivouv] Ezek. 43.7; Zech. 2.11; Joel 4.17; Sir. 24.4) are relevant for John's heightened usage of M^veiv and its synonyms. 14. Further on the two broad meanings, see Heise, Bleiben, pp. 47-103. 15. Heise, Bleiben, p. 44, identifies 13 such uses-for example, Jesus 'staying' in one geographical place or another (Jn 2.12; 7.9; 10.40; 11.6; 11.54; 14.25). The issue of whether or not the Beloved Disciple will remain (abide) until Jesus comes may also have theological overtones but most probably the ordinary meaning is sufficient (Jn 21.22-23). 16. On the semantic problems of locating concepts in single words, unconnected to context, see James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: University Press, 1961), esp. 206-62 17. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (London: SPCK, 2nd edn, 1978),

LEE Abiding in the Fourth Gospel

69

(abides), the same verb used of the Spirit's descent in the vision of John the Baptist (1.32-33); the disciples then 'stay' (abide) in the place where Jesus 'stays' (abides); his abiding place is linked both to the Spirit who 'stays' (abides) on him and to the disciples with whom he will abide for ever through the Spirit-Paraclete (see 14.17). As the gospel narrative progresses, the meaning of abiding unfolds. In terms that recall the gathering of the first disciples where the two disciples abide with Jesus, Jesus 'stays' (abides) with the Samaritan villagers for two days (4.40). Though effectively Gentiles (4.9), they too enter a relationship of 'abiding' with Jesus, though this time in his abiding with them.18 Abiding moreover has sacramental overtones: the 'Son of Man' both gives and is the food that 'abides to eternal life' in contrast to mortal food that perishes (6.27); the eucharist is a dramatic symbol of the reciprocal abiding between Jesus and the disciples (6.56). True discipleship means abiding in Jesus' word (8.31; see 1 Jn 2.14, 24), moving beyond a superficial faith that sees the outer 'signs' but fails to perceive their inner, symbolic meaning. Abiding means dwelling not in darkness but in light (12.46; see also 1 Jn 2.10). Abiding is about the realization of discipleship as a present reality, yet also with a future dimension, articulated in the substantive MOVT] at 14.2. Abiding is dependent on the indwelling of the father and Jesus who will together make an 'abiding place' within the heart of the believer (|j6vr|V, 14.23). As an image of discipleship, abiding is most explicitly enunciated in the 'extended metaphor' of the vine and the branches (15.1-17).19 Here the language of abiding multiplies,20 converging on the core symbolism of the vine, which, it now appears, underlies the theological usage of the

p. 181, notes (on 1.38): 'Nothing is more important than to know where Jesus abides and may be found'; see also Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), p. 100. 18. Barrett, St. John, p. 243. 19. On the structure of the Farewell Discourse and particularly the literary classification of Jn 15.1-17, see Fernando F. Segovia, The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 123-35. Segovia's classification avoids the more precise synoptic notion of parable and the vague 'mashal', allowing at the same time for allegorical elements. In terms of composition history, Segovia argues that this section is the last part of the Farewell Discourse to be included and that it reflects a later context (closer to the Johannine Epistles) in which members of the Johannine community are vulnerable to apostasy (pp. 326-28). Against this, it could be argued that the metaphor is integral to the gospel's use of Meveiv and thus already in the 'background' of the text from the first. 20. The verb is used 15 times, comprising just over a third of the instances in the gospel.

70

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

word in earlier chapters of the gospel.21 Disciples are dependent on Jesus as the source of life just as branches 'abide in' (JJBVEI v EV) the vine in order to bear fruit (15.1-8); with pruning/cleansing, the fruit produced by abiding is love, a love predicated on radical friendship between Jesus and his disciples (15.9-17).22 Although the vine image expresses primarily the relationship between disciples and Jesus, it is extended to include inter-communion: the friendship and love between disciples, and the union within the community of faith. Abiding in this sense is not passive or static. The vine is a powerful image of fecundity and life, the joyful flourishing of human beings in community: Individuals in the community will prosper only insofar as they recognize themselves as members of an organic unit. No individual is a free agent, but is one branch of an encircling and intertwining vine whose fruitfulness depends on abiding with Jesus.

The pruning of the branches by the vine-dresser is a metaphor of the interplay between suffering and growth, both of which are necessary for the community to thrive. Without adherence to the vine, without pruning and sculpting by the vine-dresser, the branches wither and die; they die of isolation and neglect and their only use is as firewood. Thus in the mutual abiding formula—where the imagery of the vine begins to break down24—true disciples are those who abide in Jesus as the source of life and in whom Jesus himself reciprocally abides (see also 1 Jn 3.24; 4.13,15-16). The image of abiding as love and union among disciples is also found, though in a different form, at the foot of the cross, where the Beloved Disciple takes the mother of Jesus into his own home (sis TQ \'5ia, Jn 19.25-27). Though couched in different language —the language of familial intimacy and union—abiding, in the sense of homecoming, 21. Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus, pp. 157-8, points out the parallel between Sophia and Jesus in Jn 151-17. Sophia, who 'abides7 within herself (nevouocc ev aurf], Wis. 7.27), is at one with God and enters into God's friends, transforming their lives. Further on Sophia in John's gospel, see Elizabeth A. Johnson, 'Jesus, the Wisdom of God: A Biblical Basis for Non-androcentric Christology', ETL 61 (1985), pp. 261-94 (284-89), and idem, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse (New York: Crossroad, 1992), pp. 96-99. 22. See Sandra M. Schneiders, 'The Foot Washing (John 13.1-20): An Experiment in Hermeneutics', Ex Auditu 1 (1985), pp. 140-43, for a feminist reading of these verses in the light of the footwashing. On John's language for friendship, see van Tilborg, Imaginative Love, pp. 110-68, esp. pp. 148-54. 23. O'Day, 'John', p. 303. 24. R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to John (3 vols.; London: Burns & Gates, 1982), III, p. 99.

LEE Abiding in the Fourth Gospel

71

becomes a profound symbol of life and community arising from the death of Jesus. This image coheres with that of the vine: suffering and dying are a kind of 'pruning' that bring about life and growth. Thus the discipleship of abiding relates also to the reality of the cross. Not only disciples but also Jesus himself shares in the mutuality of abiding. Jesus' place in the divine household as 'son' is an abiding one (8.35); his death does not negate this abiding, but on the contrary confirms it through the exaltation and glorification of the cross (12.36). Both the Spirit and the father abide in him (14.10,17; see 1.23-33); and he himself abides with disciples because God abides in him (15.9-10). The unity he shares with the father is the ground of this abiding, which is a relation of 'mutual or reciprocal immanence' (see 3.35; 6.57; 10.30,38b; 14.9-11,20; 17.20-23).25 The works of Jesus are themselves the concrete manifestation of an indwelling that is not static but dynamic, expressing the shared life of father and son (see 5.17-30).26 In this sense, abiding has a vertical dimension that is theologically prior to the horizontal dimension, though the two are ultimately inseparable. The mutual abiding of father and son is the source, archetype and pattern for the abiding of the community.27 This divine abiding creates a centripetal force that draws human beings out of isolation into community. What disciples are drawn into is a preexisting union and communion within the divine. Disciples are to abide within the love that both undergirds and encircles the world (3.16; see 1 Jn 3.17; 4.12), an abiding that, as we have seen, is dependent wholly on Jesus (14.1-11). The peculiar form of this reciprocity is expressed in Jesus' great prayer, in terms that are synonymous with the language of abiding. Disciples are gathered into the 'I in you and you in me' of Jesus' affinity with God, so that it now embraces disciples in the same exchange of love: 'I in them' and 'they in us' and 'I in them and you in me' (17.23; see 6.56; 15.5). Indeed, Jesus himself is the icon of both dimensions of abiding, the divine and the human, since in his own flesh he is the abiding place of God among people (1.14), the one who establishes an I-Thou union of persons, the embodiment of divine indwelling.28 25. C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni versity Press, 1953, p. 187; see also Brown, Gospel According to John, I, p. 511. 26. Dodd, Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel p. 194. 27. The dominant androcentric imagery of father-son in the Fourth Gospel presents obvious difficulties for feminist theology. On the strengths and limitations of John's use of the father symbol, see Lee, 'Beyond Suspicion?', pp. 145-53. 28. Jan Gray, 'Jesus and Women-The Johannine Community Responds', unpublished paper, pp. 6-11, links the language of abiding with the Johannine metaphor of birth (Jn 1.13, 18; 3.3-9; 16.21), identifying womb imagery in the notion of indwelling.

72

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

John also uses pevei v in an ironical sense where it expresses the opposite of discipleship as abiding. God's anger abides on those who reject the son and choose death over life (3.36). God's word fails to abide with the religious authorities in Jerusalem (5.38) in contrast to disciples (see 8.31; 15.7) and, by implication, God's judgment remains on them. The sin of the Pharisees abides (9.41) because of their illusion of sight—because they believe they alone have access to the light and persecute those who challenge them. The seed that will not submit to 'death and burial' is unable to bear fruit; it abides alone, solitary and infertile (12.24). Whereas abiding means openness to light and life, non-abiding means closure against the light; in the image of the vine, the failure to abide means disconnection and death (15.6). To reject true abiding is thus to condemn oneself to isolation and disconnection: everything that is the opposite of life, affiliation, community. This is nothing but the rejection of the Logos, who, having come to 'his own' home (TOC 'iSia, 1.11) is tragically rejected by 'his own' people (oi \'5ioi). Those who reject life find instead an ironical 'abiding': an acute sense of separation, a solitary descent into darkness, a languishing in sin and death (see 1 Jn 3.14-15). This raises the question of whether abiding, in John's gospel, also creates opposition. In literary terms, the central text for abiding, the image of the vine (15.1-17), is immediately followed by the hatred of the 'world' (KOOJJOS, 15.18-16.4a).29 In these verses we encounter the other face of abiding, or rather the consequences of true abiding. Images of friendship, union and love are now replaced by the language of hatred, rejection and persecution.30 The community that abides within the divine love is the same community that is hated by the 'world' and that suffers precisely because of its identity—its belonging to the light.31 The 'world' opposes the community that abides; it is hostile to everything for which believers stand. Yet the community's sense of abiding is not crushed by such hostility. On the contrary, persecution intensifies the symbolic perception of belonging and abode. For John, the solidarity of believers, while in one way cutting across the boundaries of community (airoou29. See Segovia, Farewell of the Word, pp. 179-212. 30. Barrett captures the nuanced sense of 'the world' in the Fourth Gospel, commenting on Jesus' prayer at Jn 17.9: 'John, having stated (3.16) the love of God for the Koopos, does not withdraw from that position in favor of a narrow affection for the pious... But to pray for the Koopos would be almost an absurdity, since the only hope for the Koopos is precisely that it should cease to be the Koopos '. 31. From a socio-historical perspective, this issue relates also to the sectarian nature of the Johannine community. For a consensus view on this, see D. Rensberger, Overcoming the World: Politics and Community in the Gospel of John (London: SPCK, 1988), pp. 15-36.

LEE Abiding in the Fourth Gospel

73

16.2), in another way is strengthened: the believing community experiences the same rejection as do Jesus and his father. From this perspective, opposition is arguably a catalyst for abiding: for the Johannine writer, it creates ironically the very parameters in which love and intimacy thrive.32 To sum up: abiding is a quality of the divine realm, an aspect of eternal life that in John's gospel is offered to human beings. As a divine quality, abiding expresses the intimacy and reciprocity that, for John, lie at the heart of the universe. The relationship between God and Jesus, father and son, is the symbol and archetype of abiding. Discipleship is not a selfgenerating relationship with God or with others, but rather entry into a divine, pre-existing relationship through the Spirit-Paraclete. To be a disciple means to be in union with Jesus, and through Jesus with God — a union that is reciprocal and oriented towards community: the antithesis of separation and seclusion. Abiding is not grounded in external achievement or action, but derives energy from an interior source, a wellspring, an indwelling that is intimate and personal. The symbolism of the vine signifies growth and fecundity, mutuality and homecoming, friendship and self-giving. Yet abiding, as a force for life, does not bypass suffering and death: the vine-dresser prunes, the world pours scorn, the seed 'dies', the son creates community with his dying breath. Having outlined in brief something of the significance of M^VEI v in the Gospel of John, we turn finally to the issue of why the Johannine concept of abiding is significant for feminist theology. A Feminist Theology of Abiding In an essay entitled The Fecundity of the Caress', French feminist Luce Irigaray speaks of the way in which woman in relationship to man is reduced to the status of object, thus 'remaining passive within the field of activity of a subject who wills himself to be the sole master of desire'.33 Irigaray sees this objectification in the distinction between woman as beloved and woman as female lover, in which the woman in relation to the man is 'necessarily an object, not a subject with a relation like his, to time'.34 Conceived as the beloved, woman is reduced to 'animality,

32. This is in fact the pattern of the narrative of the man born blind in John 9; opposition and hostility ironically lead the man to faith. 33. Luce Irigaray, 'The Fecundity of the Caress: A Reading of Levinas, Totality and Infinity', in eadem, An Ethics of Sexual Difference (trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993), p. 206. 34. Irigaray, 'Fecundity', p. 194.

74

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

perversity or a kind of pseudo-childhood' where her subjectivity is diminished.35 Irigaray here is offering a feminist critique of the distortion of subjectobject relations fostered by the Enlightenment preoccupation with strict objectivity, as a consequence of which women have been exploited and marginalized in the masculine 'voyage toward an autistic transcendence'.36 This has been accompanied by a gender dualism and hierarchy in which masculinity has been polarized from femininity, exalting independence, autonomy and detachment above intimacy and attachment. Feminist philosopher of science Evelyn Fox Keller sees this hierarchical duality in terms of masculine separation and distance against feminine subjectivity and connection, affecting perception not just of women but also nature: the division between objective fact and subjective feeling is sustained by the association of objectivity with power and masculinity, and its remove from the world of women and love. In turn, the disjunction of male from female is sustained by the association of masculinity with power and objectivity, and its disjunction from subjectivity and love.37

This cultural paradigm of subject-object lies at the heart of what Western feminism identifies as patriarchal: the 'severance of subject from object', the illusion of a neutral and disconnected objectivity,38 the objectification and thus domination of some human beings by others, and the implied hierarchical scale of values. In general theological terms, this disjunction inscribes the need for redemption from sin and evil. For feminist theology, redemption is relational and thus emancipatory, establishing renewed relations within the created world, and between Creator and creation. Relationship and mutuality are central to the feminist vision of salvation. Viewed from this perspective, the Johannine portrait of abiding as the paradigm of redemption is of particular relevance. First and foremost, abiding dissolves the subject-object relation between human and divine. This dissolution begins within the divine realm that, as we have seen, is

35. Luce Irigaray, 'Questions to Emmanuel Levinas', in M. Whitford (ed.), The Irigaray Reader (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991), p. 187. 36. Irigaray, 'Fecundity', p. 210. 37. Evelyn Fox Keller, Reflections on Gender and Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), p. 8. 38. Keller, Gender and Science, p. 117. Keller makes a valuable distinction between authentic objectivity, which implies our connectedness to the world of objects, and 'objectivist epistemology, in which truth is measured by its distance from the subjective' (p. 87).

LEE Abiding in the Fourth Gospel

75

the archetype of all relations. Abiding is an expression of the divine life revealed in the Johannine Jesus, who lives in profound union with God, the source of all being. God's nature is thus revealed in the Fourth Gospel as relational and immanent.39 The implicitly trinitarian shape of revelation is not self-sufficient and isolating, but the source and heart of intimacy. Into this abiding, human beings are drawn not as objects but subjects. The mutuality of the language of abiding is important here. The divine is not presented in this gospel as paternalistic and condescending; rather, the love of God for the world is vulnerable and self-giving (1.1112; 3.16), calling disciples not into slavish or even childish obedience and servitude but intimate friendship (15.15). Through indwelling, human beings come to relate to God as subject to subject; indeed they find authentic subjectivity in the encounter that, for John, lies at the heart of redemption. The divine 'I am' stands in personal relation to human becoming, so that human beings find in themselves a subjective 'I am',40 a sense of selfhood that is itself the gift of an incarnate God. Abiding defines the divine-human relationship as one of immanence: subject to subject, face-to-face, I-Thou, redeeming the world from the terror of objectification, the fear of alterity, the dread of intimacy. In the second place, by dissolving the subject-object relation between divine and human, John's theological understanding of abiding extends also to the interrelationship between human beings. Abiding in the love of God is never an abiding in isolation. Separation and autonomy are challenged and ultimately overcome in this vision of communion. Being drawn into friendship with God, human beings also become friends to one another; they too meet as subject to subject. To abide in love with others is to live together in a community that works to overcome alienation and isolation, individualism and hierarchy.41 It is mutual rather than condescending, co-operative rather than competitive, non-hierarchical rather than status-ridden. If abiding means kinship with God, it means simultaneous kinship with others who share similar yearnings, even though some may be sheep 'not of this fold' (10.16) —and even though they are compelled to live as a persecuted minority in an objectivist world. In today's context, abiding also implies kinship with a bruised and battered creation. Abiding thus has the potential to overcome

39. For a development of this notion within trinitarian terms drawn from Eastern rather than Western Christian tradition, see Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991). 40. John S. Dunne, The Homing Spirit: A Pilgrimage of the Mind, of the Heart, of the Soul (New York: Crossroad, 1987), pp. 83-91. 41. O'Day, 'John', p. 303.

76

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

alienation and objectification, revealing itself as 'the way out from the fall',42 the way out of isolation into union and empathy with other created beings. Thirdly, the notion of abiding has its roots in stillness and contemplation rather than external achievement and activism: co-operative 'being' rather than competitive 'doing'. John emphasizes the relational rather than work-oriented aspects of discipleship. To be a disciple has more to do with being than acting. Yet the dichotomy is ultimately false for the writer of John's gospel. Abiding is not passive and static. On the contrary, the imagery of the vine is, as we have seen, fertile and creative. To grow and bear fruit in love is essential to abiding. This means that external activity finds its source in the intimacy of contemplation, in the well of water springing up to eternal life (4.14).43 From this it follows that the development of an authentic sense of self is an integral aspect of abiding. Women have learned to be self-denying and to sacrifice identity and selfhood for the sake of others.44 As a consequence, they do not necessarily possess a strong interior awareness of dwelling place or homecoming. Deprived of these by patriarchal enculturation, their self-esteem is impoverished and weak. The irony is that the one who nurtures man's existence through the maternal role, either literally or metaphorically, has no nourishment for herself; in the words of Irigaray: 'Woman, who enveloped man before birth, until he could live outside her, finds herself encircled by a language, by place that she cannot conceive of, and from which she cannot escape'.45 In this sense, selfhood is not antithetical to the notion of abiding; nurturing a sense of self does not necessarily imply individualism and privatism. On the contrary, a relational understanding of abiding requires a strong and mutual sense of identity. Such selfhood, on the one hand, facilitates 42. Irigaray, 'Questions', p. 186. 43. The priority of relationship is seen in the narrative of the foot washing, where the first—and usually neglected — interpretation (Jn 13.6-11), preceding the ethical imperative to serve (1312-17), is that of partnership in the death of Jesus. 44. On the issue of women's sin, see Valerie Saiving, 'The Human Situation: A Feminine View', reprinted in Carol P. Christ and Judith Plaskow (eds.), Womanspirit Rising: A Feminist Reader in Religion (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), pp. 25-42; see also Judith Plaskow, Sex, Sin and Grace: Women's Experience and the Theologies of Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1980). For an important feminist theological challenge to this gendered understanding of sin, see Angela West, Deadly Innocence: Feminism and the Mythology of Sin (London: Cassell, Petter, Galpin and Co., 1995). 45. For this image, see Luce Irigaray, 'The Envelope: A Reading of Spinoza's, Ethics', in eadem, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, pp. 83-94.

LEE Abiding in the Fourth Gospel

77

authentic relationship with others; on the other hand, it represents an 'abiding in the self (see Wis. 7.27), an interior friendship and mysticism that are very different from egoism. The reality of abiding is the liberation, therefore, not only from isolation but equally, in the other direction, from involuntary and inauthentic self-denial. Abiding makes possible the selfhood necessary for companionship and reciprocity. By overcoming the subject-object relation between men and women, abiding provides the freedom for women (and men) to become themselves, undoing the effects of patriarchal kenosis. To abide in this sense means to move through suffering, to accept the reality that life and fecundity come through pain and death, through pruning and the pierced side (7.38; 19.34). In the struggle between giving and withholding, self-loving and self-bestowing, women find within themselves a divine enclosure that does not imprison, an envelope opening onto the world,46 an abiding place that sets them free for others. Keller speaks of this as a 'dynamic autonomy' that, being distinct from either dependence or neutral distance, thus reflects a sense of self.. .as both differentiated from and related to others, and a sense of others as subjects with whom one shares enough to allow for a recognition of their independent interest and feelings — in short for a recognition of them as other subjects.47

Abiding is not an individualistic concept but is profoundly personal. The union it offers requires a growing sense of selfhood, a deepening awareness of one's true abode in communion with, and relation to, other created beings. Such abiding is costly and demanding, as the image of the vine illustrates. The divine abode as mutual indwelling is located in the challenging interplay between selfhood and community, singularity and welcome, 'self-possessing and... self-giving'.48 Conclusion Women's participation in, or exclusion from, the biblical text is not the only issue for feminist theology. Just as important is the theology of the New Testament and its ability to open a horizon on women's concerns. The Johannine understanding of abiding is an example of this kind of feminist biblical theology. It presents a challenge to Enlightenment polarities, offering, in place of a rationalistic and objectivist view of the 46. Irigaray, 'Envelope', p. 94. 47. Keller, Gender and Science, p. 99. 48. Patricia Wilson-Kastner, Faith, Feminism and the Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p. 62.

78

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

world, an icon of wholeness and intimacy. This hope of an abiding place where women can belong as subjects in communion with men—and in harmony with creation—is integral to the challenge of feminism and feminist theology. The Johannine understanding of abiding thus coincides with feminist concerns, creating an alternative vision of freedom, selfhood and community.

GENDER MATTERS IN JOHN Colleen Conway Introduction In the last 25 years, the women characters in the Fourth Gospel have captured the attention of Johannine scholars, feminist and otherwise.1 One of the first articles to examine the role of women in the gospel came from Raymond Brown, who was searching for a new way to address the debate about women's ordination in the Roman Catholic Church. In keeping with his understanding of the gospel in general, he reflected on the role of women in terms of a reconstructed historical community. On that basis, he argued that 'this seems to have been a community where in the things that really' matter in the following of Christ there was no difference between male and female'.2 Following in Brown's footsteps, the majority of subsequent work would read the Johannine women in terms of 'equality' with male disciples and/or as representatives of women in a historical Johannine community.3 Indeed, his statement has 1. The following essay draws in part on work done for my doctoral dissertation, 'Men and Women in the Gospel of John', published as Men and Women in the Fourth Gospel: Gender and Johannine Characterization (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999). 2. Raymond E. Brown, 'Roles of Women in the Fourth Gospel', TS 36 (1975), pp. 688-99 (693). The article later appeared as an appendix to The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), pp. 183-98. In relation to women's ordination, Brown's point is that all are equal in terms of discipleship, and whether one is ordained should not matter much in this wider view. Thus he notes, 'It may be useful to remind ourselves that it remains more important to be baptized than to be ordained, more important to be a Christian than to be a priest, bishop or pope' (p. 694 n. 16). 3. Sandra M. Schneiders, 'Women in the Fourth Gospel and the Role of Women in the Contemporary Church', BTB 12 (1982), pp. 35-45; S.J. Nortjea, 'The Role of Women in the Fourth Gospel', NeoT 20 (1986), pp. 21-28; John Rena, 'Women in the Gospel of John', Eglise et Theologie 17 (1986), pp. 131-47; Turid Karlsen Seim, 'Roles of Women in the Gospel of John', in Lars Hartman and Birger Olsson (eds.), Aspects on the Johannine Literature (ConB, 18; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiskell, 1987), pp. 56-73; Martinus C. de Boer, 'John 4.27-Women (and Men) in the Gospel and the Community of John', in George J. Brooke (ed.), Women in the Biblical Tradition (Studies in

80

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

become almost a refrain in studies of women in the Fourth Gospel, so that 18 years after Brown, Martinus de Boer concludes his look at Johannine women with the view that 'the Gospel is interested in the gender of women characters only in order finally to persuade its resistant readers, both women and men, that the "sexual aspect" does not really matter all that much, if at all, for discipleship and its tasks'.4 What these articles accomplished was to call attention to what now seems obvious: the fourth evangelist is doing something distinct with the presentation of women characters. Moreover, especially the work by Sandra Schneiders and Turid Karlsen Seim made valuable contributions to the recognition and recovery of strong images of woman in the New Testament. But as the comments of both Brown and Martinus de Boer indicate, at the same time the uniqueness of the presentation of women was recognized, scholars frequently downplayed the significance of gender. Indeed, the result of the 'equality' reading has too often been that difference between men and women in the gospel is denied and the relevance of gender representation is dismissed. From such studies, one might gather that what really matters in this gospel is something other than its remarkable depiction of women and certainly something other than gender.5 And yet there is much to suggest that gender identity does play a critical role in shaping meaning in the Gospel of John. The clearest example of gender as an explicit concern in the narrative is found in the disciples' unvoiced question in Jn 4.27. The disciples are astonished that Jesus is talking to a woman but reluctant to ask him why he is doing so. Here, a consciousness of gender identity that lies beneath the narrative bubbles to the surface. Other aspects of the gospel that suggest this consciousness about gender is not an isolated case include Jesus' repeated use of the direct address 'Woman' in his encounters with Women and Religion, 31; Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1992), pp. 208-30; Karen Heidebrecht Thiessen, 'Jesus and Women in the Gospel of John', Direction 19 (1990), pp. 53-64 4. De Boer, 'John 4.27, pp. 230-31. 5. Even feminist scholar Sandra Schneiders has denied the relevance of gender identity in the texts, albeit in reaction to restrictions placed on women and supposedly validated by New Testament texts. She states, 'The sex of believers is not an issue in the New Testament and we should not allow ourselves, either as believers or as scholars, to be manipulated into acting as if it is' (see 'Women in the Fourth Gospel', pp. 35-45). In contrast, Seim's work takes seriously the possible relevance of gender identity, especially in the Fourth Gospel: 'May it be that asking for the roles of women genuinely coincides with an explicit interest of the Gospel of John itself, very visible on its textual surface? In my view, the latter is the case' (Seim, 'Roles of Women', p. 56).

CONWAY Gender Matters in John

81

female characters, including his own mother (2.4; 4.21; 19.26; 20.15; cf. also 8.10).6 More implicitly, attention is called to the gender identity especially of woman characters by the use of allusions. For example, the scene at the well in ch. 4 recalls the betrothal scenes of the patriarchs, and Mary Magdalene's search for Jesus contains echoes of the Song of Songs (see below). But most significantly, as I will demonstrate, there are several cases in which men and women characters appear to be deliberately contrasted. In three cases, men and women characters are placed in contrast to one another by means of narrative structure and content— the Samaritan woman with Nicodemus, Mary of Bethany with Judas, and Mary Magdalene with the two male disciples at the tomb. Another contrast, Martha with Peter, depends not on structure, but on the reader's familiarity with Petrine tradition. All of these contrasts have been recognized in various degrees in earlier scholarship, but to my knowledge no one has considered their cumulative effect nor studied such contrasts with a view toward understanding the way gender functions in this gospel. At a basic level, the contrasts suggest that equality may not be the most helpful way of perceiving the role that gender identity plays. Moreover, the fact that one can identify male and female contrasts and yet still not discover something so blatant as a male/female dualism indicates that gender representation may be complex and multi-faceted in this narrative, just as it is in life. Thus, in what follows, I focus on four instances of character contrast to draw out some fundamental differences in characterization of particular Johannine men in relation to particular Johannine women. Based on this discussion, I argue that gender does matter in this gospel and suggest at least two levels at which it may function. These levels are the same two levels that the narrative repeatedly calls us to distinguish: the heavenly and the earthly, that which is above and that which is below. In the Fourth Gospel, gender categories stand in for different ideological interests depending on the level at which they are operating. Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman That Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman are set in contrast is certainly not a new observation.7 Indeed, this is perhaps the most explicit 6. See also Seim, 'the common use of yuvai...shows a common emphasis on femaleness in these passages' ('Roles of Women', p. 60). 7. E.g., Maria J. Selvidge, 'Nicodemus and the Woman with Five Husbands', Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society 2 (1982), pp. 63-75; Mary Margaret Pazdan,

82

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

example of a male/female contrast evident in the gospel. The fact that these two characters are placed nearly side by side invites comparison, as does their respective introductions to the narrative. Nicodemus is introduced by a proper name that is surrounded by epithets: (lit. 'a man out of the Pharisees') and (a leader of the Judeans) (Jn 3.1). There is no question that the reader is to understand Nicodemus as an authoritative figure, a leader among his people. In contrast, ch. 4 introduces (a woman out of Samaria). The parallel structure of the phrases stresses both a gender contrast and an ethnic one. To be sure, the word (person or man) need not be a direct contrast with yuvri (woman); (man) would have been a more effective choice. However, the use of links Nicodemus to 2.23-25. Here the narrator points out that Jesus would not entrust himself to those who believed in him because of the signs he was doing. Moreover, he needed no one to testify to him about a person (or man, TOU avBpcoirou) because he himself knew what was in a person (TCO 6cv0pcoTrco). That singular forms of are used here immediately preceding Nicodemus's introduction as suggests that he represents not only the Jewish authorities, but also one whom Jesus knows and distrusts. The inclusion of a proper name, Nicodemus, points to the absence of one provided for the woman in ch. 4. On the one hand, having a proper name may be a way of accenting the supposedly high status of Nicodemus, compared to the woman. On the other hand, anonymity is a trait shared also by the Beloved Disciple, a character who certainly has high status in the eyes of the narrator. We also learn from the opening verses of both narratives that while Nicodemus came to Jesus by night (3.2), the woman meets Jesus in broad daylight (4.6). Perhaps we are to associate this contrast with the light/dark, day/night dualism that runs throughout the gospel. It may be too much to base such an association on the introduction of these two characters alone, but the potential link with this thematic opposition invites further comparison of their respective encounters with Jesus. First, the conversations begin under different circumstances. Nicodemus seeks out Jesus and initiates the dialogue. Consistent with the idea that he is a religious authority, Nicodemus opens with a statement of what he and the people he represents know: Jesus is a teacher who has come from God. This knowledge is based on interpretive ability; he is able to read signs and know when God is present 'Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman: Contrasting Models of Discipleship', BTB17 (1987), pp. 145-48.

CONWAY Gender Matters in John

83

3.2). As Thomas Brodie notes, Nicodemus 'seems to feel that he can speak to Jesus with some assurance of the things of God. There is therefore in his approach a certain tone of confidence'.8 On the other hand, the reader is again encouraged to consider that Jesus has very little confidence in Nicodemus. Like the use of av0pcoTro$, the reference to signs recalls 2.23-25, which casts suspicion on those who believe in Jesus because of his signs. Nicodemus speaks as one who believes because of signs, but, as we have seen, this also implies that he speaks as one whom Jesus does not trust. This is seen already in Jesus' initial response to Nicodemus. Much of the Fourth Gospel is devoted to Jesus' efforts to convince people that he has, in fact, come from God. Seemingly, Nicodemus's words are accurate. Yet Jesus does not affirm his claim, but instead gives an enigmatic response: 'Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above' (3.3). Rather than clarifying matters for Nicodemus, Jesus throws him into confusion. The conversation with the Samaritan woman opens in quite a different way. First, the setting at the well recalls similar stories from the Hebrew Bible: the wives of Isaac, Jacob and Moses are all found at a well. From the reader's perspective, familiarity with these betrothal scenes would tend to highlight the male/ female relationship between Jesus and the woman.9 This initial attention to gender will persist throughout the scene, as Jesus speaks of the woman's marital history (4.16-18) and the disciples question the interaction (4.27). In this way, it becomes clear that the gender identity of the characters is not coincidental to the story, but one of its major components.10 Compared to Nicodemus, the woman enters the scene with little fanfare. There are no suggestive epithets surrounding her name; we know 8. Thomas L. Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 196. 9. Scholars who have interpreted the text using the betrothal type-scene as a major hermeneutical key include Calum M. Carmichael, 'Marriage and the Samaritan Woman', NTS 26 (1980), pp. 332-46, and Lyle Eslinger, 'The Wooing of the Woman at the Well: Jesus, the Reader and Reader-Response Criticism', Journal of Literature and Theology I (1987), pp. 167-83. 10. Contra de Boer, who argues that the gender identity of the woman is insignificant to the story, beyond lending a degree of verisimilitude to the account. Men did not draw water in ancient Palestine, and Jesus needs to be at a well so that he has an opportunity to discourse about living water, a symbol of revelation (de Boer, 'John 4.27', pp. 214-15 nn. 19,21). Yet there are many narrative settings that could suitably evoke a discussion about living water (cf. 7.37-38). The point is that this one does call attention to gender.

84

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

only that she is a Samaritan woman. Moreover, she comes not seeking Jesus, but for the mundane task of filling her bucket at the well. It is Jesus who initiates the conversation with his request for water (4.9). When the woman does speak, it is not to encourage the conversation but to question its appropriateness. As Lyle Eslinger argues, her opening question points out the political and sexual difficulties of the encounter: 'Jesus is a Jew, she is a Samaritan; he is a man, she is a woman/11 The narrator goes on to explain the nature of the problem: Judeans do not share things in common with Samaritans (4.9). This comment calls explicit attention only to ethnic differences, but, as we have seen, the issue of gender is already beneath the surface of the text and will also emerge as problematic, at least from the disciples' point of view (4.27). Yet, Jesus' reply ('If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, "Give me a drink", you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water') broaches neither of these differences, but instead turns the conversation to the woman's lack of knowledge about him and about God (4.10). Thus, in both the Nicodemus passage and the story of the Samaritan woman, knowledge of God and Jesus is a primary issue. However, whereas Nicodemus claims this knowledge from the beginning, the woman engages in a series of questions that eventually culminate in the self-revelation of Jesus (4.26). With respect to the nature and content of the two conversations there are similarities, but also striking differences. They have in common a pattern that runs throughout the Gospel of John: a dialogue that takes place on at least two levels simultaneously and is peppered with double entendres and enigmatic expressions from Jesus. In the course of these conversations, Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman both misunderstand Jesus, but they respond to him in different ways. Nicodemus soon shifts from his confident opening statement to confused questioning. The Samaritan woman begins with challenging the appropriateness of the dialogue, but plunges in anyway and sustains a lengthy conversation with Jesus, even after he dismisses her (4.16). It is this very dismissal that provides the catalyst for the conversation to continue. Whatever Jesus' enigmatic statement regarding the woman's five husbands and her current non-husband may mean, the effect of his statement on the woman is most significant.12 She perceives him to be a 11. Eslinger, 'Wooing', p. 176. 12. The statement clearly does not mean that the woman is a loose woman, or an unrepentant sinner, as she has so often been understood. There is no indication of judgment in the text, nor does the word 'sin7 ever occur. Another common reading, that the five husbands symbolize the five false gods of the Samaritans, is also

CONWAY Gender Matters in John

85

prophet and immediately engages him in a theological conversation, first concerning proper worship and then the coming of the Messiah. As a result of her initiative, the way is cleared for Jesus openly to confess his messianic identity eyco sipi ('I am') with words reminiscent of the Exodus theophany, 'I am, the one who is speaking to you' (4.26, cf. Exod. 3.14). At the very moment of this dramatic revelation, their conversation is interrupted by the return of the disciples to the well. No sooner does Jesus reveal his identity through speech than the disciples, entering the scene, are amazed that he is speaking with a woman, though they will not ask 'why he is speaking to her' (4.27). That attention is given to gender precisely at this point in the story highlights the association of women and the self-revelation of Jesus. The answer to the disciples' unvoiced question is clear to the reader—Jesus has been speaking with the woman in order to reveal himself as the Messiah. This is true for the Samaritan woman; it will also be true for Martha and Mary Magdalene. Here we come to one of the most significant differences in the conversations with Nicodemus and the woman, namely, Jesus' response to the two characters. As we have noted, both of these characters engage in a confusing, multi-leveled conversation with Jesus. Both demonstrate misunderstanding. Yet with Nicodemus, Jesus effectively closes off conversation and scoffs at his status as 'teacher of Israel'. On this point, Adele Reinhartz aptly observes, 'Decisive is not Nicodemus' persistent misunderstanding of Jesus' words but rather the accusatory tone of Jesus' comments to Nicodemus. Rather than inviting him to believe, Jesus upbraids Nicodemus...'13 Reinhartz's observation is even more striking when placed beside Jesus' response to the woman. Despite her misunderstanding, their conversation continues, this time on the woman's initiative. Especially in the second half of their discussion, Jesus entertains her theological inquiries and eventually comes to a point of revelation. As a result, the woman who initially expresses doubt about Jesus' communication with her emerges as a successful missionary figure, leading her people to a knowledge of Jesus as the savior of the world. Nicodemus, who initially expresses confidence in his knowledge about Jesus, fades from the scene as a confused man at best. He remains problematic. First, the idols mentioned in 2 Kgs 17.29-32 amount to seven not five. Second, the question under discussion in John 4 is not whom to worship, but where to worship (4.20-21). 13. Adele Reinhartz, 'The Gospel of John', in Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures (2 vols.; New York, Crossroad, 1994), II, pp. 561-600 (570).

86

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

ignorant to the point of drawing a reprimand from Jesus. He resurfaces twice more in the narrative, at one point making a half-hearted attempt to speak up on Jesus' behalf (7.50), and later bringing a hundred pounds of embalming spices to Jesus' tomb (19.39). Neither one of these appearances is unambiguous. Scholars have read both scenes in completely opposite ways, either depicting Nicodemus as an emerging Christian,14 or as one incapable of full commitment and belief.15 Jouette Bassler is most on target in her observation that Nicodemus remains an ambiguous character throughout the gospel, and each appearance only adds to this ambiguity.16 In contrast, the Samaritan woman does not reappear after ch. 4. Her role as successful evangelist is complete, so much so that the villagers can claim their own knowledge of the savior of the world (4.42). Martha and Peter As noted in the introduction, the contrast between Martha and Peter is of a different nature than that of Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman or of the others to be discussed below. This more subtle pattern depends on a knowledge of synoptic or synoptic-like tradition to be effective. There is much in the gospel to suggest that the evangelist had such knowledge, and it is not too much to expect the gospel's ancient audience did as well.17 To point out the contrast between Martha and Peter, we begin with Martha's conversation with Jesus in ch. 11. Martha's first words to Jesus express her strong belief that Jesus could have prevented her brother's death (v. 21). The statement may also convey anger or regret that Jesus did not arrive sooner, but her next comment makes clear that Martha's overriding emotion is confidence in Jesus. She immediately voices hope in the fact that Jesus is now present, and that whatever he asks of God, God will give to him 11.22). Thus, once more a character speaks of what she knows of Jesus. Unlike Nicodemus, however, Martha 14. So Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (HTKNT; 3 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1990), I, pp. 364-65. 15. Cf. e.g., R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 135-136. 16. Jouette Bassler, 'Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel', JBL 108 (1989), pp. 635-46. 17. Notice, for example, the way Lazarus is introduced by recalling Mary and Martha, and especially Mary's act of anointing before it has been related in the narrative (11.1-2; cf. 12.1-8). The equivalent of the synoptic Gethsemane scene also seems to presuppose a knowledge of the tradition (12.27).

CONWAY Gender Matters in John

87

speaks only for herself; she is not representative of a larger group. Notably, her statement foreshadows Jesus' own teaching to his disciples about asking and receiving from God (14.13-14; 15.7,16; 16.23-24). Thus, like Nicodemus's opening claim her words are accurate. As with earlier conversations, this one continues with an enigmatic pronouncement by Jesus: 'Your brother will rise again' (11.23). Martha responds with another statement about what she 'knows', this time not about Jesus, but about her understanding of resurrection of the dead and the end-time (11.24). In this way her statement resonates with that of the Samaritan woman in 4.25: 'I know that the Messiah is coming (who is called Christ), when that one comes he will announce to us all things.' In both cases, the women's knowledge of their own religious traditions provides Jesus the opportunity for self-revelation. Moreover, in both cases, the women's knowledge is limited and indicates a level of misunderstanding of Jesus. The Samaritan woman does not realize that the Messiah is standing before her, and Martha does not understand that Jesus' presence makes resurrection a present reality. The women's limited knowledge leads to explicit revelations by him, something decidedly absent in the conversation with Nicodemus. In ch. 11, as in ch. 4, Jesus responds with an 'I am' statement, in this case, 'I am the resurrection and the life' (11.25). Yet what is most striking about the conversation between Jesus and Martha are not his words of revelation, but her words of confession. In the face of Jesus' direct question, 'Do you believe?' (11.26), Martha offers the fullest confession of Jesus voiced by an individual character in the narrative: 'Yes, Lord, I have come to believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, the one coming into the world' (11.27). With this confession, she embodies the stated aim of the entire narrative, 'These things have been written in order that you might come to (or continue to) believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God' (20.31). Finally, Martha's confession concludes the dialogue; it is allowed to stand on its own with no further word from Jesus. The only other place where this occurs is with the confession of the Samaritan villagers (4.42). The confessions of Nathanael (1.49), Peter (6.69) and Thomas (20.28) are all followed by some sort of reprimand by Jesus, and even the profession of faith by the formerly blind man (9.38) is followed by a statement of judgment by Jesus. Most telling about the presentation of Martha is the way her portrayal recasts the synoptic tradition. Anyone familiar with this tradition cannot help but hear words associated with Simon Peter ('You are the Christ', Mk 8.29 and parallels). That Martha voices this confession in the Gospel of John hints at a deliberate displacement of Simon Peter. If this is the

88

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

case, it makes Peter's own unfamiliar confession in 6.69, 'you are the Holy One of God', all the more striking. We turn then to Peter's character and the nature of his presentation in the narrative. From the time of Peter's introduction to the narrative, one hears echoes of familiar Petrine tradition, but they are muted or altered in a variety of ways. Consider, for example, Peter's initial appearance. First, the name Simon Peter appears before the character himself does; it serves as a means of identifying his apparently lesser-known brother, Andrew. On the one hand, this confirms Simon Peter's familiarity in the tradition. On the other hand, that Andrew enters the narrative first, having encountered Jesus before Peter, may be an early indication of Peter's diminished status in this gospel. When Simon Peter does enter the narrative he plays a completely passive role. Andrew finds him (supioKEi OUTOS upcoTov TOV a56A(|>6v'i5iov Sipcova) and tells him of his find (eupTiKajJEV TOV Meaaiav, 6 EOTIV ns6ep|jr|veu6Mevov xpicrros", 1.41). Peter is then brought to Jesus, who looks at him, identifies him and renames him. However, unlike the Matthean version of Peter's renaming, which follows his confession at Caesarea Philippi (Mt. 16.16-18), Peter here says nothing to elicit his new name. Furthermore, whereas the Matthean Jesus makes clear that 'rock' (TTeTpos) is indicative of Peter's foundational role in the church, the Johannine Jesus offers no interpretation at all. In short, the whole episode seems to bear little significance for the narrative. Finally, Peter is the only disciple who does not speak and attribute some sort of title to Jesus in this opening chapter. John the Baptist identifies Jesus as the Lamb of God (vv. 29, 36), Andrew witnesses to Peter that Jesus is the Messiah (1.41), Philip refers to the one about whom Moses and the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth (1.45), and Nathanael confesses that Jesus is Son of God and King of Israel (1.49). Amid this cluster of confessions and titles, Peter's silence stands out. He will have a confession to offer, but it is reserved for a later time and when it occurs it is not without complication. The passage in which Peter's confession appears comes at the end of an extended controversy between Jesus and the Jewish authorities involving Jesus' claim to be 'the bread of life' (cf. 6.35-59). Throughout the gospel, Jesus' words and actions are frequently the cause of division (cf. 7.40-44; 9.16; 11.45-46), and in this passage the division occurs among his own disciples. Following Jesus' discourse, many of the disciples complain exactly like his opponents (yoyyu^ouoiv Trep'i TOUTOU 01 na6r|Tcu, 6.61, cf. 6.41). Jesus is not surprised at their reaction, since, consistent with his character, he 'knew from the beginning who were the ones who did not believe and who was the one that would betray him' (6.64).

CONWAY Gender Matters in John

89

This context of unbelief and betrayal sets the tone for Peter's words to Jesus. Upon the desertion of many of his disciples (6.66), Jesus asks the Twelve directly, 'You do not also wish to leave, do you?' This is the first time the Twelve have been distinguished in the gospel, and Peter clearly responds as their representative: he repeatedly uses the first person plural in 6.68-69. When Jesus replies, it is not to Peter alone, but to the Twelve (6.70). Therefore, Peter's first words in the gospel should be examined especially in light of how Peter functions as spokesman for the twelve male disciples. His response to Jesus takes the form of a question: 'Lord, to whom shall we go?' (6.68a) followed by a two-part confession: 'You have words of eternal life, and we have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God'. The first part of the confession recollects both Jesus' earlier reference to 'the words which I have spoken' (6.63), and the idea of eternal life that is woven throughout the discourse in ch. 6. It thus stands as an affirmation of the person and teaching of Jesus. The second part of the confession is more difficult to interpret. As is often noted, the title 'Holy One of God' occurs only here in John's Gospel and is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in Mk 1.24 and its Lukan parallel, 4.34. In the latter instances, the title is voiced by an unclean spirit whom Jesus quickly rebukes and silences. On the basis of this occurrence, some hear in the Johannine text an echo of the synoptic association of Peter's character with the demonic (Mk 8.33; Mt. 16.23), especially since Jesus goes on to speak about a devil (6.70).18 Of course, the narrator takes pains to point out that Jesus is referring to Judas with this reference (v. 71), but there remains a hint of ambiguity about Peter's confession for other reasons as well. First, the title that Peter uses for Jesus is not clearly messianic.19 To be sure, this in itself does not imply that Peter's words should be taken negatively. In Bultmann's view, that 'Holy One of God' has 'no recognizable tradition at all as a messianic title' is precisely its virtue. As such, the title expresses 'the newness which is proper to every authentic confession'.20 Nevertheless, if the evangelist is drawing on traditions about 18. For example, Graydon F. Snyder argues that the title brings a 'strange twist to the scene' that 'appears as a sly attack on the validity of Peter's confession' ('John 13.16 and the Anti-Petrinism of the Johannine Tradition', BibRes 16 [1971], pp. 5-15). 19. Even those who argue for its messianic interpretation admit that evidence for such a reading is lacking. Cf. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1978), p. 207. Schnackenburg argues that even though the title is not messianic it must refer to Jesus' messiahship based on its association with the synoptic confession of Peter in the history of tradition (St. John, III, p. 76). 20. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971), p. 449.

90

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

the Twelve in this narrative, why does he not adopt the traditional version of Peter's confession?21 Even more pressing, why does the confession normally attributed to Peter, 'You are the Christ', appear later in the story on the lips of Martha? As we have seen, Martha's confession is in effect the articulation of the Johannine credo (cf. 20.21). Next to this, Schneiders is right to assert that Peter's statement 'lacks the fullness of Johannine faith'.22 Since Peter is serving a representative function in this passage, we cannot simply claim that Peter, a man, is displaced by Martha, a woman. Still, the gender contrast may be present at another level. The Twelve traditionally stand for a group of male disciples gathered in a privileged position around Jesus, a notion confirmed in the Fourth Gospel by Jesus' talk of election in 6.70. Yet, in this instance, the confession of an individual woman surpasses the corporate confession of a group of men. Again, the response of Jesus to Peter's words supports the point more than the use of the title itself. Recall that Martha's confession stands on its own; it closes the conversation with Jesus in a climactic fashion (11.27). In contrast, Jesus replies to Peter's confession with a sobering pronouncement. Granted, the first part of the conversation appears to confirm the appropriateness of Peter's words, 'Did I not chose you, the Twelve?' (6.70). The reader is invited to consider that these, indeed, are Jesus' chosen followers. As such, they stand in a place of privilege compared to those who seemingly were not permitted by the Father to come to Jesus (6.65). However, the second part of Jesus' response, 'and one of you is a devil', immediately dispels any notion that inclusion among the Twelve is equivalent to faithful discipleship. Indeed, these final words of Jesus cast a shadow over the conversation, so that no matter how we understand Peter's confession, an element of suspicion lingers around the Twelve.23 As Haenchen puts it, 'The confession of the twelve is depicted here basically in its dubiousness.. ,'24 There is not space to fill out the characterization of Peter as it unfolds in the rest of the gospel. Suffice it to say that it is arguably a downward 21. The various attempts to conform Peter's words to a more traditional confession reflected in the manuscript tradition confirm the problematic nature of the confession. 22. Schneiders, 'Women in the Fourth Gospel', p. 41. 23. Gail O'Day, 'John', in L. Keck et al, The New Interpreters Bible (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), IX, pp. 493-865 (611): 'Instead of embracing Peter's confession... Jesus raises again the question of election and choice'. Ernst Haenchen, John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John 1-6 (2 vols.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), I, p. 308. 24. Haenchen, John, I, p. 308.

CONWAY Gender Matters in John

91

progression from this point. Peter may have the best of intentions, but he repeatedly misses the mark in his interactions with Jesus. In ch. 13, he first protests Jesus' proposal to wash his feet, and then, when he is corrected by Jesus, he overcompensates by demanding more that what is necessary. At the farewell meal, Peter has no direct access to Jesus but must rely on the Beloved Disciple as an intermediary. In ch. 18, he rashly attempts a violent defense in the garden, which Jesus interprets as interference with his mission (18.11). Next, Peter denies his discipleship three times, at the same time that Jesus is defending himself before the high priest. We will see him below in his final scene of the gospel proper (assuming ch. 21 is a later addition), where once more he is overshadowed by the Beloved Disciple and also by Mary Magdalene. Mary of Bethany and Judas Another place in the gospel where a woman appears in direct contrast with a man is the supper scene at the home of Lazarus, Martha and Mary. There Mary performs a sign-act, the anointing of Jesus' feet, which Jesus then interprets for those gathered around him. That Mary anoints the feet of Jesus is unusual, since typically the head is anointed with oil. Even more remarkable is the fact that she then wipes off (E£;EMC(£EV) the oil with her hair (12.3). The story appears to be a conflation of the tradition reflected in Lk. 7.38, which depicts a woman who bathes Jesus' feet with her tears, dries them with her hair, and then kisses and anoints his feet with ointment. Notably, the verb 'wiped' reappears in the next chapter where Jesus first washes the feet of his disciples then wipes them (eKjjaaaeiv) with a towel (13.5). In ch. 13, Jesus' act is meant as an example of the proper attitude of service for discipleship (vv. 14-15). Thus, on one level, Mary's act of devotion anticipates the lesson of Jesus. She demonstrates, in the most extravagant fashion, the qualities of a good disciple.25 Juxtaposed to the depiction of Mary in v. 3 is the introduction of Judas in v. 4. He is explicitly described as one of Jesus' disciples, a character indicator immediately qualified by the phrase 'the one about to betray him'. This is the second time in the narrative that Judas has been mentioned, and both times have emphasized his dissonant identity as a disciple and betrayer (cf. 6.71). In 12.5-6, Judas is further characterized as an embezzler who masks his greed with a false concern for the poor. Moreover, it is Judas in particular, rather than the more general 'some' in 25. See Robert Kysar, John (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament; Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress, 1986), p. 183; O'Day, 'John', p. 701.

92

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Mk 14.4 or 'disciples' in Mt. 26.8, who protests Mary's action. According to Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, this focus on Judas 'emphasizes the evangelistic intention to portray the true female disciple, Mary of Bethany, as the alternative to the unfaithful male disciple, Judas, who was one the Twelve'.26 Significant once more is Jesus' response to these two characters. Judas receives a harsh rebuke, 'Leave her alone!' while Mary earns a defense in the form of interpretation: Jesus perceives her actions in relation to his own impending death (12.7). In this way, Mary appears as one who is keenly in tune with his coming hour. In contrast, Judas will soon slide into the night to betray Jesus (13.30) and then stand alongside the soldiers who come to arrest him (18.5). Mary Magdalene, Peter and the Beloved Disciple With this we come to the last of the contrasts, Mary Magdalene with the two disciples at the tomb. As was the case with 'diptych' of the scenes featuring Nicodemus and the Samaritan women, the structure of the narrative in 20.1-18 encourages the reader to see a contrast between the woman and the two men. The passage consists of two stories woven together by the presence of Mary Magdalene. One is the story of Peter and the Beloved Disciple at the empty tomb (vv. 3-10); the other is the encounter of Mary Magdalene and Jesus at the tomb (vv. 1-2; 11-18). Mary's story surrounds that of the disciples, creating an interpretive framework for their own experience at the tomb. As a whole, the passage provides yet another example of the juxtaposition of male and female characters in the Fourth Gospel. As in earlier passages with women, the gender identity of Mary is accentuated both with the use of yuvou ('woman', 20.13,15) and through biblical allusion. M. Cambre has called attention to the way the Song of Song 3.1-4 echoes through the garden story: the night atmosphere, the triple searching, the question addressed to the watchman (mDtB) from the verb 'to keep' in Hebrew, also used for keeper of a garden, and the language of a woman taking hold of her lover.27 The biblical love song in the background of this text highlights all the more the gender identities of both Mary and Jesus. In doing so, it contributes to the sense of intimacy in the passage. In the opening verses of the narrative, Mary Magdalene comes alone 26. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, 'A Feminist Interpretation for Liberation: Martha and Mary: Lk. 1038-42', Religion and Intellectual Life 3 (1986), pp. 21-36 (32). 27. M. Cambre, 'L'influence du Cantique des Cantique sur le Nouveau Testament7, RevThom 62 (1962), pp. 5-26.

CONWAY Gender Matters in John

93

to the tomb, early in the morning, and discovers that the stone covering its entrance has been rolled away. She does not stay to investigate but hurries to report to the two most prominent male disciples in the gospel what the evidence clearly suggests —the body of Jesus has been removed. It is Mary's articulation of the problem, 'They have taken the Lord from the tomb and we do not know where they have laid him' (v. 2), which provides the catalyst for the events detailed in vv. 3-10.28 Upon hearing Mary's report, Peter and the Beloved Disciple set out running to the tomb. This is the second time that Peter and the Beloved Disciple are paired together, and, as in 13.23-25, a contrast appears to be drawn between the two. The narrator makes the point three times that the Beloved Disciple arrives at the tomb ahead of Peter (vv. 4,6,8). This suggests that being ahead of Peter is especially relevant to the character of the Beloved Disciple. Yet, the narrator also takes pains to mention that despite arriving ahead of Peter, the disciple does not enter the tomb, but from the entrance observes the linen grave wrappings (v. 5). Perhaps this is an attempt to balance the presentation of the two disciples by giving them an equal share in the discovery of the tomb, though of course, both of them are dependent upon Mary's initial discovery. It is Peter who enters the tomb first. He sees the linen wrappings, as did the Beloved Disciple, but also the carefully folded oouSdpiov (linen cloths), something the disciple had not seen from outside (20.7). Only then does the Beloved Disciple enter and the narrator reports, 'and he saw and believed' (KCU elSev KCU ETnoTeuaev, 20.8). This verse has been crucial for viewing the Beloved Disciple as the disciple par excellence. Based on the two verbs, many interpreters assume that in the Fourth Gospel, the Beloved Disciple is the first to believe in the resurrection. Despite its popularity, this interpretation is not without difficulties, as is evident by the extent to which commentators feel compelled to defend the faithfulness of the Beloved Disciple.29 The most obvious problem is that nowhere does the text state what it 28. O'Day, 'John7, p. 840. 29. Schnackenburg states the case most emphatically: 'To what kind of belief [did the disciple come]? According to the context, undoubtedly to the full faith in the resurrection of Jesus; any kind of diminution, with a view to v. 9 is ruled out. The point of the story lies in the clear and strong faith of the beloved disciple' (St. John, III, p. 312). Similarly Barrett claims, '[The beloved disciple] is the first to believe in the resurrection; he holds, in this sense, a primacy of faith' (St. John, p. 561). B. Lindars contrasts the faith of the Beloved Disciple with the skepticism of Thomas: 'The Disciple has reached Resurrection faith without an appearance of Jesus... His kind of faith will be commended by Jesus himself in verse 29 (Gospel of John [London: Oliphants, 1978], p. 602).

94

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

is the disciple saw and believed. The narrator simply assumes the reader will be able to supply the object for these verbs. Second, the verses immediately following the statement contradict the view that the disciple came to resurrection faith. Verse 9 implies that neither disciple knew what to make of the empty tomb because 'they did not yet understand the scripture that he must rise from the dead'. Although interpreters do their best to find a way around this statement, it seems likely that it means what it says.30 The uneventful conclusion in v. 10 confirms this, as the disciples simply return to their homes. Indeed, those who argue that the Beloved Disciple came to faith in the resurrection must explain why he did not communicate his understanding to anyone else, not even to Peter. At best, going home is an understated response for a disciple who has just seen evidence of Jesus' resurrection. In this regard, Paul Minear notes, 'Nowhere else in the New Testament is it suggested that faith in the risen Lord produced such indifference, as if nothing at all happened to change things'.31 Indeed, one could argue that the behavior of the disciples is more in keeping with Jesus' prediction, 'You will be scattered to your homes' (16.32), than with the response of one who has come to the full knowledge of resurrection faith. Finally, if the Beloved Disciple came to such faith in this scene, there would be little point for the next scene with Mary. Minear has taken these problems seriously and argues, as did Augustine long before him, that what the Beloved Disciple actually saw and believed was that Mary spoke the truth; the body of Jesus was no longer there. Indeed, according to Minear, the basic function of the episode in vv. 3-10 is to corroborate Mary's discovery of Jesus' missing body.32 This explanation has the advantage of making sense of several narrative elements. First, it links the introduction of the story, in which Mary announces that the tomb is empty, with the disciples' experience at the tomb. It also explains vv. 9-10. Because neither of the disciples knew the 30. Schnackenburg blames clumsy editorial work (St. John, III, p. 313); Lindars suggests that although the disciple has come to faith 'the substance of his faith has still not been formulated' (Gospel of John, p. 602). Does this mean he believes something, but he does not know what? 31. Paul S. Minear,' "We Don't Know Where..." John 20.2', Int 30 (1976), pp. 12539 (127). 32. Minear, '"We Don't Know Where"', p. 127. Augustine first points out the mistaken reading that the disciple believed in the resurrection, and then comments: 'What, therefore, did he see? What did he believe? He saw, of course, the empty sepulcher' (St. Augustine: Tractates on the Gospel of John 112-24 (trans. John W. Rettig; Fathers of the Church, 92; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1995), pp. 54-55.

CONWAY Gender Matters in John

95

scripture, they could not understand what the tomb signified; they could only confirm what Mary had already told them. Against the argument that 'believe' (Tncnreuco) must carry more theological weight than this33 is a similar use of the verb in Luke's resurrection narrative. In Luke 24, the women who discover the empty tomb also return to the male disciples and report their discovery, including the message from the two men in dazzling clothes. Their words are deemed to be nonsense by the disciples and the narrator reports 'and they did not believe them' (KCU f)Tricnrouv aurais, 24.11). Here, the verb does not carry any theological significance; it merely points to the lack of credibility granted to the women by the men. Only Peter races to the tomb to investigate their story (Lk. 24.12). In the Gospel of John, upon hearing the woman's report, both Peter and the Beloved Disciple race to the tomb, and the narrator confirms that they do believe her words, though her report does not yet include news of the resurrected Lord. In short, when viewed next to the Lukan account, the verb 'believe' need not be viewed theologically. Instead, the overall effect of John's version is to elevate the position of Mary as a credible witness. In sum, a major function of the scene with Peter and the Beloved Disciple in 20.3-10 is to confirm Mary's report. The scene also displays an interest in balancing the presentation of the two male disciples. Both have their share in observing the empty tomb, and like Mary Magdalene, neither of them understands its implications. Most significantly, vv. 3-10 prepare for the next scene between Mary Magdalene and Jesus. Although the Beloved Disciple confirms the truth of the empty tomb, this does not resolve Mary's major concern, namely, the whereabouts of Jesus' body. We thus move to the third scene, which shifts the focus once more to Mary. Mary's reintroduction to the narrative stands in contrast to the departure of the disciples. They return to their homes, but Mary remains weeping outside the tomb. This action is an essential aspect of her role. Four times attention is called to her weeping, twice by the narrator, once by the angels and once by Jesus himself (vv. lla, lib, 13,15). The reader is supposed to notice her tears. It may be that the reader is also to notice how their presence fulfills the prediction that Jesus made before his death: 'Very truly, I tell you, you will weep and mourn...' (16.20). In fact, Mary is the only character of the gospel who weeps and mourns when she 'no longer sees' Jesus (cf. 16.19). As the story proceeds, the second half of Jesus' prediction will also be fulfilled: 'you will have pain, but your pain will turn into joy' (16.20b; 16.22). It is perhaps no coincidence 33. ODay,'John', p. 841.

96

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

that a woman fulfills this prediction, given the fact that the metaphor of childbirth is used to describe the human emotions that will accompany his death and resurrection (16.21). Through her tears, Mary looks for herself to see what the tomb holds. Unlike the disciples, she sees two angels sitting at the head and feet of where Jesus had lain. Their question, 'Woman, why are you weeping?' (20.13) allows Mary to articulate once more the problem that is the driving force behind the narrative. This time she expresses the dilemma in a more personal way: 'They have taken my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him' (v. 13; cf. v. 2). The angels address Mary as 'woman' (yuvcu), recalling earlier occurrences of this vocative in 2.4,4.21 and 19.26. Its use here as an address is not surprising (as it is, for instance, when Jesus uses it to refer to his mother, 2.4; 19.26), but it nevertheless calls attention to Mary's gender. In this way, the ensuing conversation between Mary Magdalene and Jesus is situated in the context of earlier conversations between Jesus and women characters. This will be reinforced by Jesus' own use of 'woman' in v. 15. Upon answering the angels, Mary turns around and sees Jesus. That she does not recognize him adds drama to the story, much like the recognition story in Lk. 24.13-35 (cf. also Jn 21.7,12). To the angels' question, Jesus adds one of his own: 'What are you seeking?' (v. 15). He also includes the address 'woman', which occurs here for the last time in the gospel. For the last time in the narrative, a woman will once again be privy to the selfrevelation of Jesus, reminding the reader once more of the association between women and the self-revelation of Jesus. In this instance, revelation occurs through the naming of Mary by Jesus. It is widely recognized that when Jesus calls her by name, it recalls the description of 'his own' in ch. 10. The shepherd 'calls his own by name' (10.3). So it is with Mary, who upon hearing her name called, recognizes Jesus. She responds to his call with only one word, pap^ouvi (my rabbi). Probably too much has been read into her use of the title at this point, especially when viewed as an indication of her misunderstanding of the new relationship she is to have with Jesus.34 Mary is simply using a familiar title and one that Jesus himself had deemed appropriate (13.13). Moreover, the mere fact that Jesus appears to her suggests that she has been given a privileged role in the narrative, regardless of her immediate level of understanding. With this comes the most perplexing part of the exchange between 34. So Bultmann, Gospel of John, p. 687; cf. Brown, Gospel According to John (AB, 29A; New York: Doubleday, 1970), p. 1010; Barrett, St. John, p. 565; Lindars, Gospel of John, p. 607.

CONWAY Gender Matters in John

97

Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and another instance of over-interpretation with respect to Mary's character. Jesus says to her, nr\ MOU QTTTOU, 'do not touch me'. The phrase is enigmatic since there is no indication that Mary has done any such thing. Most interpreters place the focus on an implied misstep on Mary's part. She becomes, in effect, 'the clinging woman', trying to hold back her man, hoping he will remain his earthly self. According to this view, Mary's touch threatens to prevent Jesus from ascending and taking his place with the Father.35 Alternatively, Minear suggests that Jesus' command 'counters her desire to place his body in a tomb. To restrain him in such a place would interfere with his mission, would place restrictions on his freedom of action'.36 Whether Mary is understood as clinging to Jesus or trying to entomb him, the power that these interpretations attribute to her is truly remarkable. Although Jesus has been in complete control of his actions throughout the gospel, now the mere touch of a woman is enough to hold him down! Since the narrative reports no action at all on Mary's part, the importance of the statement is likely to be found not in what Mary may or may not be doing, but in the state in which Jesus claims to be. For this reason, more convincing explanations of the verse come from those who explore what it says about Jesus' 'liminal' state rather than what it says about Mary.37 Most helpful for our purposes is the work of Mary Rose D'Angelo, who argues, John 20.17 is concerned to emphasize exactly what many of the interpreters desire to explain away or in the case of Bultmann to deny: that the state of Jesus is different when he encounters Mary from when he meets the disciples and Thomas and invites Thomas' touch.

This does not mean that Mary is granted only an inferior grade appearance but that 'the uniqueness of the appearance may award Mary a special status. Far from showing the inadequacy of Mary's faith, the

35. So also Mary Rose D'Angelo, who notes, 'the reading "do not cling" appeals to and reinforces a common societal definition of women: women's love is dependent and holds men back from their true call' ('A Critical Note: John 20.17 and the Apocalypse of Moses 21', JTS 41 [1990], pp. 529-36 [531]). 36. Minear, 'We Don't Know Where', p. 130. 37. Cf., e.g., Wayne Meeks, 'We can only observe that since the Fourth Evangelist's dramatic compression of exaltation and crucifixion motifs into one has left the traditional Easter appearances in a kind of limbo, this strange statement imparts to that limbo a sacred liminality. Jesus is no longer in the world, but not yet ascended; he belongs to the intermediate zone that violates these categories and renders him untouchable' ('The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism', JBL 91 [1972], pp. 141-73 [166]).

98

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

story tends to confer on her a unique privilege in this encounter'.38 If we allow the verse to be read this way, it coincides well with Jesus' next words, which express the most remarkable aspect of the encounter between these two characters. In v. 17, Jesus commissions Mary to go to his brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my father and your father, to my God and your God/ Without hesitation, Mary carries out her commission: she goes and announces to the disciples, 'I have seen the Lord', and delivers his message to them. In doing so, she assumes the role of mediator and apostle for Jesus. It is her testimony that prepares the way for the disciples joyfully to witness an appearance of the resurrected Christ (vv. 19-29). Finally, that Jesus asks Mary to communicate to the disciples accents the fact that he did not appear to Peter and the Beloved Disciple. In effect, these two are bypassed in favor of Mary. The structure of the narrative suggests a deliberate juxtaposition. Compared to Mary's experience at the tomb, the disciples' experience seems all the more lacking. They race to the tomb, find nothing but grave clothes, and return home no wiser than before, except that they are able to confirm what Mary told them. She, weeping and mourning the loss of Jesus, lingers at the tomb. Much like Martha and Mary of Bethany, her expressive devotion is rewarded. It is to her that the risen Jesus appears. These four examples suggest a contrast that casts women in more favorable roles than their male counterparts, especially in terms of the outcomes of their interactions with Jesus. Far from being portrayed as equal to men in their discipleship, these women surpass the men in terms of the values of the narrative. With the men examined here, Jesus gives frequent correctives, the conversation turns to talk of the devil and betrayal, or conversations are abruptly cut off. The women, on the other hand, are repeatedly privy to statements of Jesus' self-revelation and emerge as both confessors of Jesus and witnesses to his death and resurrection. Thus, at least in these four instances, the text teases (entices?) us with the possibility of an implicit gender dualism in which women are positioned on top. 38. D' Angelo, 'John 20.17', p. 535. D' Angelo's observations, combined with those of Meeks (see n. 37) raise another intriguing possibility, namely, that women are present in this gospel particularly at times of transition or liminality. The mother of Jesus helps inaugurate Jesus' earthly ministry and is present again at the moment preceding his death. She is also associated with a wedding, as is the Samaritan woman through betrothal allusions. Martha and Mary of Bethany encounter Jesus during the transitional time of death and then resuscitation. And finally, Mary Magdalene lingers at the tomb only to witness the most liminal moment of all, as Jesus ascends to the Father.

CONWAY Gender Matters in John

99

Yet, given a wider view of the narrative, it soon becomes clear that even in this heavily dualistic gospel, we do not have something so clear as an opposition between male and female. There are instances when male characters are favorably depicted. The most impressive example is found in the man born blind (ch. 9). He is not placed in opposition to a female character, but instead does battle with Jesus' opposition. Likewise, in spite of the contrast with Mary Magdalene in ch. 20, the Beloved Disciple is certainly intended to embody positive values in the narrative. So if gender is not clearly part of the dualism of the gospel, what can be said about the gender contrasts discussed above and can anything be said about the function of gender in general in the gospel? The Earthly and Heavenly Dimensions of Gender in the Gospel of John As suggested earlier, gender representations function in at least two levels in this narrative, what I have called the heavenly realm and the earthly realm. First, at the earthly level, the use of gender contrasts outlined above implies a critique of and challenge to traditional institutional authorities. The contrasts between Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman and between Martha and Peter are perhaps most telling in this regard. Nicodemus represents the established Jewish authorities, and Peter the emerging establishment of the church. Against their claims to authority are placed the images of an anonymous foreign woman (the Samaritan woman) and beloved female followers of Jesus (Martha and Mary Magdalene). Similar ideas about the role of Johannine women have been posited in various ways by recent interpreters. In his study of Johannine women, Brown suggests that they may represent a critique of ecclesial authority. Noting especially Martha's confession in the narrative he argues: at a time when the twelve apostles were becoming dominant in the memory of the ministry of Jesus and of church origins, John portrays Simon Peter as only one of a number of heroes and heroines and thus hints that ecclesiastical authority is not the sole criterion for judging importance in the following of Jesus.39

39. Brown, 'Roles of Women', pp. 693-94. Here it is clear that Brown does not see the women as surpassing the men, as I have argued, but standing alongside them. Indeed, he takes pains to make the point that what he calls the substitution of Martha for Peter 'was not meant to denigrate Peter or deny him a role of ecclesiastical authority' (p. 693). Still, it seems to me that the addition of ch. 21 points to the fact that Peter's role in the gospel proper is diminished and demanded attention from early redactors of the gospel.

100

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Pushing the point a bit further than Brown, John Rena asks: Is the prominence of women part of a Johannine effort to limit or to control the influence of the Twelve? Or, to put the issue in a broader frame of reference, is John worried about authority figures?... I think that John uses the women, who are obviously not members of the Twelve if one knows traditions about the life of Jesus, as part of a subtle polemic against anything that threatens the Lordship of Christ, the Son of God. There is at least an implicit warning that human authority can threaten the unity of the one shepherd with His one flock.40

When we compare the presentation of women with such male characters as Peter, Nicodemus and Pilate (the latter has not been discussed here, but clearly represents Roman authority), the idea of a critique of institutional authority in general grows even more plausible. Further supporting this notion is that, aside from Jesus, the two most favorably depicted men in the gospel are anonymous (like the Samaritan woman and the mother of Jesus) and unaffiliated. Perhaps especially this latter aspect holds them in common with the women characters and enables them to hold more positive roles. On the surface, this implicit critique of traditional authority has great potential for feminist interpretations of the gospel. It is no wonder that the Fourth Gospel has been a favorite among feminist biblical scholars. Yet there is also a disturbing side to this understanding of the function of gender contrasts. The very recognition of an implied critique depends on a presupposition that women stand outside the bounds of recognized structures of authority. Along this line, note how Rena is able to move from the idea that prominent women characters function to limit the influence of the twelve male disciples to a notion that their depiction warns against human authority in general. Apparently, women in prominent roles (narrative or otherwise) do not constitute a threatening human authority! In other words, what initially appears as a subverted gender hierarchy turns out to reinforce the dominant view that woman cannot possibly represent any real human authority. They can be portrayed in prominent narrative positions because everyone knows they would never actually hold such roles. And there are more difficulties. Before we become enamored by this use of gender categories to challenge earthly authoritative structures, I suggest we look at what happens with gender at another level in this narrative. The men and women of this gospel have another story to tell, and it is not one of subversion but rather reinscription of a familiar gender myth—that of the universal male subject. 40. Rena, 'Women7, p. 146.

CONWAY Gender Matters in John

101

As I have argued throughout this study, Johannine women are distinct in this gospel because of the outcomes of their interactions with Jesus. It is the nature of Jesus' interactions with women that sets the women apart. Alongside this, I would like to place another of the gospel's most distinctive features —the characterization of Jesus. Scholars have long noted that throughout the narrative Jesus is shown to be in complete control of the unfolding events. This aspect of Jesus has understandably been attributed to his divine status. Nevertheless, it seems highly significant that in the Hellenistic world, mastery over self and over others was an essential, defining characteristic for masculinity.41 Thus, that Jesus will not be overcome by emotion (12.27), that soldiers fall to the ground before him (18.6), that Pilate has no control over Jesus (19.11), and that Jesus determines his own death (10.18; 19.30) are certainly indicative of his divinity, but are also (perhaps not coincidentally) consistent with the characteristic of the ideal male figure. The language of the gospel tends to confirm the masculine image of Jesus and God, with its heavy use of Father/Son language. Nor is this image counteracted by the presence of Wisdom imagery in the gospel, despite the desire to reclaim 'Jesus Sophia' as somehow reflecting a feminine aspect of Jesus.42 Rather than conveying a feminine aspect of the divine, it is more the case that the masculine Logos/Jesus has displaced the feminine image of Sophia.43 As Fiorenza observes: By introducing the 'father-son' language in the very beginning and using it throughout the Gospel, the whole book reinscribes the metaphorical gram41. Recent work on the construction of sex and gender in the first-century Mediterranean culture has convincingly argued that these qualities, far more than one's physical body, were decisive in defining one's manliness. Cf. Thomas Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990); and John J. Winkler, The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece (New York: Routledge, 1989). 42. Cf. e.g., Martin Scott, Sophia and the Johannine Jesus (JSNTSup, 71; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). 43. So Norman R. Petersen, The Gospel of John and the Sociology of Light: Language and Characterization in the Fourth Gospel (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1993), pp. 110-19. Similarly, see Amy-Jill Levine on Q: 'Since Sophia is a conventional motif in Wisdom literature, her direct association with Jesus may be less a "feminizing" of the teacher than a "masculinizing" of the mythical source of that teaching ('Who's Catering the Q Affair? Feminist Observations on Q Paraenesis', Semeia 50 [1990], pp. 145-61 [155]). For an alternative view see Judith Lieu, who argues that wisdom imagery need not carry a gender connotation in every case merely because it is sometimes described that way ('Scripture and the Feminine in John', in Athalya Brenner [ed.], A Feminist Companion to the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996], pp. 225-40 [228-29]).

102

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II matical masculinity of the expressions 'logos' and 'son' as congruent with the biological masculine sex of the historic person of Jesus of Nazareth. The Fourth Gospel thereby not only dissolves the tension between the grammatical feminine gender of Sophia and the 'naturalized' gender of Jesus but also marginalizes and 'silences' the traditions of G*d as represented by Divine Woman Wisdom.44

Finally, as we have seen, the gender identities of both the women and Jesus are highlighted in a number of ways in his various encounters with them. In effect, women gain prominence in this narrative through their proper response to one who represents the ideal male subject. In this way, characters who are presented as a challenge to the constraints of earthly gender configurations meet them again at a cosmic level. Although feminist studies have noted the remarkable independence of Johannine women from male relationships, the women are celebrated for their recognition of and devotion to the ultimate male figures in the narrative—the Father and Son. This configuration of gender relations appears to be the opposite of what one reads in Paul. From his perspective, freedom from the constraints of gender identity occurs precisely (and perhaps only) at the spiritual level. In Christ, there is no male and female (Gal. 3.28). In the Gospel of John, women appear free from traditional gender categories in the social realm, but the customary relationship between male and female is reinscribed in the spiritual realm. In the end, however, this is not surprising. The Israelites already had a long history of describing the relationship between God and God's people in gender-specific categories. Israel was to be a devoted wife to her husband Yahweh, or a faithful daughter to her father. Similar language was carried into Rabbinic literature as the rabbis described their own relationship with God. The point is that men are to be 'women' to God, that is, they are to be in a subordinate, dependent, but also intimate, relationship with God. In the Gospel of John, women themselves become examples of the proper relationship with the divine. They are 'women' to God and as such are cast in the most favorable light. Perhaps the most provocative support of this notion is found in the enigmatic characterization of the Beloved Disciple, typically understood as the 'ideal' disciple. While grammatically male, his characterization in many ways resembles that of the Johannine women, for example, the intimate scene in 13.23, the sharp contrast with Judas that the disciple shares with Mary, as well as his identity as 'beloved' (cf. 11.5, which 44. Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, Jesus: Miriam's Child, Sophia's Prophet: Critical Issues in Feminist Christology (New York: Continuum, 1994), p. 153.

CONWAY Gender Matters in John

103

includes Lazarus, but comes to expression primarily through Jesus' interaction with Martha and Mary). It may be no coincidence that in the end, the disciple stands with the women at the foot of the cross (19.2526). He, in fact, may represent the same sort of 'feminized7 male that one encounters in Rabbinic literature.45 To conclude, let me suggest once more that gender does matter in the Gospel of John. The repetitive contrast of women and men in this gospel suggests that conveying 'equality' was not a primary factor in the presentation of these characters. Instead, the function of gender may have more to do with representing the proper relationship between humanity and the divine. If this is the case, the resulting discourse presents a complex picture of gender relations, effective in different ways at different levels of the narrative. From a feminist perspective, it becomes crucial to take seriously this complexity. Rather than searching for simple answers, we must recognize that gender representations and relations function in ambiguous and multifaceted ways in this gospel, just as they do in life.

45. See Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), and Michael L. Satlow, Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) for discussion of the construction of gender in Rabbinic literature.

THE 'BIRTHING' BRIDEGROOM: THE PORTRAYAL OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL Adeline Fehribach R. Allen Culpepper notes that the plot of the Fourth Gospel, as defined by the prologue and especially by 1.11-12, focuses on Jesus as the one sent to enable people to become 'children of God'.1 Feminist analysis extends this observation to consider the means by which this enabling occurs. In The Women in the Life of the Bridegroom,21 assert that Jesus in the Fourth Gospel accomplishes his task by giving birth to the children of God from the cross. Anticipating this climatic, familial moment is the author's consistent portrayal of Jesus as the (messianic) bridegroom, particularly in pericopae involving female characters. Then, in the crucifixion scene, a role reversal occurs: the bridegroom functions as the bride so as to become the source of eternal life. Jesus the Messianic Bridegroom The Wedding at Cana Jesus first appears as a bridegroom in Jn 2.1-11 when he responds to his mother's implied request to provide wine for the wedding feast. Providing wine for a wedding feast was, after all, the responsibility of the bridegroom, as the text itself illustrates when the headwaiter complained to the bridegroom about his reserving the best wine until last (2.8-10). The author does not indicate why Jesus' mother is so concerned about the wine. Nevertheless, based on the fact that the narrator only refers to the mother of Jesus by her familial title 'mother', and on the fact that she is portrayed as quite assertive in this pericope, it is my contention that the author is utilizing the 'mother' character-type from the Hebrew Bible 1. R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p. 87. 2. Adeline Fehribach, The Women in the Life of the Bridegroom: A Feminist HistoricalLiterary Analysis of the Female Characters in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998).

FEHRIBACH The 'Birthing' Bridegroom

105

in order to portray Jesus as the messianic bridegroom.3 Like Sarah, who intervenes on behalf of Isaac (Gen. 21.9-21), and Rebekah, who intervenes on behalf of her favorite son, Jacob (Gen. 27.1-46), the mother of Jesus can be seen as intervening with regard to the wine in order to increase the status of her son (and perhaps her own status as well), since the bridegroom would have been indebted to Jesus for providing the needed wine.4 Within this context, Jesus' response, 'Woman, what to me and to you? My hour has not yet come', may well be understood at this early stage in the gospel as the equivalent of 'Woman, what does this have to do with us? It's not my wedding'. Thus, Jesus' initial refusal indicates both that he recognizes the responsibility for the wine belongs to the earthly bridegroom and that he has no desire to extend his own (earthly) honor/glory (cf. 5.44; 7.18; 8.50,54; 12.43). Nevertheless, when his mother persists by commanding the servants to heed whatever instructions her son might give them (2.5), Jesus uses the mundane situation to perform his first 'sign', providing quality wine in abundance from the water in the purification jars (2.6-10). Within the Hebrew Bible and Apocrypha, wedding imagery was often used to depict the relationship between Israel and God (Exod. 34.10-16; Deut. 5.10; Isa. 54.4-8; Jer. 2.2; 11.15; Ezek. 16.8-13; Hos. 1.2-9; 2.2-10), and quality wine in abundance was sometimes employed as a symbol of messianic blessing (Isa. 25.6; Jer. 49.11-12; Joel 4.18; Cant. 1.2; 2.4; 2 Bar. 29.5). Thus, Jesus' bridegroom action of providing quality wine in abundance in the manner in which he did so can be read as his symbolic acceptance of the role of the messianic bridegroom who provides not only wine, but blessing in abundance. In support of this assertion is the fact that this first sign revealed to his disciples his (heavenly) glory/honor (2.11),5 which led his disciples (and the reader) to believe in him (2.12), a prerequisite to becoming children of God (cf. 1.12). The mother of Jesus, therefore, is portrayed as the unwitting means by which Jesus enables people to become children of God, much like her maternal 3. Fehribach, Women in the Life of the Bridegroom, pp. 25-28; cf. Esther Fuchs, 'The Literary Characterization of Mothers and Sexual Politics in the Hebrew Bible', in Adela Yarbro Collins (ed.), Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 117-36; J. Cheryl Exum, '"Mother in Israel": A Familiar Figure Reconsidered', in Letty Russell (ed.), Feminist Interpretation of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), pp. 73-82. 4. Cf. Bruce Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), pp. 25-50, 71-93. 5. Malina states that the word 'glory' is an equivalent to 'honor' (New Testament World, p. 48).

106

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

predecessors were portrayed as the unwitting means by which God fulfills the promise to Abraham that he would become the father of many descendants (Gen. 17.5-8), descendants who are also considered children of God (cf. Deut. 14.1; Hos. 2.1; 2 Mace. 7.34; Wis. 12.7; Jn 11.52). This reading of Jesus as the messianic bridegroom receives additional support first from Jesus' following discussion with Nicodemus about the need to be born 'from above' (3.1-21), for a major purpose of becoming a bridegroom was procreation, and then by John the Baptist's proclamation that the one who has the bride is the bridegroom (3.29). In addition, Jesus is subsequently cast in the role of the bridegroom in every pericope involving female characters. The Samaritan Woman John 4, by adopting the structure of the betrothal type-scene, places Jesus in the bridegroom's role. Within this type-scene the hero or his surrogate travels to a foreign land, encounters a girl at a well, one of them usually draws water, the girl then rushes home to inform her family of the stranger's arrival, and a betrothal is sealed after the man shares a meal with the girl's family (cf. Gen. 24.10-61; Gen. 29.1-10).6 The basic elements of this type-scene appear as Jesus travels to Samaria, meets a woman at a well and asks for a drink, only to assure her that he can provide her with 'living water' that will produce life (4.4-14). On one level, Jesus' request that the woman go get her husband (4.16) could be read as an attempt to determine the woman's availability for marriage.7 At this point, the author adapts the convention as Jesus depicts the Samaritan woman not as a young virgin, but as a woman who has had five men/husbands and is now living with a man who is not her husband (4.15-18). 8 This statement by Jesus opens the door for a lengthy verbal intercourse that culminates with the woman's rushing back to her village and leaving behind her water jug (4.28), which could be taken as a sign that she has received the living water Jesus offered. 6. Cf. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), pp. 51-62. 7. J.E. Botha, 'Reader "Entrapment" as Literary Device in John 4.1-42', Neot 24 (1990), pp. 37-47 (42-43). 8. In Women in the Life of the Bridegroom, pp. 63-69,1 support the earlier scholarly argument that the woman symbolizes the Samaritans, who have had five male gods (brought into the area by the five groups forced to emigrate to Samaria by the Assyrians) and who now worship one who is not a true god (because their Yahwism has been tainted by the influence of the worship of the five false gods [cf. 2 Kgs 17.1334]). See also Sandra Schneiders, The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1991), p. 190, and Gerard Sloyan, 'The Samaritans in the New Testament', Horizons 10 (1980), pp. 7-21 (10).

FEHRIBACH The 'Birthing' Bridegroom

107

The image of a man providing 'living water7 that wells up within a woman to produce life, like the betrothal type-scene itself, has obvious sexual overtones and implications of fertility. Such imagery, however, is spiritualized in the Fourth Gospel to convey religious connotations, just as the same imagery was spiritualized in Prov. 5.15-18 and Jer. 2.2, 13 to reveal the life-giving relationship God has with the people of Israel. 9 Adding to the spiritualization of the imagery in John 4 is the substitution of the promise of 'eternal life' for biological life and the substitution of the entire town for the woman's family. These changes indicate that Jesus desires not an earthly, familial relationship with the single woman and her biological kinship group through earthly betrothal, but a spiritual, familial relationship with the entire Samaritan people the woman represents.10 Sexual imagery and symbols of fertility continue to be spiritualized as the imagery in John 4 shifts from water in a well to a field 'white' for the harvest (4.35-38). The image of a woman as land plowed with seed can be found in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Jer. 3.1),11 Greek texts,12 lexicographic analysis,13 Mediterranean ethnographic studies,14 and even more 9. Cf. Fehribach, Women in the Life of the Bridegroom, pp. 54-58. This marital/ fertility symbolism may also be connoted when Jesus announces the moment of true worship by stating, 'An hour is coming and now is', for in John 2, as we have seen, 'hour' implies the wedding moment. 10. Calum Carmichael, 'Marriage and the Samaritan Woman', NTS 26 (1980), pp. 332-46 (338,341-42). Sandra Schneiders, 'Inclusive Discipleship (4.1-42)', in eadem, Written That You May Believe (New York: Crossroad, 1999), p. 141. For a fuller explication of how the Samaritan woman fulfills this characterization, see Fehribach, Women in the Life of the Bridegroom, pp. 58-69. 11. Most texts from the Hebrew Bible, however, seems to refer to the male sexual organs as a tree that must be pruned to increase fertility, and it is this tree that is planted in the land. Cf. Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, 'The Fruitful Cut', in idem, The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), pp. 149-62. 12. Artemidoros (Oneirocritica [Dream Analysis] 5.63) in the second century CE records a dream in which a woman's breasts produce stalks of wheat (her son) that then migrate to her genitalia (incest), and the imagery of 'woman as land to be sown with seed' can also be found within the Demeter festival. Cf. John Winkler, The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece (New York: Routledge, 1990), pp. 34,219,305. 13. Winkler (Constraints of Desire, p. 182) notes that vuMr) is not only a technical term for clitoris, but also through an interesting reversal, the Greek word for the point of a plow that penetrates the earth (cf. Proklos ad Hesiod, Erga 425). 14. Carol Delaney, 'The Body of Knowledge', in The Seed and the Soil: Gender and Cosmology in Turkish Village Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), pp. 25-98 (30-31); and idem, 'Seeds of Honor, Fields of Shame', in David Gilmore (ed.), Honor and Shame in the Unity of the Mediterranean (Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association, 1987), pp. 35-48 (38-39).

108

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

modern literary works.15 In the Hebrew Bible this woman as land imagery is sometimes spiritualized to portray the life-giving relationship God has with the people of Israel (cf. Jer. 2.2-3; Hos. 2.2,14-23), and in the writings of the early church it is even used to explain the state of creation itself.16 So too in John 4 Jesus is portrayed as the messianic bridegroom who has sown seeds of faith in the Samaritan woman, a representative of her people. In compressed time typical of the Fourth Gospel, the Samaritan woman symbolically bears fruit in abundance as the townspeople, looking like a field 'white' for the harvest (4.35) come toward Jesus, and Jesus invites the disciples to reap what others (he and God) have sown (4.36-38). Such imagery allows the pericope to embody the 'same plot as the story as a whole',17 that of Jesus' producing children of God. Although many commentators remark upon the betrothal type-scene in this pericope,18 only a few note the absence of a narrated meal that precedes the betrothal (cf. Gen. 24.33, 54; Gen. 29.14 [implied]).19 On one level, the food like the water is implicitly received: Jesus tells his followers, 'I have food to eat that you do not know about' (4.34).20 On another level, however, the lack of a narrated dinner in John 4 allows for the development of the plot of the gospel, as the missing betrothal meal appears in a subsequent story involving a female character. Mary of Bethany The next female characters in the Fourth Gospel are Mary and Martha of Bethany. They appear first in the pericope involving the illness, death and Jesus' raising of their brother Lazarus (11.1-46) and then in the 15. Cf. Annette Kolodny, The Lay of the Land: Metaphor as Experience and History in American Life and Letters (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975). 16. Clement of Alexandria (Excerpta ex Theodoto 32.1 and 68) even envisioned the universe as 'misshapened, fleshlike growth' that developed in Wisdom when she deprived herself of the forming seed of God. Cf. Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), p. 112. 17. According to Culpepper (Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, p. 89) each episode of the Fourth Gospel has essentially the same plot as the Gospel as a whole. 18. Cf. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 136-37; Mark Stibbe, John (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), p. 69. For a more complete listing, see Fehribach, Life of the Bridegroom, p. 50 n. 18. 19. Cf. Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB, 29; New York: Doubleday, 1966), I, pp. 170-71,176; Gail O'Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), pp. 131-32 n. 49 20. See Jeffrey Staley, The Print's First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 100-102.

FEHRIBACH The 'Birthing' Bridegroom

109

subsequent dinner at Bethany (12.1-11). The reader may assume that the dinner was in reciprocity and gratitude for Jesus' raising of Lazarus, but the text never explicitly states this; it only states that the dinner was for him (12.2). Thus, the second narrative can also be read as the missing betrothal meal. Clues to this reading include Mary's presence at Jesus' feet in a dinner setting and her anointing Jesus' feet with nard and then wiping his feet with her hair (11.2; 12.3-4). First, according to Greek ideology, women generally dined alone except for family festivals, such as weddings, or other religious celebrations that had a limited guest list. At such a dinner (Seiirvov), the man would recline and the wife would sit at his feet.21 In this respect, it may be significant that the Johannine text only says that Martha served (12.2), while Mary is pictured at his feet (12.3). The second clue to a possible betrothal scene is that Mary not only let her hair down before Jesus, but also wiped his feet with her hair.22 According to first-century custom, respectable women generally wore their hair in braids.23 For a woman to let her hair down before a man to whom she was not related, let alone rub his feet with her hair, would have been considered scandalous behavior.24 In the anointing story in Lk. 7.36-50, where a woman first washed Jesus' feet with her tears and 21. Kathleen Corley states that in late Republican and early Imperial periods, Roman matrons were allowed to recline with their husbands, but prior to the time of Augustus, even Roman matrons, like their Greek counterparts, would have sat at their husbands' feet, ('Were the Women around Jesus Really Prostitutes? Women in the Context of Greco-Roman Meals', in David J. Lull (ed.), 1989 Seminar Papers [SBLSP; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989], pp. 489-90,492). 22. John Pilch perceives a possible sexual innuendo based on the use of 'feet' as a euphemism for male sexual organs (cf. Isa. 7.20) and a woman's long hair being so regarded as a sexual attraction that to shave it off became symbolic of a sacrifice of sexuality (Cultural Dictionary [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999], pp. 67-68). 23. Jerome Murphy O'Connor, 'Sex and Logic in 1 Cor. 11.2-16', CBQ 42 (1980), pp. 482-500 (487-90, esp. n. 3), and Cynthia Thompson, 'Hairstyles, Headcoverings, and St. Paul', BA 51 (1988), pp. 99-115 (112), states that irepip6Aaiov in 1 Cor. 11.15 referred, not to the practice of veiling, but to the practice of a woman's wrapping her long hair around her head in plaits. Moderation in the ornamentation of braiding can be found in 1 Tim. 2.9 and 1 Pet. 3.3, as well as Hellenistic Neopythagorean writings. Cf. Sarah Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity (New York: Schocken Books, 1975), p. 135. On hair as a natural veil see P. Brown, Body and Society, p. 288. 24. Cf. Ben Witherington III, Women in the Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 111-13,194 n. 209; R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, I, pp. 450-51. According to Thompson ('Hairstyles', p. 112), 'Greco-Roman women seem to have let down their hair publicly only on special occasions, such as mourning, some Greek wedding ceremonies, or religious rites'.

110

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

then wiped them with her hair prior to anointing his feet, the narrator first identifies the woman as a 'sinner', a characterization later affirmed by the unspoken thoughts of the Pharisee who witnessed her actions (Lk. 7.37-39).25 A solution to this representation exists, however, if the scenario were read as a betrothal dinner given within a family context.26 Finally, Mary's application of nard on Jesus' feet could be interpreted as a loving act, especially in view of the fact that this scene is not pictured as a traditional washing of a guest's feet upon his arrival (no water is mentioned) and Jesus in the Johannine text does not interpret Mary's act itself as a burial preparation.27 Not only do ancient texts sometimes associate romantic settings with a woman's anointing a man's feet with perfume,28 but there is also a possible allusion here to Cant. 1.12, 'As the king was on his couch [ev avaKXioei CCUTOU] my nard gave forth its fragrance'. Parallels to Canticles are found in the reclining posture at dinner (Lazarus was reclining [TJV SK TCOV avcxKEijjevcov] with Jesus), the nard that was used for anointing, and that the nard filled the house with Us fragrance. Thus, the combination of the presence and posture of Mary at the dinner and her uncontested act of anointing Jesus' feet with nard and then wiping his feet with her hair could indicate that she functions symbolically in these two pericopae as the betrothed of the messianic bridegroom. Further, she represents the Jews to whom she is consistently linked (11.31, 33, 45), just as the Samaritan woman represented the Samaritan people. This relationship between Jesus and Mary is then reinforced by other textual elements. First, even though the anointing scene does not occur until ch. 12, Jn 11.1-2 defines Lazarus (as well as Martha) in terms of Mary and then defines Mary in terms of her anointing Jesus with perfume and then 25. Only Judas takes exception to her actions, and his objection is based on money, not the act itself. 26. This would seem, however, to go against conservative Jewish customs, since the Mishnah states that only in her wedding procession was a bride seen with uncovered head, and then only if she were a virgin, not a widow (m. Ket. 2.1). Cf. Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1969), p. 360. 27. I would translate the first part of Jesus' response, 'Leave her alone so that she may keep [TripTiorj] it for the day of my burial' (12.7). The Greek does not indicate that she bought the nard for burial purposes (cf. NRSV), only that she was to keep the remainder for his burial. In addition, Jesus' second statement to Judas, 'You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me' (12.8), may emphasize Mary's act as a love response. Cf. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 141-42. 28. Cf. Athenaeus' s references to Sphinx-Cairo by Eubulus and The Man from Zante by Antiphanes in Deipn. 12.553a, c-d; Pilch, Cultural Dictionary, p. 68.

FEHRIBACH The 'Birthing' Bridegroom

111

wiping his feet with her hair:29 'Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair; her brother Lazarus was ill! This double definition depicts Mary as the link between Jesus and Lazarus, which could be understood within betrothed or marital situations. Cultural anthropology highlights the exchange of women in marriage as the ultimate gift exchange that forms a permanent kinship bond between men in traditional cultures,30 and feminist literary criticism illuminates how authors employ the exchange of women not only as a way of bonding male characters, but also as a way of bonding male readers to the (female) text.31 In addition, a fictive betrothal between Jesus and Mary would explain Jesus' loving relationship with Mary's entire family (cf. 11.5), because the woman actually creates a bond between families.32 Supporting these observations is the narrator's apparently innocuous comment that Martha went out to meet Jesus, while Mary remained at home (11.20). Only when Martha informs her sister that Jesus is calling for her does Mary, accompanied by the Jews, go quickly to meet him (11.28-31). At this juncture the narrator indicates that Jesus had not yet entered the village (11.30). These ancillary comments can best be understood within the context of the patriarchal notion of gendered space that points to a status difference between Martha and Mary.33 Martha, 29. This narrative prolepsis clues the reader to the role Mary of Bethany will play in both pericopae. 30. Cf. Gayle Rubin, "The Traffic in Women: Notes on the "Political Economy" of Sex', in Rayna Reiter (ed.), Toward an Anthropology of Women (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975), pp. 157-210 (172-74). 31. Cf. Emily Cheney, She Can Read: Feminist Reading Strategiesfor Biblical Narrative (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), pp. 40-41,81-82; Eve Sedgwick, Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), pp. 13,16, 25-26. 32. David Mace, Hebrew Marriage: A Sociological Study (London: Epworth Press, 1953), pp. 169,172. 33. Cf. Philo (Spec. Leg. 3.169; Place. 2.89); Xenophon (Oeconomicus 7.19-22); Hierocles (On Duties 4.28.21); Cornelius Nepos (Praef. 4-7); Malina, New Testament World, pp. 42-44; Corley 'Were the Women', p. 498. Jerome Neyrey, 'What's Wrong with this Picture? John 4, Cultural Stereotypes of Women, and Public and Private Space', BTB 24 (1994), pp. 77-91 (80-81), reprinted in Amy-Jill Levine (ed.), A Feminist Companion to John, I (2 vols.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). Ross Kraemer illustrates this sensitivity to gendered space in her commentary 'The Book of Aseneth', in Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Commentary (2 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1994), II, pp. 883-84. Although this work is often assumed to be Jewish and dated between the first century BCE and the second century

112

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

apparently unconnected to a husband, father, or now brother, could go outside the village alone, whereas Mary, the betrothed, must wait until she is called; when she does go outside the village, the narrator does not have her leave alone.34 When Mary greets Jesus, she repeats the words of her sister, but with one significant difference. Both women say, 'Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died' (11.21,32), but Mary's statement uses the emphatic placement of the pronoun 'my' (OUK av JJQU aireBavev b a5EA6$), whereas Martha's statement does not (OUK av aTTE0av6v b a5eX(|)6s uou).35 Thus, Mary's statement emphasizes the fact that it was her brother Jesus failed to help, which again may indicate a special responsibility Jesus had because of his relationship with her. Finally, because the raising of Lazarus is interpreted as a sign of Jesus' ability to grant eternal life (11.25), a familial relationship between Jesus and Lazarus had to be established beforehand. The gospel had already indicated that only those who believe in Jesus can become members of the family of God, and only those persons would experience eternal life (1.12-13; cf. 3.16-18; 5.21-27,38-40; 6.27-29,33-40,47-48,53-54; 8.23,41-47; 10.25-30). I maintain that a literary familial relationship between Lazarus and Jesus was established through Jesus' fictive betrothal with Mary, Lazarus' sister. Thus, Mary, the betrothed of the messianic bridegroom, is the necessary familial link that makes the raising of Lazarus possible, and Martha is the family member who expresses the necessary belief in what Jesus offers and who he is (cf. 11.27).36 Mary Magdalene Although the next pericope to include female characters is the crucifixion scene, we skip here to the account of Mary Magdalene at the tomb. Only once we have discussed Jesus' role as symbolic bridegroom in all other Johannine narratives that include women can we fully address the role reversal depicted at the cross. CE, Kraemer dates the longer version of the work (where location is more in question) to the third or fourth centuries and maintains that this version shows signs of subtle Christian editing (cf. pp. 883-84,859-60). 34. Cf. Malina, New Testament World, p. 44; Corley, 'Were the Women', p. 518. Note that the reader is told at the end of the story of the Wedding at Cana of the presence of Jesus' brothers (cf. 2.12), and at the cross the mother of Jesus is accompanied first by other women and then by the Beloved Disciple (19.25-26). 35. Cf. Charles Giblin, 'Suggestions, Negative Response and Positive Action in St. John's Portrayal of Jesus (John 2.1-11; 4.46-54; 7.2-14; 11.1-44)', NTS 26 (1980), pp. 197-211 (209). 36. For additional discussion, see Fehribach, Life of the Bridegroom, pp. 83-113.

FEHRIBACH The 'Birthing' Bridegroom

113

Scholars have often pondered why the Fourth Gospel focuses on one woman's coming to Jesus' tomb when the synoptic texts depict several women in this role. One explanation is that the author is depicting Mary Magdalene as Jesus' fictive bride so as to continue the portrait of Jesus as the messianic bridegroom. This thesis finds secure support in popular 'pre-sophisticate'37 Greek novels of the Hellenistic or early Roman period (sometimes called romances or tales) that portray a spouse in search of the tomb or body of the beloved partner and include a recognition scene between husband and wife.38 The story of Mary's visit to the tomb, her search for the body of Jesus and the subsequent recognition scene most closely parallel scenes from Xenophon's An Ephesian Tale and Chariton's Chaereas and Callirhoe.39 The plot of these Greek novellae entails a youthful man and woman who meet by chance, fall in love, encounter unexpected obstacles to their union, are separated, experience distinct dangerous journeys and adventures, and are eventually reunited to live happily ever after.40 In An Ephesian Tale, the newlyweds Habrocomes and Anthia are attacked by pirates and separated. Each believes the other to be dead. Anthia attempts suicide by poison, but the potion merely puts her into a deep sleep. When grave robbers then kidnap her from her tomb, she longs for her forced voyage to take her to the place where Habrocomes is buried so that she might see his tomb. In turn, when Habrocomes receives word of Anthia's death, he asks an old woman to take him to her tomb so that he might see her body. The old woman, however, informs him that Anthia's body has been removed from the tomb. Bemoaning his deprivation of Anthia's remains, Habrocomes's only solace, he goes in search of her body; upon finding it, he plans to commit suicide and so be buried next to his wife.41 37. 'Sophistic' refers to later novels (late second and early third century CE) of the Greek cultural revival during the Roman imperial period called the Second Sophistic. Novels written earlier during the Hellenistic or early Roman time period are sometimes called the 'pre- or non-sophistic'. Cf. Tomas Hagg, The Novel in Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), pp. viii, xii; Winkler, Constraints of Desire, p. 105. 38. R.E. Brown and others acknowledge a Hellenistic influence on this Gospel (cf. Gospel According to John, I, pp. Ivi-lix) but typically cite popular Greek philosophy, Philo of Alexandria and the Hermetica. 39. This discussion is taken from my final chapter 'Mary Magdalene at the Tomb', in Fehribach, Women in the Life of the Bridegroom, pp. 147-49. 40. Bryan Reardon, The Form of the Greek Romance (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991), p. 5. 41. Cf. Xenophon, 'An Ephesian Tale', in Three Greek Romances (trans. Moses Hadas; New York: Macmillan, 1953), pp. 102-103.

114

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Chaereas and Callirhoe in the second novel are also newlyweds. Convinced by a malevolent demon who attends their wedding in the guise of Callirhoe's rejected suitors that his bride has been unfaithful, Chaereas strikes Callirhoe and believes he has killed her. Upon then discovering her innocence, he visits her tomb, ostensibly to adorn it with wreaths and to pour libations but in actuality to commit suicide there. He cannot bear to be separated from his beloved, and he seeks to be buried with her. Arriving at the tomb, Chaereas notices that the stone at the entrance has been removed; he does not, however, enter the tomb. Rumor carries the news of the disturbed tomb to Hermocrates, Callirhoe's father, who orders a man to enter the site. The man reports that even the corpse has been taken. At this point, Chaereas himself enters: eager to see Callirhoe's body, he too searches the tomb but finds nothing. When those present discover that the funerary offerings are also missing, they realize that grave robbers have been at work. Yet because the presence of grave robbers does not explain the missing body, Chaereas speculates: could one of the gods have taken his bride's body for himself? Could Callirhoe herself have been a goddess? Vowing to search for the body over sea, land and even sky, Chaereas sets out on his journeys.42 Like An Ephesian Tale, Chaereas and Callirhoe emphasizes the depth of love bride and groom have for each other. Both novels also highlight the pain of separation, the ability of love to survive (apparent) death, the desire of the spouse to see the body of the beloved, and the willingness of the survivor to die in order to be reunited with the loved one. In both stories, the tombs are empty. Chariton's novel offers even more parallels to the Johannine pericope. Like Mary Magdalene, who initially does not enter Jesus' tomb upon finding the stone moved, Chaereas waits to enter Callirhoe's disturbed tomb, allowing others to do so first. Later, both Chaereas and Mary Magdalene enter the tombs of their respective loved ones, only to find the tomb empty. Additionally, Chariton's tale mentions the possibility that the entombed person might have divine origins or that the disturbed tomb might indicate divine intervention. Although Mary Magdalene assumes someone has removed Jesus' body (20.2,13, 15), which is what in fact happened to the body of Callirhoe, the author of the Fourth Gospel indicates that Jesus' missing body is a sign of divine intervention, which is what Chaereas thinks is the case with his beloved. Unlike the Greek tales, however, the Fourth Gospel emphasizes that the beloved, Jesus, is actually dead (cf. 19.33-34); Mary Magdalene herself witnessed the piercing of his side and the flowing of water and blood from the wound (19.25). 42. Cf. Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe (trans. Warren Blake; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1939), pp. 40-41; Hagg, Novel in Antiquity, pp. 5-14.

FEHRIBACH The 'Birthing' Bridegroom

115

Mary Magdalene visits Jesus' tomb early in the morning, while it was still dark (20.1). As Brown notes, first-century women did not typically walk about the city alone in the dark.43 Although the darkness may indicate that Mary's faith in the resurrection had not yet been awakened (cf. 20.9),44 it also indicates that Mary is obsessed with finding the body of her beloved.45 Some scholars even perceive in this obsessive behavior an allusion to the emotive quest of the woman of Canticles for her lover.46 In addition, it is just this sort of behavior that fits the conventions of the Greek novels. Whether alluding to Canticles or to the novellae or both, Mary's search casts her in the role of a woman in search of her beloved (husband or lover or both). When Mary encounters the risen Jesus, the recognition scene that follows also depicts conventions familiar from both Canticles and the Greek tales. The 'recognition' (anagnorisis) is, according to Aristotle's Poetics, a shift from ignorance to knowledge, the moment at which characters first understand their situation fully, the moment the world becomes intelligible.47 In the Greek novels, anognorisis is reduced to a mere accident of fortune; it does not change the characters' spiritual condition.48 Characters simply recognize each other after a prolonged separation. For example, in An Ephesian Tale (5.12.1-5.13.4), after Habrocomes and Anthia experience a long separation, their servants find a dedication in the temple with their mistress's name on it; later they see Anthia there, but they do not recognize her. Gradually, her tears, offerings, and figure—that is, the love she displays —along with the dedication facilitate their recognition of her. She, however, does not recognize them until they reveal their names to her. Hearing from the servants that Anthia is alive, Habrocomes runs to her 'like a man bereft of his wits'. 43. R.E. Brown, Gospel According to John, II, p. 981. Her actions, however, would indicate that she is portrayed at this point as unconnected to any man. See my earlier comments on gendered space (n. 32). 44. R.E. Brown, Gospel According to John, II, p. 981; Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, p. 192. 45. Paul Minear,' "We Don't Know Where..." John 20.2', Int 30 (1989), pp. 269-75. 46. Teresa Okure, 'The Significance Today of Jesus' Commission to Mary Magdalene (Jn 20.11-18)', International Review of Mission 81 (1992), pp. 180-81; Carolyn and Joseph Grassi, 'The Resurrection: The New Age Begins: Mary Magdalene a Mystical Spouse', in Mary Magdalene and the Women in Jesus' Life (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1986), pp. 104-15. 47. Terence Cave, Recognitions: A Study in Poetics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), p. 1. For a discussion of the effect of recognition scenes on the reader, see Terence Cave, 'Recognition and the Reader', in Elinor Shaffer (ed.), Comparative Criticism: A Yearbook (24 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), II, pp. 49-69. 48. Cave, Recognitions, pp. 37-38.

116

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

He and Anthia recognize each other immediately, embrace, and sink to the ground.49 In Chaereas and Callirhoe (8.1.7-8), Aphrodite stages the recognition scene. Chaereas captures the Island of Aradus and takes its riches onto his vessel. Callirhoe, on the island, refuses to board ship; she is determined to remain on shore and there commit suicide rather than face the possibility of infidelity to Chaereas, whom she assumes is dead. When Chaereas opens the door to where the obstinate woman is located, he finds her lying on the ground and with her head covered; her breathing and posture cause his heart to flutter. The only reason he fails to recognize her is that he believes Dionysius has already taken her away. As Chaereas speaks to the woman and assures her both that no harm will come to her and that she will have the husband she wants, Callirhoe recognizes his voice and uncovers her head. The couple simultaneously cry out each other's name, embrace, and fall to the ground in a faint.50 In the Fourth Gospel, when Mary Magdalene initially sees Jesus, she too fails to recognize her beloved (20.14); indeed, she thinks him to be the gardener (20.15). This 'garden' allusion, which has appeared earlier in the narrative (18.1, 26; 19.41), may indicate another connection to Canticles.51 Such a connection would reinforce Jesus' role as messianic bridegroom, just as the parallels to the Greek novels indicate his role as (supposed) dead but alive husband. When Jesus speaks to Mary, he repeats the angel's query, 'Woman, why are you weeping?' (20.15). This is the third time the narrative presents the depth of Mary's distress (cf. 20.11,13a). Such an emphasis, in conjunction with Mary's obsessive search for Jesus' body, encourages readers familiar with the novellae to view Mary in the context of a bereft wife in search of the body of her beloved husband. Jesus goes on to inquire, 'Whom do you seek [CrjTsis]?';52 the Greek term in the Fourth Gospel is often indicative of a deeper type of searching (cf. 1.38; 4.23;

49. Xenophon, 'An Ephesian Tale', pp. 123-25; cf. Tomas Hagg, Narrative Technique in Ancient Greek Romances: Studies of Chariton, Xenophcn, Ephesius and Achilles Tatius (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1971), p. 201 n. 2. 50. Chariton, Chaereas and Challirhoe, pp. 111-12; cf. Hagg, Novel in Antiquity, pp. 13-14. 51. Cf. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1978), p. 560; R.H. Lightfoot, St. John's Gospel: A Commentary (C.F. Evans [ed.], Oxford: University Press, 2nd edn, 1956), pp. 321-22; J. Duncan Derrett, 'Miriam and the Resurrection (John 20.16)', Downside Review 111 (1993), pp. 174-86 (176-78). 52. My translation. I use the term 'seek' instead of 'looking for' (cf. NRSV) to emphasize the Johannine use of this technical term for Christian searching.

FEHRIBACH The 'Birthing' Bridegroom

117

5.30; 5.44; 7.18; 7.34, 36; 8.21; 8.50; 13.33).53 Culpepper and Paul Duke note an element here of Johannine irony: Mary asks the living Jesus for the body of her dead beloved.54 The irony is not unlike that found in Chaereas's promise to Callirhoe that she would have the husband she desires. Just as Callirhoe recognizes her beloved's voice, Mary Magdalene recognizes Jesus through his voice, but only when he calls her by name, 'Mariam' (20.16a).55 This scene evokes Jesus' earlier comment about the Good Shepherd who calls his sheep by their name and whose sheep recognize his voice (10.3, 14). Whereas many commentators maintain that Jesus' calling Mary by name affirms her as a female disciple,56 the scene, especially through its romantic conventions, also indicates that Mary Magdalene represents the community of faith through her symbolic role as the bride of the messianic groom. When Mary finally recognizes Jesus, she calls out 'Rabbouni', not 'Rabbi' (cf. 1.38). Although most English translations render the title 'teacher', 'Rabbouni' can also mean 'my master' or 'my teacher', and thus be a term of endearment.57 Mary Magdalene's use of this title may indicate that she does not yet understand the meaning of Jesus' resurrection.58 Nevertheless, the personalization of the title may also be the Johannine equivalent of Mary's calling Jesus by name. No one in the Fourth Gospel addresses Jesus by his given name. As one sent from above by the Father, Jesus' aloofness from the world is reinforced by this narrative absence. Thus, Mary's use of a personalized title, combined 53. Adele Reinhartz, 'The Gospel of John', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, p. 592; cf. Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983), p. 333; Stibbe, John, pp. 204-205; Minear,' "We Don't Know Where..."', pp. 129,132. 54. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, p. 177; Paul Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985), pp. 104-105. 55. Stibbe acknowledges the use of the literary device of anagnorisis for Mary Magdalene's recognition of Jesus and sees an element of romance in the Johannine allusions to Canticles, but he does not comment on the similarities between John's pericope and the Hellenistic romances (John, pp. 203,205). 56. Reinhartz, 'Gospel of John', p. 592; Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, p. 333; Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel, p. 105; John Rena, 'Women in the Gospel of John', Eglise et Theologie 17 (1986), p. 144; Okure, 'Significance Today of Jesus' Commission', p. 181; Raymond Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), p. 192. 57. Stibbe, John, p. 203; Okure, 'Significance Today of Jesus' Commission', pp. 18081; Brown, Gospel According to John, II, p. 1010. 58. Richard Atwood, Mary Magdalene in the New Testament Gospels and Early Tradition (Bern: Peter Lang, 1993), pp. 133-34; Brown, Gospel According to John, II, p. 1010.

118

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

with Jesus' calling Mary Magdalene by name, makes this Johannine recognition moment reminiscent of the calling out of each other's name by Chaereas and Callirhoe. Recognizing her beloved, Mary then attempts to embrace him (20.17). This may be an allusion to Cant. 3.4.59 Upon finding her beloved after a citywide search, the woman from Canticles says of herself, 'I found him whom my soul loves. I held him and would not let him go until I brought him into my mother's house'.60 Yet unlike the heroes of the novellae as well as the beloved in Canticles, Jesus does not reciprocate Mary's embrace. He rather orders her, 'Stop holding on to me' (JJTI you QTTTOU, 20.17) .61 His rationale is that he has not yet ascended to his Father (20.17).62 Mary Madgalene's efforts to 'hold onto' Jesus may illustrate her continued ignorance: she neither understands the nature of his resurrected state nor the manner in which his followers will remain with him. 63 Yet her effort also is reminiscent of the actions of the women in the novels' recognition scenes, as well as Canticles, and so locates Mary Magdalene in the role of the (f ictive) bride of the messianic bridegroom. 59. Stibbe (John, p. 205) perceives an intertextual echo with Canticles here and identifies the genre as a 'comic romance'. R.E. Brown states that A. Feuillet ('Le recherche du Christ dans la Nouvelle Alliance d'apres la Christophanie de Jo 20.1118', in L'homme devant Dieu [Melanges H. de Lubac; 3 vols.; Paris: Aubier, 1963], I, pp. 103-107) sees a possible correlation here with Cant. 3.4, and admits that, if this is the case, then Mary Magdalene here would represent the ecclesial community. Brown, however, dismisses the connection. Cf. Brown, Gospel According to John, II, p. 1010; cf. Stibbe, John, p. 205; Okure, 'Jesus' Commission', p. 181. 60. My emphasis. This expression could be interpreted within the context of a matrilineal descent pattern, which Jesus would be expected to resist because he establishes a patrilineal descent as he leaves to prepare a place for his disciples in his Father's house of many dwellings (cf. 14.2). 61. My translation, based on the work of commentators who, like Barrett and Brown, perceive in the present imperative an emphasis on the cessation of an act in progress, or at least the cessation of an attempted act. Cf. Barrett, St. John, p. 565; Brown, The Gospel According to John, II, p. 992. 62. Seeing a curious parallel between Jesus' command to Mary Magdalene and Adam's instructions to Eve in the Apocalypse of Moses 31.3-4 not to touch his body when he dies but to permit the angels to dispose of it, Mary Rose D'Angelo and Pheme Perkins maintain that Jesus' words indicate his transitional state between his resurrection and his ascension. Mary Rose D'Angelo, 'A Critical Note: John 20.17 and Apocalypse of Moses 31', JTS 41 (1990), pp. 529-36; Pheme Perkins,' "I Have Seen the Lord" (John 20.18): Women Witnesses to the Resurrection', Int 46 (1992), pp. 31-41 (39); R.E. Brown, Gospel According to John, II, pp. 1011-12,1014; Frank Matera, 'John 20.1-18', Int 43 (1989), pp. 402-406 (405); Atwood, Mary Magdalene, p. 135. 63. R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, II, p. 1011-12,1014; Matera, 'John 20.118', p. 405; Atwood, Mary Magdalene, p. 135.

FEHRIBACH The 'Birthing' Bridegroom

119

Upsetting the conventions provided by the Greek novellae, Jesus the bridegroom does not embrace his bride warmly, and the two do not live together happily ever after in the traditional manner. Rather, Jesus gives his bride a mission, that requires her to be separate from him again: 'Go to my brothers and say to them, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God"' (20.17). By depicting Mary Magdalene immediately going to the disciples to tell them this news, the narrator indicates that the disciples are now Jesus' brothers. This is the first time the gospel refers to the disciples with this familial term. Thereby, the author indicates that Jesus, through his death, has indeed fulfilled his mission of enabling people to become children of God (cf. 1.12). 64 The disciples are now truly 'brothers' of Jesus because Jesus' death made them 'sons' of his heavenly Father.65 Mary Magdalene, symbol of the faith community, can be viewed as the Levirate bride handed over to her beloved's brothers after his death. The brothers will now produce offspring for Jesus with his bride. Such a relationship may be apparent in the Johannine Epistles where the Johannine communities are portrayed as females with children ('to the elect lady and her children from the children of her elect sister' [2 Jn 1.13]), and the author addresses the recipients of the letters as 'his' children (1 Jn 2.11). Again, the woman is portrayed as the token of exchange that establishes bonds between men. The Crucifixion as Wedding, Conception, and Birthing The thesis that the Johannine crucifixion scene represents Jesus' giving birth to the church and/or to the family of God is not new. Many church fathers, members of the Council of Vienne (1312), as well as such scholars as A. Loisy and A. Feuillet, relate the scene to Eve's being taken from Adam's side (Gen. 2.21).66 Others perceive the birth of the church or the constituting of the new family of God in the mutual relationship Jesus

64. Okure, 'Jesus' Commission', pp. 182-86, 188; Pheme Perkins, 'The Gospel According to John', in Raymond Brown et al (eds.), New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1990), pp. 942-85 (983). Cf. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 134,144; Brown, Gospel According to John, II, pp. 1015-17; Okure, 'Jesus' Commission', pp. 182-86; Sandra Schneiders, 'Women in the Fourth Gospel and the Role of Women in the Contemporary Church', BTB 12 (1982), pp. 35-45 (43). 65. Cf. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 134,144; Schneiders, 'Women in the Fourth Gospel', p. 43; Brown, Gospel According to John, II, pp. 1015-17; Okure, 'Jesus' Commission', pp. 182-86. 66. References in Brown, Gospel According to John, II, pp. 935, 949-51.

120

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

establishes between his mother and the Beloved Disciple67 and even in Jesus' breathing his Spirit upon those gathered at the cross.68 Raymond Collins goes so far as to acknowledge that the Fourth Gospel shares primitive Christianity's notion of the passion as labor.69 Although some scholars have connected either the blood or the water with the concept of new life/0 Dorothy Lee and Mark Stibbe explicitly state that the blood and water that flow from the side of the crucified Jesus (19.34) are suggestive of birth, and Lee relates this occurrence to Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus regarding the need to be born 'from above'.71 I extend these various identifications by relating the birthing moment at the cross to John's overall characterization of Jesus as the messianic bridegroom. In this reading, the crucifixion is viewed as the wedding ceremony that follows upon the betrothal meal depicted in the encounter between Jesus and Mary of Bethany; the piercing of Jesus' side is then understood as the consummation of that messianic marriage. Finally, the blood and water flowing from Jesus' side, combined with the giving of his Spirit (or the Holy Spirit), constitutes the conception and then birth of the children of God. Crucifixion as Wedding My analysis of the wedding scene at Cana equates Jesus' statement, 'My hour has not yet come', with an affirmation that the depicted wedding is not his, although subsequently he shows himself to be the (messianic) bridegroom by miraculously providing quality wine in abundance. Subsequent references to Jesus' 'hour' point to the moment of his being 'lifted up on the cross', as subsequent pericopae anticipate the crucifixion as a wedding/conception/birthing. These pericopae include Jesus' comments to Nicodemus about the need to be born 'from above', John the Baptist's statement about the bridegroom as the one who has the bride, the betrothal type-scene and the fertility metaphors that comprise 67. Cf. Raymond Collins, 'The Representative Figures of the Fourth Gospel', Downside Review 94 (1976), pp. 26-46,118-32 (121); idem, 'Mary in the Fourth Gospel: A Decade of Johannine Studies', Louvain Studies 3 (1970), pp. 99-142 (134); Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, p. 134. 68. Max Thurian, Mary, Mother of All Christians (New York: Herder & Herder, 1964), p. 155. 69. Collins, 'Mary in the Fourth Gospel, p. 139. 70. Cf. Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (3 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1980), III, p. 289; Edwyn Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (? vols.; London: Faber & Faber, 1940), II, pp. 631, 635; Brown, Gospel According to John, II, pp. 950-52. 71. Dorothy Lee, The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), p. 57; Stibbe, John, p. 197.

FEHRIBACH The 'Birthing' Bridegroom

121

the story of the Samaritan woman, and Mary of Bethany's anointing of Jesus7 feet. Following the crucifixion, the solitary search for the body of Jesus and the subsequent recognition scene between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, with its strong parallels to conventions from the Greek novellae, and Jesus' words to her regarding his 'brothers' confirm this reading. The relationship of Jesus' passion and death to the (messianic) marriage is also indicated by several references to clothing. Isaiah, for instance, speaks of a bridegroom clothing himself with special garments and decking himself with a garland (Isa. 61.10), and Canticles speaks of Solomon's mother as 'crowning' him on his wedding day (Cant. 3.11). Likewise, m. Sot 9.14 speaks of wreaths worn by bridegrooms as well as brides,72 and Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 16, although a much later text, notes that both a bridegroom and a king are clothed with glory.73 Consequently, the crown of thorns and purple cloak placed upon Jesus to mock him as king (19.2-5) may well function not only as an ironic display of proper attire for royalty, but also as ironic clothing for the bridegroom to wear to his wedding. References to gardens similarly convey nuptial connotations. The Fourth Gospel is the only canonical text to refer both to the place of Jesus' arrest and to the place of Jesus' burial as a garden (18.1, 26; cf. 19.41). Although such descriptions may be viewed as allusions to the garden of Eden,74 they may also allude to Canticles,75 a book composed for use at weddings.76

The Consummation of the Messianic Marriage

Although, as noted above, many scholars find some element of birth in the crucifixion scene, they have not recognized that the piercing of Jesus' side could be perceived as the consummation of his messianic marriage. 72. See S. Safrai, 'Home and Family', in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (Compendia rerum ludaicarum ad Novum Testamentum; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), II, pp. 728-92 (758 n. 2); David Mace, 'Marriage Customs and Ceremonies', pp. 179, 182; Philip and Hanna Goodman, 'Jewish Marriages throughout the Ages', in idem, The Jewish Marriage Anthology (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1965), pp. 69-84 (73). 73. Goodman, 'Jewish Marriages', pp. 33-35; Mace, 'Marriage Customs and Ceremonies', p. 182. 74. Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, II, p. 646; Lightfoot, St. John's Gospel, p. 332. 75. Cf. Derrett, 'Miriam and the Resurrection', pp. 178-79,181,185 n. 17. 76. Bruce Metzger and Roland Murphy (eds.), The New Oxford Annotated Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), p. 853, Old Testament; cf. Mace, 'Marriage Customs and Ceremonies', p. 181; Goodman, 'Jewish Marriages', p. 74.

122

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Biblical tradition acknowledges sexual intercourse as constituting a marriage (cf. Exod. 22.16-20; Deut. 22.29).77 Similarly, the penetration of the (feminized) Jesus by the phallic spear (found only in the Fourth Gospel) constitutes the messianic marriage. Mieke Bal has identified such a sexual role reversal in the story of Jael's driving a tent stake into Sisera's temple (Judg. 4.21-22).78 The narrator explains the piercing of Jesus' side with the assertion that the action fulfills Scripture (20.36; cf. 20.28), a probable reference to Zech. 12.10.79 Nevertheless, given the context of betrothal anticipated throughout the gospel and confirmed in the recognition scene, the piercing also functions as the means by which children 'who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God' (1.13) are conceived. In this regard, because the piercing fulfills Scripture, it also fulfills the word and will of God. As such, it is something that Jesus consistently indicates he willingly carries out, even to the point of laying down his own life (cf. 6.38; 8.42,55; 9.4; 10.17-18). Thus, Jesus, who, until handing over his spirit, has functioned as the agent of God by representing the Father as bridegroom, now in a role reversal is acted upon, like a bride, by the will of God through the lance of a Roman soldier. Johannine irony continues: the Roman soldiers, as instruments of Jesus' death, are also instruments of eternal life and unwitting agents of God as they facilitate Jesus' fulfilling his role of enabling people to become children of God. Thus, by willingly embracing the female role, Jesus transforms death into life. The Issuance of Water and Blood as Conception Subsequent to the piercing of Jesus' side is the flowing of blood and water from the point of penetration. In addition to fulfilling Zech. 13.180 77. Cf. Mace, 'Marriage Customs and Ceremonies', p. 168; Goodman, 'Jewish Marriages', p. 71. 78. Mieke Bal notes that although Sisera's mother presumes her son's tardiness is due to his having his own way with a girl (literally, a 'womb') or two (Judg. 5.28-30), his failure to return is actually due to his having been 'raped' by a woman. Danna Nolen Fewell translates the Hebrew raqaq as 'parted lips' instead of 'temple'. Such a translation adds support to Bal's interpretation. See Mieke Bal, Death and Dissymmetry: The Politics of Coherence in the Book of Judges (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), pp. 30-31, 214-16; Danna Nolan Fewell, 'Judges', in Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (eds.), The Women's Bible Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1992), pp. 67-77 (69). 79. Brown, Gospel According to John, II, pp. 954-56; Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, II, pp. 635, 638; Schnackenburg, St. John, III, pp. 292-94. 80. Brown, Gospel According to John, II, pp. 954-56; Schnackenburg, St. John, III, p. 462 n. 80; Thurian, Mary, pp. 156-57.

FEHRIBACH The 'Birthing' Bridegroom

123

as well as Jesus' own prediction in 7.38-39,81 the flow of blood and water could symbolize the conception and birth of the children of God. Such male co-optation of female generative powers is by no means unusual in the literature of the time. In Greek literature, Athena is born from Zeus's head after it is split open by an ax,82 Dionysius is born from Zeus's thigh,83 Phanes is reborn from Zeus after the god had swallowed him,84 and, according to Hesiod's Theogony, the Erinyes are formed from the blood of Uranus's severed genitals.85 Froma Zeitlin argues that such myths illustrate the usurpation of female generative ability and function to preserve the binding nature of patriarchal marriage, the subordination of women, and patrilineal succession.86 Within the Hebrew Bible the appropriation of woman's generative power can also be found in Genesis 2, in which the first man gives birth from his side to the first woman. J. Cheryl Exum identifies this scene as an expression of patriarchy's fear of women's reproductive power as well as its need to suppress and appropriate such powers.87 In like manner, the Fourth Gospel contains similar examples of male co-optation of women's powers. One might only look at Jesus' comments to Nicodemus regarding the need to be born 'again/from above', his insistence that flesh begets flesh while spirit begets spirit (3.3-6), his analogy of a woman's giving birth to the pain his disciples will experience at his absence and the joy they will express when they see him again (16.21-22), and his self-portrayal as the one able—as is a lactating mother—to 81. Brown, Gospel According to John, II, p. 949; Schnackenburg, St. John, III, p. 294; Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, II, p. 635. 82. Cf. Christine Downing, 'Athena', in Mircea Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion (16 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1987), I, p. 490; Froma Zeitlin, 'The Dynamics of Misogyny: Myth and Mythmaking in the Oresteia', in J. Peradotto and J.P. Sullivan (eds.), Women in the Ancient World: The Arethusa Papers (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984), pp. 159-94 (178-79). 83. George Thomson, Aeschylus and Athens: A Study in the Social Origins of Drama (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1941), pp. 110-11. 84. Cf. Thomson, Aeschylus and Athens, pp. 110-11. 85. Cf. Zeitlin, 'Dynamics of Misogyny', pp. 173-74. 86. Zeitlin, 'Dynamics of Misogyny, pp. 179-84. 87. J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Subversions of Biblical Narratives (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1993), p. 127. Ronald Simkins maintains that the myth of the origin of the first woman from Adam reflects the ancient understanding of biology that 'although man is born from "female land", the woman is dependent upon the man for her existence' ('Gender Construction in the Yahwist Creation Myth', in Athalya Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Genesis (FCB, 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 32-52 (46).

124

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

quench thirst and provide nourishment through his own person (7.37-38; cf. 4.10,13-14; 6.35). Such consistent use of female imagery supports the perception of Jesus' being lifted up above the earth and being pierced by a lance as the consummation of his messianic marriage; the giving over of his spirit then combined with the flow of blood and water signals both the conception and birth of the children of God 'from above' (cf. 3.14; 8.28; 12.32). Ancient concepts of reproduction lend support to this reading. Galen of Pergamum (De semine 2.1) in the second century CE, citing the third century BCE work of Alexandrian anatomist Herophilus, set forth a reproduction model that Thomas Laqueur called a 'one sex/one flesh' model of the human body. In this model, male and female sexual organs were understood as variations of each other, each suitable for specific roles, but not distinct types. The penis functioned as the convenient vehicle for dispersing semen, and the uterus —an inverted penis—was the convenient vehicle for containing this semen.88 As Laqueur states, 'The female body was a less hot, less perfect, and hence less potent version of the canonical body'.89 Within this model, bodily fluids are variations of each other and thus do not indicate sharp boundaries between the sexes.90 During the heat of intercourse men and women distill semen from extra blood as pneuma (spirit) drawn from all parts of both male and female bodies.91 Because the female body is less hot, however, the female semen is not distilled to the same degree as male sperma and is more closely related to blood.92 Indeed, the menstrual flow within this economy of fluids is viewed as a localized, less concocted and more superfluous variant of this same seminal fluid.93 Aristotle described the frothy male semen (sperma), on 88. Thomas Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), pp. 25-35. 89. Laqueur, Making Sex, pp. 34-35. 90. Laqueur, Making Sex, p. 38. 91. Cf. Laqueur, Making Sex, pp. 38,44-46,49-50,255 n. 36; Aline Rouselle, Porneia: On Desire and the Body in Antiquity (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), pp. 27-29. Laqueur and Rouselle base their analyses on the 'two-seed' theory of both the Hippocratic writer and Galen (On the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body 2.640-43), who borrowed from Democritus. Laqueur also notes, however, that even in Aristotle's 'one-seed' theory, sperma and catamenia were greater and lesser refinements of ungendered blood. Cf. Rousselle, Porneia, pp. 29-31. 92. As stated by Laqueur, the medieval Arabic physician Avicenna, in his discussion of Galenic texts, defined the female seed a kind of menstrual blood, incompletely digested and little converted, not as far away from the nature of blood as a male seed. Laqueur, Making Sex, pp. 40-41. 93. Laqueur, Making Sex, pp. 35-36, 38.

FEHRIBACH The 'Birthing' Bridegroom

125

the other hand, as a compound of water mixed with breath (pneuma),94 and a Hippocratic account states that the foam-like sperma was first redefined out of the blood, passed to the brain and then through the spinal marrow to the kidneys and testicles, and finally into the penis for dispersion.95 Because male semen is thicker, whiter and frothier than female ejaculate, which is thinner, less pristinely white and more watery, male semen was considered more powerful and more likely to act as an efficient cause.96 Nevertheless conception occurs when the two distilled semen, the male sperma equated with water and spirit (pneuma) and the female semen more closely related to blood, combine.97 During pregnancy, then, the extra blood that had produced the female semen during the heat of intercourse is used to nurture the new life inside the womb, and then after delivery is converted into breast milk.98 Thus, although female desire, orgasm and subsequent semen were viewed as necessary for conception in humans,99 the conception and gestation of new life in the 'one sex/one flesh' model is basically equated with the mingling of spirit (pneuma), water, and blood, which allows Greek gods to conceive and give birth without female intervention. From Jesus' side comes not a thick, white, frothy substance, but blood and water. The generative image is created, however, by the recognition that semen was thick, white and foam-like because it was thought to be comprised of water mixed with breath/spirit (TTVEUMCX), the tool through which the male principle worked.100 In the Fourth Gospel, prior to the piercing of Jesus' side, the dying bridegroom 'bowed his head' and 'gave over' (TTapeScoKev) his breath/spirit (irveuMa) (19.30).101 Thus, only blood 94. Laqueur, Making Sex, p. 41. 95. Laqueur, Making Sex, p. 35. Such an understanding of bodily fluids explains Athena's birth from the head of Zeus. 96. Laqueur, Making Sex, p. 38. In Aristotle's one-seed theory, however, only the male as genitor had enough 'heat' to refine the residual secretion to pure form (sperma); females produce catamenia, the material cause. Cf. Laqueur, Making Sex, pp. 30, 38,41. 97. Laqueur, Making Sex, pp. 46,49-50. For Aristotle, however, the sperma brought life to the catamenia, like a male having an idea in the female body. Cf. Laqueur, Making Sex, pp. 35,41-42, 54. 98. Laqueur, Making Sex, pp. 35-36. Cf. Rousselle, Porneia, p. 30. 99. Rousselle, Porneia, pp. 28-29. 100. Laqueur, Making Sex, p. 41. 101. I prefer the translation 'give over' to 'give up' because it carries the connotation of passing on to others and an element of volition. Cf. Brown, Gospel According to John, II, p. 910; Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans, and augmented by William Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn, 1979), p. 614.

126

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

and water could flow from his side. The conception of the children of God, however, may be seen as Jesus' blood and water mingles with his spirit that he handed over immediately after announcing the completion of his work, 'It is finished' (19.30). The conception and birth 'from above' may even be seen as truly complete when Jesus appears to the disciples, breathes (6ve(j>uar|aEv) on them, and says, 'Receive the Holy Spirit' (20.22). Just as male generativity is displaced from phallus to head in the account of Athena's birth,102 so Jesus' generativity is moved to his side (probably because of the influence of Genesis 2). Jesus must be the one to conceive and/or give birth to the people of God because, as the gospel claims, he is the source of life (3.15-16,36; 5.21-26; 6.33,40,47,57; 10.28; 11.25-26; 14.6,19; 17.2; 20.31). Just as the story of the unnatural birth of Eve from Adam's side may well depict the concept of the male seed as the sole generative agent,103 so belief in Jesus as the source of eternal life could well have given rise to the image of his giving birth to the children of God from his blood, water and spirit (or Holy Spirit) within the context of the Greek concept of conception. Other scholarly explanations for the issuance of blood and water from Jesus' side have been suggested,104 but none precludes this reading. It would be consistent with the Johannine tendency of attributing generative powers to Jesus as well as with Greek notions of reproduction to find conception occurring when the blood and water from Jesus' side combine with either the spirit (TTVEUpa) Jesus gives over from the cross or the Holy Spirit he later breathes on his disciples. Such a reading would also be consistent with, and logically follow from, the piercing of Jesus' side with the phallic spear, especially if this action is perceived as the consummation of Jesus' messianic marriage. Blood Sacrifice as Male (Re)birth and the Establishment ofPatrilineal Descent The Fourth Gospel notes that blood flows from Jesus' side at the same moment that the Paschal lambs are slaughtered in the Temple (cf. 19.31). Consequently, Jesus' death may be understood as a blood sacrifice.105 In 102. Zeitlin, 'Dynamics of Misogyny', p. 179. 103. Cf. Simkins, 'Gender Construction in the Yahwist Creation Myth7, pp. 32-52. 104. G. Richter (according to Schnackenburg) and Hoskyns argue for an anti-Docetic interpretation, and Brown mentions other theories, such as the affirmation of Jesus' divinity and the fact of his death. See Schnackenburg, St. John, III, pp. 290-91,462 n. 85; Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, II, p. 635; Brown, Gospel According to John, II, pp. 947-49. 105. Brown notes that, although Jewish thought does not view the Paschal lamb as a sacrifice, 'by Jesus' time the sacrificial aspect had begun to infiltrate the concept of the (P)aschal lamb because priests had arrogated to themselves the slaying of lambs' (Gospel According to John, I, p. 62).

FEHRIBACH The 'Birthing' Bridegroom

127

both Hebrew106 and Greek thought,107 blood sacrifice typically functioned to establish and reinforce patrilineal claims: through this spilling of blood, men perceived themselves to have accomplished a male rebirth, a birth done with more control, more purpose, and on a more spiritual, exalted level than that done by women.108 Mary O'Brien also identifies the male ritual rebirths in many of antiquity's mystery religions with marriages followed by (mock) pregnancies in which the male gives (re)birth to himself. She bases this identification on the presence in these rituals of a 'period of seclusion' and a 'trial of endurance', which sometimes included scourging and the 'spilling of blood'.109 Jesus' post-resurrection command to Mary Magdalene, 'Go to my brothers and say to them, "I am ascending to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God"' (20.17), illustrates the establishment of a patrilineal kinship group.110 In this regard, Jesus from the cross gives birth to his own brothers because he is acted upon by the will of his Father through the action of the soldiers. In this sense, the only begotten (Movoyevfi) son (3.16,18), who alone called God Father (cf. 5.18; 8.41-42), is now not the only son of his Father, as his own words 'my Father and your Father' (20.17) imply. Thus, the bond between Jesus and his disciples is primarily based on their common heavenly Father, not on their having a common earthly mother. Jesus' act of giving the beloved disciple a new mother and of giving his own mother a son to whom she did not give birth (19.26-27) simply represents the fraternal relationship Jesus has with his disciples based on the patrilineal descent established through his blood sacrifice. Consequently, both Jesus' blood sacrifice and the new relationship this establishes between mother and disciple further diminish the importance of being 'born of woman' that had already been established by the absence of a narrative depicting Jesus' own birth and his referring to his mother only as 'woman'. Just as Jesus is only responsive to his heavenly Father, so should be his disciple-brothers. As Jesus had already stated, what is born of flesh is flesh, but what is born of spirit is spirit (3.3-6). The 106. Cf. Nancy Jay, 'Sacrifice, Descent and Patriarchs', VT38 (1988), pp. 52-70; idem, 'Sacrifice, a Remedy for Having Been Born of Women', in Clarissa Atkinson et al (eds.), Immaculate and Powerful: The Female in Sacred Image and Social Reality (Boston: Beacon Press, 1985), pp. 283-309. 107. Cf. Zeitlin, 'Dynamics of Misogyny', pp. 161,169-73,175-76,182,188-89 n. 18; Thomson, Aeschylus and Athens, p. 93. 108. Cf. Jay, 'Sacrifice, A Remedy', p. 294. 109. Mary O'Brien, The Politics of Reproduction (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981), pp. 146-47; cf. Thomson, Aeschylus and Athens, pp. 97-99,103-104,121,127-29. 110. Cf. Fehribach, Women in the Life of the Bridegroom, pp. 119-21.

128

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

mother of Jesus is then merely another 'token of exchange' that connects Jesus with his disciples.111 Such a reading is supported by what I call the 'dying king' type-scene found in such works as Josephus's Jewish Antiquities and the Greco-Roman novel Alexander Romance. In this typescene, the dying king hands over to the one(s) who will rule in his stead all the women in his family so that his name will be remembered in his kingdom. Conclusion Jesus the messianic bridegroom, as God's agent, stands in for God, Israel's bridegroom. This portrayal of God as male in relationship to a people represented collectively as female is certainly patriarchal. Patriarchy persists in the portrayal of the Samaritan woman as a 'passive' well into which Jesus deposits living water that produces life, and a 'passive' field into which Jesus sows seeds of faith. Patriarchy is also evident in the utilization of gendered space in the story of Mary and Martha of Bethany and in portraying Mary as the item of exchange that allows Lazarus to be regarded as a member of Jesus' family. Finally, patriarchy is evident in the diminishing of the importance of biological birth and ultimately in the male appropriation of the female power to give birth. The feminization of the faith community can, however, be interpreted in a positive manner. In Daniel Boyarin's analysis of the Jewish male and Jewish community in light of Roman and European cultural constructs of male and female, he describes the classical male body as closed in on itself, impervious and identified with a particular land (the myth of autochthony). In contrast, the female body is the ideal representation of the diasporic Jewish community because it is both a vulnerable body that is hurt and a fecund body that interacts with the world and creates new life. If Rome with its violence, says Boyarin, was experienced as a peculiarly male imposition (phallus), then becoming female is necessary to renounce and repent for such violence.112 In this analysis, the feminized Jesus, by switching from the active agent of God standing in for the Father as bridegroom to the one acted upon as bride, renounces 111. Whether women are included among Jesus7 'brothers' is immaterial to the author's androcentric perspective of the Johannine 'community' or 'school'. 112. Daniel Boyarin, 'Masada or Yavneh? Gender and the Arts of Jewish Resistance', in Jonathan Boyarin and Daniel Boyarin (eds.), Jews and Other Differences: The New Jewish Cultural Studies (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 1997), pp. 306-29 (308-309,313-14).

FEHRIBACH The 'Birthing' Bridegroom

129

and repents for the violence of the Roman phallus (spear) as he transforms the violence done to him into a birthing scene that insures eternal life. Jesus voluntarily submits to oppression so as to give birth to the children of God. How feminist readers deal with the notion of Jesus' giving birth to the children of God will depend upon the type of feminism they embrace and the situation in which they use the material. Although my own feminist approach is more in line with that of O'Brien, who perceives 'womb envy' at work in texts that show male appropriation of female generative power,113 those who employ a sublimationist hermeneutic within romantic feminism might exult in the glorification of the eternal feminine depicted by Jesus' giving birth.114 When teaching the Fourth Gospel, I emphasize a hermeneutic of suspicion, which highlights and critiques the patriarchy inherent in the biblical text.115 If I were called upon to preach on the Johannine crucifixion, however, I would highlight the feminine imagery in a much more positive manner. Either way, I believe, feminists reading the Fourth Gospel must come to terms with the image of a crucified man who, like a bride, gives birth to children begotten/born of God (EK 0eou eyevvTi0T]aav) (cf. 1.13).

113. O'Brien, Politics of Reproduction, pp. 146-47. 114. Cf. Carolyn Osiek, 'The Feminist and the Bible: Hermeneutical Alternatives', in A.Y. Collins (ed.), Feminist Perspectives in Biblical Scholarship (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 93-105 (95,101-102). 115. On the hermeneutic of suspicion, see Fiorenza, Bread Not Stone (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984), pp. 15-22; idem, 'The Will to Choose or Reject: Continuing Our Critical Work', in Letty Russell (ed.), Feminist Interpretation of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), pp. 130-36.

JOHN 19.34: FROM CRUCIFIXION TO BIRTH, OR CREATION?* Deborah Sawyer The image of the dying Christ, water and blood pouring from his side, has a rich and fascinating history of interpretation, and one that has implications for contemporary debates concerning Christianity's traditional essentialist construction of gender roles. In traditional theology, the description of the final moments of Christ's life offered by the Fourth Evangelist in Jn 19.34 has come to signify birth as much as death. This scene has been understood as representing the moment of the birth of the church, reflecting in its imagery the 'birth' of Eve from Adam's side. Thus the subjection of the church to Christ mirrors the subjection of female to male. But is the image of birth the basis of both these icons drawn from biblical imagery? In this essay, I discuss the possibility that, instead of birth, creation should be the basis for reading both scenes. If this reading is viable, then the biblical foundation for sexual hierarchy is not as clearly articulated as the history of interpretation of these passages might suggest. From the early Patristic period, Jn 19.34 has been understood to symbolize the moment of birth for the sacramental life of the church, with the water and blood pouring from Christ's side as the types for eucharistic and baptismal elements. This interpretation is then presented vividly in the mediaeval period as an image of birth, where Christ, the New Adam, water and blood pouring out from the wound inflicted by the Roman soldier, gives birth to the church from his side in the same way, it is presumed, that the first Adam 'gave birth' to Eve.1 Two counts support the connection between the moment of Christ's dying and the act of birth: first is the appearance of water and blood, liquids always * An earlier version of this essay appeared in J. Davies, G. Harvey and W. Watson (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honor of John F.A. Sawyer (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1995), pp. 300-309. 1. The evidence is clearly annotated by Caroline Walker Bynum, Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), and idem, Fragmentation and Redemption (New York: Zone Books, 1991).

SAWYER John 19.34: From Crucifixion to Birth

131

present during parturition; second, the word used by the Fourth Evangelist in 19.34 to describe the place of the wound in Christ's body is rrAeupcxv, while the Septuagint of Gen. 2.21 uses the same word for the place on Adam's body from which Eve was brought forth. It is when we turn to the work of the Church Fathers that we discover that Eve's creation has been transformed into the birth process from Adam's flesh. This transformation in the understanding of the text is crucial not only for gaining insight into the meaning of the figure on the cross, but also for clarifying how Christianity understands the advent of women. If Christ on the cross is understood as the New Adam giving birth to the church, just as the first Adam had given birth to Eve, then we are saying that although God is the 'prime mover' behind these phenomena, it is a man who is manifestly the source of women's existence, and that it is Christ in male human form rather than the divine Aoyos who is the source for the church. Augustine's theology identifies the moment when water and blood flow from Christ's side as the moment when the church's sacraments are poured into the world: 'He did not say "pierced through", or "wounded", or something else, but "opened", in order that the gate of life might be stretched wide whence the sacraments of the Church flow' (In Jo. cxx 2). Taking the verb EVU£EV in this passage to mean 'opened' reflects Augustine's dependence on the Vulgate, which translates EVU£EV, 'pierced', as aperuit, 'opened'. This could be the result of simply misreading the Greek EVU£EV as the much more common word T]VOI£EV 'opening', or else a deliberate echo of Gen. 2.21, which describes God closing Adam's side after he has removed the rib. Although explicit birth language is not used by Augustine, it is open to this interpretation. The phrase 'gate of life' brings to mind the image of an open womb, and 'stretching wide' can be understood in the context of the act of giving birth. We can infer that by the turn of the fourth century the icon of the cross has evolved into a picture of maternity, which now also includes nurturing. Not only does Christ give birth to the sacramental church in this interpretation, he feeds it as a mother feeds her child: from his body. Modern scholarship has become familiar with the image of Jesus as mother largely as a result of the work of Caroline Walker Bynum, who has made this diverse material readily available.2 We can see frequent images of birthing and lactating Christs throughout the history of Christian art, though most particularly from 2. See n. 1 above and, with particular reference to the nurturing Christ figure, her book Holy Feast, Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987).

132

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

the mediaeval period. Much of this imagery has the depiction of Christ in Jn 19.34 as the starting point.3 As Bynum comments: 'Not only was Christ enfleshed with flesh from a woman; his flesh did womanly things; it bled, it bled food and it gave birth to new life/4 This interpretation of the crucified figure is reflected in the writings of Bernard of Clairvaux, the twelfth-century Cistercian abbot. For example, in a letter he wrote to one of his monks: 'If you feel the stings of temptation... suck not so much the wounds as the breasts of the Crucified. He will be your mother, and you will be his son/5 In pictorial representations of John's Christ, with blood and water pouring out of his side, the concept of nurturing is evident when this blood fills chalices or mouths held up to Christ's side. Examples of this in mediaeval art include Hildegaard of Bingen's Scrivitas, where, in a miniature of the sixth vision of the second part, a woman representing 'church' or 'humanity' holds at the foot of the cross a chalice that is being filled by the blood pouring from Christ's side.6 A more vivid example is Quirizio da Murano's fifteenth-century composition, The Saviour, where Christ is seated and dressed in a manner reminiscent of many paintings of the Madonna. A wispy beard is the only clue to the figure's masculinity. The garment he wears is parted by his hand at the place of the wound in his side, but now this wound has moved to where his breast could be, again, reminding us of the Madonna. A nun is kneeling at his feet, and with his other hand he offers her the eucharistic wafer as if it had been taken from his breast. For contemporary theology such images might be tempting to use as a resource for re-thinking or re-conceptualizing the deity, providing a focus for developing a less androcentric picture of the Godhead than that provided by traditional theology. But can such images as these form the basis of a less androcentric Christianity? Do they represent the female in the Godhead? Might they even allow theologians a way forward, based on the biblical image of John's 'birthing' Christ, in the debate as to whether women can represent Christ at the altar? I would suggest that this is not a female Christ that we encounter at this later stage in the history of the passage's interpretation. Rather, it is male priesthood, an entity that many feminists would rather set to one side than attempt to deconstruct. 3. Examples are included in G. Schiller's Iconography of Christian Art (2 vols.; London: Lund Humphries, 1971-72), II. 4. Bynum, Fragmentation and Redemption, p. 185. 5. Quoted in Bynum, Jesus as Mother, p. 117. 6. Reproduced in Bynum, Holy Feast, Holy Fast, pi. 25.

SAWYER John 19.34: From Crucifixion to Birth

133

In these representations of the wounded Christ, the water and blood described by the Fourth Evangelist not only become identified with the sacramental elements of the church, possibly the original intention of the author in the light of the discourse on the bread of life in John 6, but they are given to the faithful in a manner that can be interpreted in female terms. The author of John is consistent with the other canonical gospel writers in his use of gender as a literary strategy: a feature than can be observed from the roles given to certain female and male disciples in the narrative. This strategy is apparent particularly in the Gospels of Mark and John in relation to their use of female characters. Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza picks out these two texts to illustrate 'a very different ethos of Christian discipleship and community than that presented by the writers of the injunctions to patriarchal submissions'.7 Mary Rose D'Angelo also pairs these gospels to interrogate them in terms of their presentations of women.8 The writers who produced these two gospels each develop a contrast within their narratives between female and male discipleship in order to illustrate a 'right' and 'wrong' way to be a true believer. If we investigate John's gospel more closely in relation to this type of strategy, we see how certain characters, such as the Samaritan woman or Jesus' mother, are presented with a deliberate lack of interest in their personal biography, and instead the focus concentrates on them as symbols of idealized faith and discipleship.9 Dorothy Lee reflects on the centrality of female characters in John's gospel, 'women are beloved in this Gospel, established through the narrative as witnesses of faith, apostolic leaders, missionaries, and proclaimers',10 but at the same time they are excluded by their gender from the exclusive father/son relationship that is central to the gospel. Indeed the focus on the fatherhood of God evident in John's gospel can explain why women play such key roles since their gendered existence in the patriarchal societies that characterize the ancient world epitomizes the type of submissive, childlike faith and obedience that is demanded by the Father God. In the scene of Christ on 7. Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (London: SCM Press, 2nd edn, 1995), p. 316. 8. Mary Rose D'Angelo, '(Re)Presentations of Women in the Gospels: John and Mark', in Ross Shepard Kraemer and M.R. D'Angelo (eds.), Women and Christian Origins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 129-49. 9. See Colleen M. Conway's discussion of the use of the term yuvrj, 'woman', in Men and Women in the Fourth Gospel: Gender and Johannine Characterization (SBLDS, 167; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), pp. 69-121. 10. Dorothy A. Lee, 'The Symbol of Divine Fatherhood', in Adele Reinhartz (ed.), God the Father in the Gospel of John (Semeia, 85; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), pp. 177-87 (184).

134

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

the cross in John's gospel it is tempting to see gender strategy at work with Christ, as the paradigm of perfect faith, assuming a female role of submission and self-giving, epitomized by the blood and water evident at parturition. In the history of Christianity, this scene has been interpreted in this way, with the result that an experience unique to women was symbolically appropriated by a male priesthood through their sacramental actions. The image of Christ giving birth, an obvious interpretation of this verse developed by Christian tradition, is stripped of any reality of female experience of birth. Christ does not become a woman in these representations; outward signs of masculinity are always maintained, and instead, he assumes female functions while remaining a man. He becomes a type of superman figure who, in addition to his male identity, can do all that a woman can do, biologically speaking. Such an image reinforces androcentricity in Christian tradition and undermines the unique nature of female experience, subsuming it into maleness. Such appropriation is evident in mediaeval monastic practice where abbots, such as Bernard of Clairvaux, birthed and mothered their novices, and Bernard advises other prelates to act likewise: 'Be gentle, avoid harshness, do not resort to blows, expose your breasts: let your bosoms expand with milk, not swell with passion.'11 Actions unique to womankind, a form of humanity that is identified by Thomas Aquinas as defective,12 can now be perfected in male form. In Christian tradition the 'female' Christ figure is not a 'counter-tradition' reflecting a less patriarchal form of that religion, but a reinforcement of its misogyny. Woman subsumed into man cannot mean the inclusion of the female in the Godhead. Just as the male Christ in this image can be interpreted to fulfill functions that pertain to a natural female role, so also does the male priesthood assume female functions every time the Eucharist is celebrated. Is the traditional identification of this icon of Christ from John's gospel with the act of birth wholly convincing? How was the scene from Genesis of Eve's 'birth' interpreted at the time of the rise of Christianity? In his correspondence with the community at Corinth in the mid-first century, Paul of Tarsus offers his views on the practice of women leading worship with their heads covered (1 Cor. 11.2-16), and in doing so he refers to the biblical story of Eve's origin from Adam. This passage 11. Quoted in Bynum, Jesus as Mother, p. 118. 12. Thomas-Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, Q. 92, art. I (trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province; 22 vols.; London: Burns, Gates & Washbourne, 1922), IV, pp. 275-76.

SAWYER John 19.34: From Crucifixion to Birth

135

has attracted the attention of Christian theologians and biblical scholars since the time of the Church Fathers, and in the last few decades it has been put under further scrutiny in the context of the debate concerning women's status and authority in Christianity.13 It is an important text for the present discussion as it could hold some clues to what the figure of Jesus on the cross in John's gospel might have suggested to readers and hearers in the first century CE. A common theme in 1 Corinthians 11 is that of origins. In the first part of the chapter Paul rehearses the argument that a distinction must be made between the sexes in order to recognize the unique creation of the first humans by the hand of God, namely, that woman was the product of man and not man of woman. The special attention given to women's head covering registers that unique event of divine action. Thus Paul's argument and example address one of the problems at Corinth: the disregarding of that distinction. Likewise, in the second half of the chapter, Paul responds to the situation of chaos manifest when the community met to celebrate the Eucharist. Again the community was oblivious to the origin and significance of this celebration: that it was not just a communal meal but the consummation and realization of Christ's body. In this chapter, then, Paul pleads for order and decency by explaining that mundane practices — style of dress and sharing of food—when located in the context of a community 'in Christ', are translated onto a metaphysical and theological level: believers experience the New Age when they meet together. They are the new humanity, the new Adams and Eves of God's Kingdom, eating the messianic banquet. To be unaware of this new reality can have dire consequences. It is important to look closely at the images Paul evokes in 1 Corinthians 11 so that we can discover whether he does understand that Adam gave birth to Eve, or whether her existence comes about as a result of God's creative activity, as was the case with Adam. Although the main point of the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 is to discuss the hierarchical distinctive headwear, we can clearly observe that Paul does not understand Adam to have 'given birth' to Eve. Nowhere in this passage do we find 'birthing' language used; instead the verb we do have is KTI£CO (11.9). This verb, like the Hebrew K"Q, is reserved in biblical Greek exclusively for God's creative activity. English translations are misleading when they render 1 Cor. 11.12 as 'for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman'. The insertion of the word 'born' — which is not in the Greek—enables the inference that Eve 13. See, e.g., the discussion of this passage in Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, pp. 22633.

136

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

too had been born from Adam. To the contrary, Paul argues that God in his work of creation made Adam's body the source of Eve's existence, just as previously God had made the earth the source of Adam's existence. Paul does maintain a tension in his argument. While insisting that in covering their heads women symbolize a distinction between the sexes that reflects the order of creation, he also argues that male and female are mutually dependent and that both men and women equally owe their origin to God. An alternative translation of 1 Cor. 11.11-12 could read: Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, any more than man is independent of woman: on the one hand the woman is from the man, but on the other hand man owes his existence to the woman. All are from God.14

This counter argument, or explanation of God's reality rather than the social convention of Paul's day, reflects the early Christian communities' dilemma of having to live in the 'old' age while already enjoying the fruits of the Spirit in the 'new'. The apparent egalitarian maxim found in Gal. 3.28,15 'For you are all one in Christ Jesus,' reflects the latter rather than the former.16 The complex argument found in 1 Cor. 11.2-16 has been much quoted, interpreted and misinterpreted down the centuries, and this process began within the Pauline corpus itself. Epistles that many modern scholars believe to have been written by disciples of Paul rather than by or at the dictation of the apostle himself,17 contain ideas that appear to 14. This is the force of the preposition Si a, alluding to Gen. 2.23, 'out of man this one (woman) was taken [Pinpb]'. The woman is created by the divine action of 'taking7 from man, rather than 'birthed' from man. Here Paul's argument can be used in support of Phyllis Trible's contention that it is only at the point of Eve's creation in Gen. 2.22 that the two sexes are distinguished. 'Adam', prior to this event, was a creature of the earth, neither male nor female. Both male and female depend on God's action in Gen. 2.22 for gaining their identity. See Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 94-105. 15. Whether Gal. 3.28 can reflect an egalitarian notion in Pauline thought in the light of physiological hierarchical concepts in his day is fully discussed by Dale B. Martin in The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), pp. 230-49. 16. See Daniel Boyarin's discussion of this tension and how it relates to Paul's teaching on marriage and Gal. 3.28 in A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), pp. 180-200. 17. The arguments for and against Pauline authorship of Colossians, Ephesians, and the Pastorals are well rehearsed; a standard account can still be found in W.G, Kummel's Introduction to the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1977).

SAWYER John 19.34: From Crucifixion to Birth

137

interpret 1 Cor. 11.2-16 in a particular way. In effect, they can be understood as a kind of midrash on 1 Cor. 11.2-16, and they have had the effect of cementing a particular interpretation for generations. For example, Ephesians enjoins, 'Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its savior../ (Eph. 5.22-23). Likewise 1 Timothy: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman 'will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty (1 Tim. 2.12-15).

Both these passages could be understood as further clarifications of 1 Corinthians 11. Both can be read as 'evolutions' from the text of 1 Cor. 11.2-16, developing the subject of the hierarchy of male and female, and both interpret Paul's comment on the origin of the two sexes outlined in 1 Corinthians in relation to the secondary nature of women. Furthermore, both indicate that a woman's status can only be realized through her husband and children respectively. For our purposes we can observe that in these earliest interpretations or further reflections on 1 Corinthians 11, it is the order of creation, the order of God's work, that is significant, and not the belief that Adam's superior status to Eve is a result of his having given birth to her.18 Paul's writings date from the middle of the first century CE; the Fourth Evangelist's work is usually dated a short time later, the last quarter of that century. Both writers are Diaspora Jews with many common interests and beliefs. If Paul understands the advent of Eve in terms of creation rather than birth, it would not be surprising if the author of John's gospel did so also. If we glance at Philo of Alexandria, another Diaspora Jew of the first century, we see that he clearly regards Eve as God's creation alongside, if inferior to, Adam (Quest, in Gen. 1.27).19 He describes God's work in her creation: '...she came from man, not through spirit nor through seed, like those after him (Adam), but by a kind of mediate nature, just as a shoot is taken from a vine for growing another vine' (Quest, in Gen. 1.28). 18. We may note also in passing that Paul's comment in 1 Cor. 11.11, explaining that 'in the Lord' male and female are mutually dependent (cf. 1 Cor. 7.3-4), is ignored in these related texts and by subsequent commentators. 19. Ralph Marcus (trans.), Philo, Supplement I (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961). Translated from the extant Armenian version of the original Greek.

138

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Adam Christology was popular with Paul and appears both explicitly and implicitly throughout his epistles: 'For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive' (1 Cor. 15.22). It can be found also in the gospels, for example, in the imagery of Luke's birth narrative. Here Jesus' existence comes about as the result of divine action of a different order to that of John the Baptist, who is born through, albeit miraculous, sexual relations. The setting of the two birth announcements side by side invites contrast (Lk. 1.5-24; 1.26-38), and it allows the author to underline the particular creative nature of God's work in relation to Jesus' existence, further accentuated by his genealogy that traces Jesus back to Adam (Lk. 3.23-38). In John's gospel the opening phrase 'In the beginning. ..' evokes the origin of the world and humanity. What these early writers were attempting to convey in their early speculations about Christ's typological identity as the new Adam was the cosmological significance of the advent of Jesus of Nazareth. It would not be unsympathetic to John's gospel to interpret the figure on the cross with the pierced side as the new Adam. The linguistic point that the Greek word for 'side' (TTJV irAeupav) used in Jn 19.34 is the same unusual singular form that appears in the Septuagint of Gen. 2.21-22 has already been noted. Just as the first Adam was used as material by God to create a counterpart, Eve, who together with Adam will create the human race, so the second Adam provides the material for the new humanity: the community of believers. Christ's body provides the matter for this in terms of sacramental elements: water and blood, creating the foundations of Christianity. Just as Adam and Eve share the same physical make-up, so the church shares in Christ's nature: it is Christ's body (cf. Rom. 12.5; 1 Cor. 12.12). If we interpret the image in Jn 19.34 in terms of Christ the New Adam whose body God uses to create his new humanity, his community of baptized believers, just as the first Adam had been used to create distinct male and female humanity, then we might discover a more convincing theological basis for a balanced, integrated Christianity. If we see instead an image of Christ giving birth out of his side, the temptation is to turn back to the first Adam image and see that, too, in terms of man giving birth. Again, this stands in the way of Christianity developing a balanced theology of the two sexes' relationship with one another and with God. Mutuality is absent in a tradition that holds that the first human was created by the hand of God, and then this divinely created being, identified as male, gave birth to another being of a different sex. Instead we have the second sex defined: the 'other' is born. We should understand the scene in Jn 19.34 in terms of creation imagery, building on Paul's theology found in 1 Corinthians 11 where,

SAWYER John 19.34: From Crucifixion to Birth

139

as we have shown, he presents the account in Genesis 2 as the story of Eve's creation by God. The moment of the death of Christ in John's gospel is the moment of the creation of the church, just as when Adam slept God chose that moment to create Eve. The evangelist's language is chosen with deliberation to identify these two moments in his account of salvation history. God creates the church as he had created Eve, not to introduce some defective life form into a perfect world, but on the contrary, to perfect and complete that world. In Christ he finds the substance to continue that creative work, and thus ensures a divine sacramental presence through the life of the church.

'DON'T BE TOUCHING ME': RECENT FEMINIST SCHOLARSHIP ON MARY MAGDALENE Harold W. Attridge The encounter between Jesus and Mary Magdalene in Jn 20.11-18 is a dramatic episode with an enigmatic touch. Its sources lie in traditions of an appearance on Easter morning of Jesus to women at the site of his tomb.1 The relationship among those traditions and the historical event underlying them has been a major issue in Johannine studies but is of only occasional and marginal interest to feminist scholarship and need not be of concern in this review.2 The Fourth Evangelist has taken such traditions and, as in the closely parallel case of the doubting Thomas,3 1. Cf. Mt. 28.8-10 and Mk 16.9-11, though the latter may be in part dependent on the Fourth Gospel. Luke 24.10 reports that Mary was among the women at the tomb, but he does not mention an appearance of Jesus or of angels. The disciples on the way to Emmaeus, however, do report that the women at the tomb had seen 'a vision of angels7, telling them that Jesus was alive (Lk. 24.23). 2. See Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (2 vols.; AB, 29, 29A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966/1970), II, pp. 922-23,1010-12, for discussion and earlier literature. He argues for independence of the three accounts with primitive features in John. Sandra Schneiders, 'John 20.11-18: The Encounter of the Easter Jesus with Mary Magdalene — A Transformative Feminist Reading', in Fernando F. Segovia (ed.), 'What Is John?' Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel (2 vols.; SBL Symposium Series; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), I, pp. 155-68 (160), argues for the independence of Matthew and John and Mark as a conflation of various traditions. In favor of dependence on the Synoptics is Ingrid Rosa Kitzberger, 'Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala—Two Female Characters in the Johannine Passion Narrative: A Feminist, Narrative-Critical Reader Response', NTS 41 (1995), pp. 564-86. See also H. Ritt, 'Die Frauen und die Osterbotschaf t: Synopse der Grabesgeschichten (Mk 16,1-8; Mt 27,6268; Lk 24,1-12; Joh 20,1-18)', in Gerhard Dautzenberg and Helmut Merklein (eds.), Die Frau im Urchristentum (Freiburg: Herder, 1983), pp. 117-33, and Franz Neirynck, 'John and the Synoptics: The Empty Tomb Stories', NTS 30 (1984), pp. 161-87. 3. The pericope is related either directly or indirectly to Luke's account of the appearance of Jesus to the disciples on Easter evening (Lk. 24.36-49). It is possible that in both cases the Johannine version preserves an earlier form of the story, which has been expanded in the Synoptics to include other disciples. It seems to me more likely that John has retold earlier stories with anonymous disciples to highlight the interaction between Jesus and a single individual.

ATTRIDGE 'Don't Be Touching Me'

141

focuses on a single individual's significant encounter with Jesus, apparently to illustrate some important principle. But what is it that the pericope illustrates? The question has been of particular interest to much recent feminist literature on the Fourth Gospel, as well as to feminist appraisals of Mary of Magdala.4 The voice of the summoning savior features prominently in the pericope. Evocative of the description of the 'good shepherd' in John 10, the story could be construed to make a similar point: Jesus knows his own, and they come to know and believe in him.5 In that context the prohibition of 'touching' or 'clinging to' Jesus6 seems to introduce an 4. Magdalene studies have been a recent growth industry. See, e.g., Margaret Arminger, Die verratene Papstin: Maria Magdalena, Freundin und Geliebte Jesu, Magierin der Zeitenwende (Miinchen: List, 1997), Richard Atwood, Mary Magdalene in the New Testament Gospels and Early Tradition (Bern: Peter Lang, 1993); Esther de Boer, Mary Magdalene: Beyond the Myth (trans. John Bowden; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997); Jane Dillenberger, 'The Magdalene: Reflections on the Image of the Saint and Sinner in Christian Art', in Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad and Ellison Banks Findly (eds.), Women, Religion, and Social Change (Albany: SUNY Press, 1985), pp. 11545; Magdalena S. Gmehling, Die Sunderin: Eine Studie uber die HI Maria Magdalena (Lauerz [Switzerland]: Theresia-Verlag, 1996); Susan Haskins, Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor (London: HarperCollins, 1993); Ingrid Maisch, Mary Magdalene: The Image of a Woman through the Centuries (trans. Linda Moloney; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998); Marjorie M. Malvern, Venus in Sackcloth: The Magdalene's Origins and Metamorphoses (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1975); Vincenzo Regina, Maria Maddalena nella storia, nella tradizione, nella legenda e nelle arti figurative delta provincia di Trapani (Alcamo: V. Regina, 1993); Carla Ricci, Maria di Magdala e le molte altre: donne sul cammino di Gesu (Napoli: M. D'Auria, 1991); Mary R. Thompson, Mary of Magdala: Apostle and Leader (New York: Paulist Press, 1995); and Renate Wind, Maria aus Nazareth, aus Bethanien, aus Magdala: Drei Frauengeschichten (Giitersloh: Gutersloher Verlaghaus, 1996). Much of this scholarship explores the development of the legend of Mary, the repentant sinner. 5. See the representative comments of Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (ed. and trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), p. 686, and Francis Maloney, John (Sacra Pagina, 4; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), p. 526, who emphasizes Mary's movement from unbelief (vv. 2,11-13) to belief (v. 16). 6. Vulgate: 'Noli me tangere'; NRSV: 'Do not hold on to me'; NAB: 'Stop holding on to me'; JB and NEB: 'Do not cling to me'. Many commentators discuss the significance of the present tense, the force of which is aspectual and suggests continued action. The tense then is taken to have implications for the sense of the prohibition. The translation might be 'Do not keep touching me', a prohibition not of contemplated action, but one already under way. Mary has begun to embrace Jesus, and he prohibits the continuation of the embrace. This analysis leads to the common translations, 'Stop touching me' or 'Don't cling to me'. On this analysis, interpretations that depict Jesus avoiding any contact with Mary are erroneous, and the stark contrast between

142

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

unexpected distancing between shepherd and sheep. The explanation by Jesus, that 'he has not yet ascended to the Father', is mysterious. The verse has long perplexed commentators, puzzled by the command itself, the logic of its connection with 'ascension' and the apparent tension between what Jesus commands Mary in this episode and what he commands Thomas in the next. This paper will explore the ways in which various forms of feminist interpretation have contributed to the resolution of this traditional crux. The intensity of interest in this dramatic text indicates something of its powerful hold on the Christian imagination. The variety of readings illustrates its potential both to encourage and to dishearten those who engage with it. Yet the variety itself is a problem. Can men and women committed to the equality of disciples in the Christian community take comfort from this text or should they resist its falsely seductive power? My own position, as one who is concerned to foster an egalitarian vision of Christian discipleship, will be that the text, properly understood within its contemporary context, is indeed a positive and affirming one. Yet I hope that my reading is not being dictated by my contemporary concern. Before we see what contemporary feminists make of the text, and what I think it is trying to do, a brief review of previous approaches will provide useful background, since many contemporary feminist readings are in critical or constructive dialogue with the scholarly tradition.

this scene and the following encounter with Thomas is reduced. Other commentators believe that this analysis, particularly with the translation 'Don't cling', is an overinterpretation of the present imperative. See D.C. Fowler, 'The Meaning of "Touch Me Not" in John 2017', EvQ 47 (1975), pp. 16-25; Mary Rose D'Angelo, 'A Critical Note: John 20.17 and the Apocalypse of Moses', JTS 41 (1990), pp. 529-36, esp. pp. 529-32, who surveys the contemporary translations and their predilection for 'Don't cling'. Such reservations are appropriate. The aspectual nuance of the present imperative is probably best brought out by a colloquial translation, such as 'Don't be touching me'. The relationship between such a prohibition and an intended or initiated action is not transparent. On the technical sense of the imperative, R.E. Brown (Gospel According to John, II, p. 992), despite a problematic translation, describes the possibilities correctly: 'The present imperative (MTI pou OCTTTOU), literally 'Stop touching me', probably implies that she is already touching him and is to desist; however, it can mean that she is trying to touch him and he is telling her that she should not (cf. BDF, § 3363)'. Because of the latter possibility, a 'literal' translation is, therefore, not 'Stop touching me'. BDF (§3361,2) clearly recognizes the possibility despite their own preferred rendering of 'stop touching me'. Bultmann (Gospel of John, p. 687 n. 1) also has it right. Whether Jesus issues a prohibition of a possible or actual embrace, he rejects it and so manifests a negative stance toward contact.

ATTRIDGE 'Don't Be Touching Me'

143

Traditional and Historical-Critical Exegesis The problematic verse worried many patristic exegetes, who often found some fault in Mary that elicited Jesus' prohibition. Origen is an exception: he believed that Mary could not touch Jesus because he had not fully risen.7 For Ambrose, Mary could not touch Jesus because she did not recognize Jesus' heavenly state.8 Jerome attributed Mary's unworthiness to her lack of belief in the divinity of Jesus.9 Augustine followed suit.10 Chrysostom and Theodoret thought that the prohibition was designed to instill respect for the resurrected body.11 Some of these explanations stay within the story world for the logic of the command but import into that world foreign theological concerns. Some operate also as contemporary readings do, by seeing an analogy between Mary's desire to touch or cling to Jesus and some aspect of the life or belief structure of the readers.12 Modern attempts to treat the text cover a broad methodological spectrum. Efforts to escape the problem through textual emendation have found little favor.13 Amusing rationalizations of the prohibition have surfaced: Jesus' wounds were still sore; Jesus prevents contact lest he be sexually stimulated, or, more theologically, he prevents Mary from requesting the Eucharist. Or, he reassures Mary that she doesn't have to cling, since he will be around for 40 days more.14 Such strained 7. Origen, Commentary on John 6.287; 10.245; 13.179-80, noted by de Boer, Mary, p. 63, who relies for her information on patristic exegesis of the verse on an unpublished paper by Kathleen Corley. For another assessment of the data from Origen, see the discussion of Mary Rose D'Angelo, below. For another survey of patristic sources, see Atwood, Mary Magdalene, pp. 147-85. 8. Ambrose, On the Christian Faith 4.2.25. 9. Jerome, Ep. 59, to Marcella. 10. Augustine, Serm. 244.2-3. 11. See Brown, Gospel According to John, II, p. 993. 12. Finding fault with Mary did not cease with the Fathers. For some contemporary readings along the same line, see Dorothy A. Lee, 'Partnership in Easter Faith: The Role of Mary Magdalene and Thomas in John 20', JSNT 58 (1995), pp. 37-39 [p. 38 nn. 2,3]. 13. O. Perles, 'Noch einmal Mt 8,22, Lk 9,60, sowie Joh 20,17', ZA/W25 (1926), pp. 286-87, emends OCTTTOU, 'touch', to TTTOOU, 'desire passionately', as translated by E. Haenchen, John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John (2 vols., Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), II, p. 210. The emendation has not won any adherents, though C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (Philadelphia: Westminster, 2nd edn, 1978), p. 565, considers it, with the meaning 'to fear'. 14. For these options, see Brown, Gospel According to John, II, pp. 992-93. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), p. 840, defends the last.

144

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

interpretations usually operate with a naive realist reading of the story and seek motivation within the story world. Contrasting with what now appear to be quaint explanations are more weighty theological messages found in the prohibition. Bultmann takes the episode to constitute a rejection of the physical resurrection.15 Haenchen follows in Bultmann's footsteps: In reality, the Evangelist presupposes a demythologized concept of the resurrection, in which Jesus returns as a spirit. Mary appears to encounter Jesus in a state in which the transition from his earthly form to a state of spirituality has not yet taken place (this is told in reliance on a crude tradition); the Evangelist also felt this state, which is impossible to our way of thinking, to be inappropriate. For that reason, he cuts short a further conversation with Mary in which he has Jesus ask Mary to tell the disciples that he will return to the Father.16

Unlike many commentators and exegetes, but remotely related to Origen, Haenchen begins with the recognition of a 'crude tradition', suggesting that Jesus' transformation to heavenly glory is as yet incomplete. Nonetheless, he also seeks a deeper theological meaning in the evangelist's handling of his source. Thus the evangelist corrects the traditions, and perhaps the beliefs of his audience, beliefs that bear an uncanny resemblance to those of twenty-first century readers, theologian and lay, who want to cling to the reality of corporeal resurrection. Critical of demythologizing and suspicious of any intended contrast between Mary and Thomas, Brown, like many commentators, appeals to Mary's possible motivation and finds in the prohibition a theological admonition: Magdalene is trying to hold on to the source of her joy, since she mistakes an appearance of the risen Jesus for his permanent presence with his disciples. In telling her not to hold on to him, Jesus indicates that his permanent presence is not by way of appearance, but by way of the gift of the Spirit that can come only after he has ascended to the Father.17 15. Bultmann, Gospel of John, pp. 687-88. 16. Brown, Gospel According to John, II, pp. 209-10. 17. Brown, Gospel According to John, II, p. 1011: It is unfortunate that so much attention has had to be paid to the meaning of 'Don't cling to me', when the real stress should be on the latter part of the verse, where it is made clear that Jesus is going to his Father with a salvific purpose'. On Mary and Thomas: 'It is our conviction that the two attitudes of Jesus have nothing to do with one another and that the evangelist intended no comparison between them, as if Thomas were being invited to do what had been refused to the Magdalene. It is the commentators who have created the contrast by speaking as if Thomas was invited to "touch" Jesus; the verb "to touch" used in the instructions to Magdalene does not appear in the Thomas episode/ While the word is absent, the invitation (20.27) to 'bring' (4>epe) Thomas's finger to Jesus'

ATTRIDGE 'Don't Be Touching Me'

145

Francis Maloney's recent reading offers a similar perspective: Associated with this confession is a desire to cling to Jesus (v. 17). Jesus' words, me mou haptou, instruct her that she must desist from her attempt to reestablish the relationship she once had with him. The hour is still in progress, and Jesus not only forbids her to cling to him but explains why all clinging should cease. In and through the cross Jesus has revealed God and has brought to perfection the task given to him (cf. 4.34; 5.36; 17.4; 19.30). The disciples are yet to experience the fruits of Jesus' glorification, but the days of being associated with the historical Jesus are over. An entirely new situation is being established through the hour that is in progress.18

Maloney argues that Jesus' next comment, that Mary must tell the disciples that Jesus is going to his and their God, describes the situation a-borning: when Jesus ascends, his disciples will become his brethren. To paraphrase: Jesus is engaged in a bit of psychagogy, by weaning Mary from an inappropriate way of thinking about him. Presumably the gospel works analogously, to wean the (implied) reader19 from a theological position or stage of faith deemed problematic or immature. Such readings, similar to the demythologizings of Bultmann and Haenchen, put the emphasis on the contemporary encounter with the resurrected Jesus, and through him with God. To seek to inculcate a mature faith, whatever form that should take, is surely a worthwhile goal of theological education, and perhaps even of theological exegesis, but we might still wonder whether the prohibition of touching really carries such heavy theological freight. Feminist Readings: The Apostle to the Apostles20 In contemporary readings of the pericope by scholars committed to be sensitive to the needs of women and aware of the ways in which biblical hand and put (pdAe) his hand into Jesus' side most certainly involves touching the resurrected one. Explicitly following Brown is Atwood, Mary Magdalene, p. 135. 18. Maloney, John, p. 526. 19. It is customary in contemporary narratological readings to distinguish actual and implied authors and readers. The distinctions are occasionally useful but can be simply a tedious exercise demonstrating theoretical sophistication. For those who are concerned with such niceties, my references to the 'reader7 should be construed as treating the 'implied' reader. 20. I leave aside the unfounded sensationalist reconstructions of Mary as the pregnant wife of Jesus. See Margaret Starbird, The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail (Santa Fe, NM: Bear, 1993); Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, Holy Blood, Holy Grail (London: Jonathan Cape, 1982; New York: Dell, 1983), on which see de Boer, Mary, p. 20.

146

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

texts address or fail to address those needs,21 several major themes emerge. The first and perhaps most important is the insistence on Mary as a historical witness to the resurrection and 'apostle to the apostles'.22 This insistence recovers ancient traditions, dating at least to the thirdcentury Hippolytus of Rome,23 but at the same time it performs a critical 21. Maloney, in fact, could be seen as a scholar influenced by the reading of S. Schneiders. 22. Among early feminist affirmations, see Luise Schottroff, 'Maria Magdalena und die Frauen am Grabe Jesu', EvT 42 (1982), pp. 3-25; Susanne Heine, 'Eine Person von Rang und Namen: Historische Konturen der Magdalenerin', in D.-A. Koch et al. (eds.), ]esu Rede von Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte imfruhen Christentum (Festschrift Willi Marxsen; Giitersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1989), pp. 179-94 (185-94), usefully comparing the view of Schottroff with that of Willi Marxsen, who was skeptical of the historicity of the story. The status of Mary as the first or one of the first witnesses to the resurrection has been recognized by other scholars not necessarily representing a feminist approach. See P. Benoit, 'Marie-Madeleine et les Disciples au Tombeau selon Joh 20,118', in Walter Eltester (ed.), Judentum-Urchristentum-Kirche (Fetsschrift Joachim Jeremias; BZNW, 26; Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1960), pp. 141-52; Martin Hengel, 'Maria Magdalena und die Frauen als Zeugen', in Otto Betz, Martin Hengel and Peter Schmidt (eds.), Abraham Unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gesprach tiber die Bibel (Festschrift Otto Michel; AGJU, 5; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1963), pp. 243-56; Ritt, 'Frauen', p. 130; G. O'Collins and D. Kendall, 'Mary Magdalen as Major Witness to Jesus' Resurrection', IS 48 (1987), pp. 631-46, noted in S. Schneiders, 'John 20.11-18', p. 159. Raymond E. Brown, 'Roles of Women in the Fourth Gospel', TS 36 (1975), pp. 688-99, on this point, p. 692: Mary had a 'quasi-apostolic role'; Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p. 137: 'She becomes a missionary.. .is given an apostolic role' and 'is a model of the female disciple'. The latter two cases are noted by Kitzberger, 'Mary of Bethany', p. 583 n. 54. See also Robert G. Maccini, Her Testimony Is True: Women as Witnesses According to John (JSNTSup, 125; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). 23. Primarily in his Commentary on the Song of Songs, which survives in Georgian and Armenian versions. See G. Nathanael Bonwetsch (ed.), Hippolyt's Kommentar zum Hohenlied (TU, 8; Leipzig; J.C. Hinrichs, 1902), noted by Haskins, Man/, p. 65, or G. Nathanael Bonwetsch and H. Achelis (eds.), Hippolytus Werke (GCS 1.1; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1897), pp. 350-55, noted by Leonard Swidler, Biblical Affirmations of Women (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), p. 209. Swidler labels the text Slavonic, an understandable error. Bonwetsch relied on a Russian translation of a single manuscript of the Georgian (N. Marr, Ippolit: Toklovanie Pjesni pjesnej [Teksty I razyskanija po armjano-gruzinskoifilologee, III', Saint Petersburg, 1901]). A new edition of the Georgian and Armenian, using a broader evidentiary base than N. Marr, is now available in Gerard Garitte, Traites d'Hippolyte sur David et Goliath, sur le Cantique des cantiques et sur I'Antechrist (CSCO, 263-64, Scriptores Iberici, 15-16; 2 vols.; Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus SCO, 1965); on the textual witnesses, see i-vi. Hippolytus (24.24, Garitte, Traites, 2.44) finds the type of the searching lover from the Song of Songs fulfilled in Martha and Mary, thus understanding Mary of Bethany to be identical to

ATTRIDGE 'Don't Be Touching Me'

147

task of feminist exegesis. It corrects, in the words of one prominent feminist reader, a 'patriarchal bias and the ecclesiastical power agenda' in scholarship that 'blinded the interpreters to the apostolic identity of a woman witness and its potential repercussions on contemporary Church order'.24 The unstated implications of Professor Schneiders's remark involve debates about women's ordination and ecclesial leadership, a topic of particular urgency to Roman Catholics, but not unknown in other ecclesial bodies.25 Whatever the specific implications, there is almost universal consensus among feminist scholars that historians of early Christianity should recognize Mary's role as a (or the) principal witness to the resurrected one, a role obscured by traditions that erroneously associated Mary with the repentant sinner of Lk. 7.38.26

Mary Magdalene, whose Easter quest for Jesus he cites. He also takes both sisters to symbolize the Synagogue, which seeks for the physical body of Jesus. It is precisely through her obedience that Mary becomes an apostle to the apostles, sent by Christ himself. Gregory of Antioch in the sixth century also notes the case of Mary as an apostle chosen by Christ. See Eva M. Synek,' "Die andere Marie": Zum Bild der Maria von Magdala in den ostlichen Kirchentraditionen', Oriens Christianus 79 (1995), pp. 181-96, noted by de Boer, Mary, p. 12. Swidler also notes the title apostola apostolorum in the ninth-century Rabanus Maurus (PL 112.1474B) and the twelfth-century Bernard of Clairvaux (PL 183.1148). For Rabansus's text, see now Rabanus Maurus, The Life of Saint Mary Magdalene and of her Sister Saint Martha: A Medieval Biography (ed. David Mycoff; Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1989). 24. Schneiders, 'John 20.11-18', p. 159. 25. Turid Karlsen Seim, 'Roles of Women in the Gospel of John', in Lars Hartman and Birgir Olsson (eds.), Aspects on the Johannine Literature: Papers presented at a conference of Scandinavian New Testament exegetes at Uppsala, June 16-20,1986 (ConBNT, 16; Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet, 1986), pp. 56-73, here, p. 57 n. 4, comments on another of Schneiders's articles, 'Women in the Fourth Gospel and the Role of Women in the Contemporary Church', BTB12 (1982), pp. 35-45, reprinted in Mark W.G. Stibbe (ed.), The Gospel of John as Literature: An Anthology of Twentieth-Century Perspectives (NTTS, 17; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993), pp. 123-42. Like the work of Raymond Brown, it tends 'to relate some individual features of the text too easily to an estimated sociohistorical situation of congregational life'. 26. Interpretive tradition, dating at least to Hippolytus, amalgamated Mary of Magdala with the repentant sinner of Lk. 7.36-50, mentioned just before the notice of the expulsion of seven demons from Mary Magdalene (Lk. 8.2). The amalgamation usually involves Mary of Bethany, who, according to Jn 12.3, also anoints the feet of Jesus. The distinction among these figures is usually attributed to Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples in 1517. See, e.g., de Boer, Mary, p. 9. The medieval situation is more complex. See Giles Constable, 'The Interpretation of Mary and Martha', in Three Studies in Medieval Religious and Social Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 3-141 (5-8).

148

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II 'Don't Touch': A Hidden Moral

For feminist exegetes concerned to recover Mary's positive position, the prohibition of touching, when not ignored,27 also cloaks a meaningful recommendation for all readers. Esther de Boer, after noting the venerable tradition affirming Mary's apostolic status, finds the gospel teaching about the significance of the resurrection and the responsibility that it places on disciples: John does not depict her so much as the key witness to the empty tomb; Peter and the other disciple get there very quickly. The Gospel presents her as the key witness to the precise meaning of Jesus' resurrection. Thanks to her persistence, she is the one who teaches that it is not a matter of 'holding'. Jesus says: Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them that I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God (Jn 20.17). Jesus' resurrection does not mean that he is there after his death as the disciples have known him. He will be with the Father, invisible to the world, only to be experienced by those who love him and keep his commandments. Mary Magdalene has to stand on her own feet.28

'Don't cling' means therefore to stand up and obey the teachings of Jesus. The logic of the explanatory clause of 17b remains obscure. The overall reading is formally, like that of Maloney, didactic, but it is oriented toward ethics, not doctrine, as in the readings of Bultmann and Haenchen. Mary emerges as the paradigm of personal responsibility and points to the disciples' new situation after the resurrection. New possibilities and responsibilities loom: disciples must confront them, guided by the teachings of Jesus, whose physical presence is no longer available. 27. Ricci, Maria, offers a reconstruction of Mary as leader of the women followers of Jesus, with primary attention to the evidence of Luke. In support of her assessment she nonetheless frequently (pp. 15,154-55,164,200) cites the last portion of Jn 20.17, where Jesus enjoins Mary to go and tell his brethren that he is ascending. Nowhere does Ricci worry about the prohibition of touching earlier in the verse. This is particularly interesting in light of the importance she attaches to physical contact between Jesus and women (pp. 108-18). 28. De Boer, Man/, p. 54. The reading may rely on the conflation of Matthean and Johannine scenes, since in Mt. 28.9 the women try to grasp the feet of Jesus and prostrate themselves before him. The conflation is attested in the reading of Hippolytus, Commentary on the Song of Songs 25.2 (Garitte, Traites 2.46): 'O beata mulier quae adhaesit pedibus eius ut in aerem posset evolare' (O happy woman who clung to his feet so that she might fly into the air).

ATTRIDGE 'Don't Be Touching Me'

149

In the more complex reading of Sandra Schneiders, Mary becomes more than a role model for ancient and contemporary apostolic teaching. Textual echoes help define Mary's symbolic value. A new Eve29 in the garden (Gen. 3.15),30 and a new lover, stooping to get a glimpse (TTapEKUv|;ev, 20.11) of her beloved, as the lover in the Song of Songs (2.9 LXX),31 she becomes a symbol of the Johannine community, the church: In this garden of the new creation and the new covenant, Jesus who is both the promised liberator of the New Creation and the spouse of the New Israel encounters the woman who is, symbolically, the Johannine community, the Church, the new People of God.32

Intertextual allusion thus creates a potent image. But why can't the apostle to the apostles hold on to Jesus? In Schneiders's view the prohibition also contains a positive truth. The weeping Mary must surrender the obsessional fixation on the physical presence of the earthly Jesus and prepare to cross the threshold from the economy of history into that of the resurrection... The emphatic placement of the 'me' at the beginning of the command and closest to the negative, which thus seems to govern the pronoun 'me' rather than the verb 'touch', suggests that what Jesus is forbidding is not so much the touching itself but Mary's 29. The notion of Mary as a new Eve, also connected with the lover of the Song of Songs, is found as early as Hippolytus, Commentary on Song of Songs 25.6-7 (Garitte, Traites 2.47-48). For Hippolytus, Mary as a new Eve makes up for the defect of the old by her obedience. Seim ('Roles of Women', p. 61) poses the question appropriate here, although her concern is with interpretations of the mother of Jesus as the new Eve: 'This network of interpretations appears as a jungle growth of exegetical conjectures and catchword combinations. And it raises a fundamental methodological question: how much or how little is needed of a clue in the text to mobilize comprehensive and complex mythological ideas as the horizon of thought revealing the hidden meaning of the text?' 30. For the significance of the garden as an allusion to Paradise, see Nicolas Wyatt, "Supposing Him to be the Gardener' (Jn 20.15): A Study of the Paradise Motif in John', ZMY81 (1990), pp. 21-38. 31. The traditional Catholic liturgy for the feast of St Mary Magdalene read Song of Songs 3.2-5 and 8.6-7, verses describing the bride's search for her beloved. For modern exegetes noting the connection to Song of Songs, see, A. Feuillet, 'La recherche du Christ dans la Nouvelle Alliance d'apres la christophanie de Jn. 20,11-18: Comparison avec Cant. 3,1-4 et 1'episode des Pelerins d'Emmaus', ml'Homme devant Dieu: Melange offerts an Pere Henri de Lubac (3 vols.; Aubier: Montaigne, 1963), I, pp. 93112, and many others since, e.g., Sjef van Tilborg, Imaginative Love in John (BIS, 2; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1993), p. 205, and most elaborately, Carmen Bernabe Ubieta, Maria Magdalena: Tradiciones en el cristianismo primitivo (Institucion San Jeronimo, 27; Estella, Navarra: Editorial Verbo Divina, 1994), pp. 146-74. 32. Schneiders, 'John 20.11-18', p. 161. Hippolytus at one point (Commentary on Song of Songs 24.2 [Garitte, Traites 2.44]) read Mary as a communal symbol, but of the Synagogue, not the Church or the Johannine conventicle.

150

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II selection of the object to touch, namely, the Jesus who stands before her as an individual. What Mary is told not to do is try to continue to touch Jesus, that is, to encounter him as if he were the earthly Jesus resuscitated... In other words, I would suggest that what Jesus is really doing is redirecting Mary's desire for union with himself from his physical or earthly body (which in any case no longer exists because it is the glorified Lord who stands before her in an appearance which is temporary) to the new locus of his presence in the world, that is, the community of his brothers and sisters, the disciples.33

Schneiders7 s reading echoes some of those already encountered, conventional and feminist, but with a new affective twist. The interaction between Jesus and Mary exemplifies a theological principle, but it also has a psychagogic function: to redirect the character, and perhaps the reader, from an 'obsession'34 with the physical to the 'spiritual7, from the excessively, perhaps pietistically, personal toward a commitment to the social.35 This interpretation has the strength of dealing with all the problems related to the verse. Schneiders treats the odd motive clause of 17b, which many interpreters ignore, with an ingenious reconstrual: I would propose to translate this part of Jesus' address to Mary not as a declarative sentence, 'I am not yet ascended to my Father', as if this supplied some reason why she should not or could not touch him, but as a rhetorical question expecting a negative reply, that is, 'Am I as yet (or still) not ascended?' The proper answer to the question is, 'No, you are indeed ascended, that is, glorified'.36 33. Schneiders, 'John 20.11-18', pp. 162-63. 34. A similar description of Mary's problem appears in Paul S. Minear, '"We Don't Know where..." John 20.2', Ini 30 (1976), pp. 125-39 (129): 'the obsessiveness of her grief and her befuddlement over graves', noted by Lee, 'Partnership', pp. 37-49. For Adeline Fehribach, The Women in the Life of the Bridegroom: A Feminist HistoricalLiterary Analysis of the Female Characters in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), p. 150, as well, Mary engages in 'obsessive' behavior in her search for the body of Jesus. It is interesting to contrast this reading with that of Hippolytus. He has the new Eve call out, 'Ecce adhaesi genibus, not sicut funis, si dirumpatur, sed adhaesi pedibus Christi; ne proicias me super terram, ut non deerrem; arripe me ad caelum' (Behold, I have clung to knees, not like a rope that might be broken, but I have clung to the feet of Christ. Do not cast me down on the earth, lest I go astray, but take me to heaven). On this Hippolytus comments, 'O beata mulier, quae a Christo semoveri non volebat!' (O happy woman, who did not want to depart from Christ!) (Garitte, II, Traites, p. 46). Had he lived in a psychological age, Hippolytus might have applauded Mary's 'obsession'. 35. Schneiders's reading thus avoids a problematic juxtaposition of the physical and the spiritual that could be construed as implicitly negative toward embodiment, and specifically female embodiment. 36. Schneiders, 'John 20.11-18', p. 165, relying on a suggestion by Albert Vanhoye, 'Interrogation johannique et exegese de Cana (Jn 2.4)', Bib 55 (1974), pp. 157-67.

ATTRIDGE 'Don't Be Touching Me'

151

Unfortunately, the construal of OUTTCO as an interrogative is artificial. The adverb quite normally means 'not yet' and functions in post-Homeric Greek as a single word. If construed as two words, the semantics of TTCO would be a problem. Rather than an indefinite adverb referring to any time up to the present, another adverb referring to a definite point in the past would be appropriate. Hence another expression, such as ou (or perhaps better ouxt) vuv, would have been necessary to convey the meaning that Schneiders seeks.37 An analogous reading, though less richly textured given the constraints of the genre, appears in Gail O'Day's treatment in The Women's Bible Commentary?* She too construes the prohibition positively, as a symbolic statement to all disciples not to try to restrain Jesus in any way: Jesus' command, 'do not hold on to me7, is the first post-resurrection teaching. When he speaks these words, Jesus teaches Mary that he cannot and will not be held and controlled. One cannot hold Jesus to preconceived standards and expectations of who he should be, because to do so is to interfere with Jesus' work and thereby limit what Jesus has to offer. If Mary had stopped Jesus from ascending to God, holding him with her in the garden, the Easter story would be incomplete. Jesus' prohibition to Mary thus actually contains the good news of Easter: Do not hold on to me, but let me be free so that I can give you the fullness of what I have to offer.

Having become equivalent to the Spirit, Jesus is free of any constraints. O'Day's interpretation fits into the pattern of 'dramatic psychagogy' that we have already encountered. Jesus acts on a character in order to guide the readers' beliefs and feelings away from an inappropriate set of assumptions about him to a more adequate, although in this case rather 37. Brown, Gospel According to John, II, p. 993, notes other attempts to resolve the difficulties of v. 17b through a creative construal of the clause: 'W. D. Morris, ET40 (1928-29), pp. 527-28, proposes that the Greek means: "Don't (fear to) touch me. Lagrange, p. 512, and Barrett, p. 470, seek to avoid the difficulty thus: "do not insist on touching me; it is true that I have not yet ascended to the Father, but I am about to do so". X. Leon-Dufour, Etudes d'Evangile (Paris: Seuil, 1965), p. 74, defends this concessive use of yap, meaning "true". Loisy [Brown refers to A. Loisy, Le Quatrieme Evangile (Paris: Nourry, 2nd edn, 1921)], p. 505 regards the words "for I have not yet ascended to my Father" as a gloss, so that the original import was: "Don't touch me, but go to my brothers; for my part I am ascending..." Similar, ZGB, #476, defends the grammatical possibility that the "for" that follows "Don't touch me" should be interpreted, not with "I have not yet ascended" but with "go to my brothers".' Brown rightly labels such attempts appeals to 'extraordinary syntax'. 38. Gail R. O'Day, 'John', in Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (eds.), The Women's Bible Commentary (London: SPCK; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), pp. 294-302 (301-302). She notes that a positive exhortation follows.

152

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

ill-defined, position. For O'Day, the text works to disabuse readers of 'preconceived standards and expectations' about the resurrected one. What the standards and constraints are is difficult to say. Patriarchal, classist, racist and sexist straightjackets would be likely contemporary candidates, but a historical reading might find the constraints in traditional Jewish expectations or in a role for Jesus in accord with the Mosaic Law, the sort of presuppositions that Hippolytus believed were symbolized by Mary.39 O'Day clearly does not move in that polemical, if authentically Johannine, direction. Whatever the problematic preconceptions and expectations might be, O'Day's reading offers a strikingly different assessment of the implications of the prohibition from that offered by de Boer. For de Boer, not to cling meant to stand on one's own feet and obey the commandments of Jesus. For O'Day, it is simply to 'hang loose' and keep possibilities open. Perhaps the two interpretations reflect late twentieth-century instantiations of traditional proclivities, de Boer more clearly rooted in a Catholic concern for works, O'Day in a liberal version of reformed theology. Both may, nonetheless, capture elements of the gospel that emphasize the importance of the command of Jesus (13.34; 14.15; 15.10) and that also promise something 'greater' than what traditional expectations permit (1.51). Yet it remains difficult to see how either of these elements is really conveyed by the command to Mary 'not to be touching' Jesus. 'Don't Touch': The Marginalization of Mary Feminist criticism frequently allies with other critical methods to elicit new meanings from biblical texts. Literary-critical theory lends a helping hand in the reader-response strategy of Ingrid Rosa Kitzberger.40 She identifies her stance as that of a first-century woman of the Johannine persuasion, who reads this text for the first time, but with knowledge of the Synoptics. Kitzberger detects not only intertextuality but 'interfigurality',41 the interplay between different characters within and among literary units, at work in the gospel. The story of Mary at the tomb evokes those of Mary and Martha of Bethany and of the Samaritan 39. Much contemporary Johannine exegesis focuses on the problematic relationship between the Fourth Gospel and its Jewish environment. See John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991). 40. Kitzberger,'Mary of Bethany'. The article was published in 1995; Schneiders' s piece in 1996. Neither apparently had access to the other. 41. Here she relies on Wolfgang G. Miiller, 'Interfigurality: A Study on the Interdependence of Literary Figures', in Heinrich E. Plett (ed.), Intertextuality (Research in Text Theory 12; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1991), pp. 101-21.

ATTRIDGE 'Don't Be Touching Me'

153

woman. Together the episodes function to affirm and liberate the hypothetical first-century woman: the reader herself also gained life and nourishing bread42 during and through her encounter with these female characters in the story. Her selfesteem and feeling of identity were strengthened by learning about the important roles of women in Jesus' life. As a member of a Christian community who keeps Jesus' legacy alive, she could infer from these stories the importance of women in her present community, where men and women are equal.43

Kitzberger's treatment creatively combines new and old. Like Hippolytus, Rabanus Maurus and most contemporary feminist exegetes, she finds in Mary the 'apostle to the apostles'. Yet her attention to characterization and various intertextual and 'interfigural' plays illuminates the way in which that image can and may actually have worked for women readers, although it remains difficult to confirm that possibility given the abstract, almost disembodied character of the hypothetical reader. The overarching treatment of Mary is part of a program of positive recovery of the figure, but Kitzberger's literary strategy does not provide resources to deal with the problematic verse. She barely notices the mysterious comment of Jesus in 20.17: The fact that she [Maryl recognizes Jesus when he calls her by name reminds the reader of Jesus' speech in ch. 10. Those who belong to him are those who hear his voice and follow him (cf. 10.4).44 Consequently, Mary also belongs among those who are 'his own', she is a disciple.45 Surprisingly, just after this intimate encounter, Jesus rejects Mary's closeness46 and her holding on to him, because he has not yet ascended to the Father (v. IT).47 42. Kitzberger acknowledges her debt to Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983); idem, Bread Not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist Biblical Interpretation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984); and idem, But She Said: Feminist Practices of Biblical Interpretation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993). 43. Kitzberger cites Brown, 'Role of Women', p. 699, who describes the Johannine community as one in which 'women and men are already on an equal level'. 44. Kitzberger is critical of Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, p. 144, for failing to note the connection, but cites Brown, 'Role of Women', p. 694, with approbation. 45. Kitzberger notes the similar point in Brown, 'Role of Women', pp. 694-95. 46. She cites Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, p. 11, who remarks that John has none of the touching and physical contact found in the Synoptics. 47. She cites Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 63-64 once again, who treats this verse as a 'prolepsis' linking Jesus to the Church.

154

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Kitzberger's treatment is curious in light of her methodology, which professes to take account of the gaps and inconsistencies that a reader would encounter in the text.48 Although deemed 'surprising', the prohibition against clinging merits no further comment, even while Kitzberger's observation hints that the saying has a negative dimension. At all events, her assessment of the verse contrasts with the positive valuation by Schneiders and de Boer. Schneiders and Kitzberger exemplify theological and literary attempts to read the pericope in fruitful ways, but both, by choice of method, offer readings more attuned to contemporary effect than to original setting. Would a first-century Johannine Christian woman read with surprise the command of Jesus to Mary? If so, how would that surprise have affected her? Or would she, like Schneiders, have known how to catch the inflection in the voice of Jesus that makes the rationale for his prohibition, despite all grammatical appearances, into a question? Some feminist readings still wrestle with the way in which the text would have been perceived in the first century. Perhaps the most interesting of suggestions to emerge from these efforts is the identification of the generic affinity of the story of Mary Magdalene with Hellenistic and Roman romantic novels. The connection, first brought to light by Sjef van Tilborg,49 was exploited independently by Adeline Fehribach.50 Both scholars find in Mary's story an echo of the recognition scenes common in romances of the Hellenistic and early imperial periods, in which two long-parted lovers rediscover one another, often after one has been presumed dead.51 For Fehribach, the reading of the episode serves a larger construal of the text. Like Kitzberger, she deploys a 'reader response' strategy. Her 48. Kitzberger, 'Mary of Bethany', pp. 568-69: 'Focus, therefore, is on the reading experience as a temporal responsive, as well as creative and dynamic process by which meanings of texts are established. This necessitates the close reading of the texts, as presented in part II, which reflects the (possible) communication process between text and reader. Gaps, discontinuity, ambiguity, etc. [emphasis Kitzberger's} in the text deserve very special consideration, because they have a unique function within the reading process and are the real turning-points in the narrative'. 49. Van Tilborg, Love, pp. 199-207. 50. Fehribach, Women, pp. 143-67. Neither her bibliography nor her notes indicate awareness of Van Tilborg's monograph of 1993, although she does discuss treatments of the text through 1995. 51. Van Tilborg, Love, pp. 204-206, cites Chaireas and Callirhoe in Chariton 8.1.7; Habrocomes and Anthia in Xenophon's An Ephesian Tale 5.12.3-13.2; Theagenes and Chariclea in Heliodorus's An Ethiopian Tale 2.6.3. Fehribach, Life of the Bridegroom, pp. 155-57, focuses on the first two texts but adds (156 n. 52) references to An Ethiopian Tale and Longus's Daphnis and Chloe.

ATTRIDGE 'Don't Be Touching Me'

155

reader is a fairly sophisticated disciple and, unlike Kitzberger's, is probably male.52 He brings to the text a familiarity with the Scriptures and with Hellenistic literature. Hence, he can catch the allusion to the motif of the rediscovery of the long-lost lover in Mary's search for Jesus and her attempt to embrace him. Familiar with Scripture, the reader will also catch allusions, building throughout the text, to Jesus as messianic bridegroom of the people of God.53 This bridegroom courts various symbolic damsels, including the Samaritan woman, whom he encounters at a well, where archetypal romantic trysts occurred,54 and Mary of Bethany, who washes his feet like a dutiful fiancee.55 The Samaritan woman symbolizes the people of Samaria, and Mary of Bethany the Jews, who come to her in remarkable number.56 Finally, Mary Magdalene fills the role of bride,57 symbolizing the community of disciples.58 Fehribach's reader will have the literary knowledge to catch all of these details and also to unpack the dense symbolism of the crucifixion, where Jesus, the bridegroom, consummates the marriage. In this consummation the bridegroom also becomes the mother of his people,59 from whose 52. I infer this since, in Fehribach's estimation, the reader is led to adopt some of the 'feminine ways of relating' to Jesus illustrated by the female characters in the text. See Fehribach, Life of the Bridegroom, pp. 102-107,161. 53. Jesus receives this title from John the Baptist at Jn 3.29, an adaptation of a traditional logion of Jesus. 54. See Jerome Neyrey, 'Jacob Traditions and the Interpretation of Jn 4.10-26', CBQ 41 (1979), pp. 436-37; Lyle Eslinger, 'The Wooing of the Woman at the Well', Journal of Literature and Theology 1 (1987), pp. 167-83, reprinted in M. Stibbe (ed.), The Gospel of John as Literature: An Anthology of Twentieth-Century Perspectives (NTTS, 17; pp. 165-82). 55. Interestingly, van Tilborg (Imaginative Love, p. 198), citing Petronius, Satyricon 57, finds here the action of a slave, not a bride. He notes that loosened hair could be a preparation for sexual intercourse or for mourning (citing Apuleius, Metam. 2.9,17), but notes that Jesus takes the gesture in the latter sense (Jn 12.7). 56. Fehribach, Life of the Bridegroom, pp. 83-113. Cf. Jn 11.19,31,45. 57. Fehribach notes J. Duncan Derrett, 'Miriam and the Resurrection (John 20.16)', Downside Review 111 (1993), pp. 174-88, who adds to the collection of possible allusions to the Song of Songs the address of the lover to his beloved as 'sister' (Song 4.9,10,12; 5.1, 2; 8.8). Hippolytus already made a similar move (Commentary on the Song of Songs 23.1 [Garitte, Traites, II, p. 43]). Cf. also Carolyn and Joseph Grassi, 'The Resurrection: The New Age Begins: Mary Magdalene as Mystical Spouse', in eadem, Mary Magdalene and the Women in Jesus' Life (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1986). 58. Fehribach, Life of the Bridegroom, pp. 159-61. 59. For a convenient summary of the traditional interpretation of Jn 19.34 in terms of birthing imagery, see Josephine Massyngbaerde Ford, Redeemer, Friend and Mother: Salvation in Antiquity and in the Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1997), pp. 195-99. Ford's roster of readers taking the text in that way includes Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogos 1.6, Ambrose, On Virgins 1.5, and Ephraem Syrus, Hymns on

156

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

pierced side flows forth the blood and water, the raw materials concocted by the body into semen, which nonetheless gives life.60 This reading, similar in some respects to that of Schneiders, adds new layers of complexity.61 Most significant for assessing the impact of the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to Mary is the argument that the text, or rather a 'subtext', develops a coherent view of Jesus as the messianic bridegroom, whose marriage is consummated on the cross. The subtext, however, has an intriguing twist, when on that cross the bridegroom, penetrated by a soldier's spear, reverses gender and becomes the ravished bride.62 The complexity of Fehribach's reading rivals that of Hippolytus, who also found a connection between the lover of the Song of Songs and Mary, the new Eve, but who evinces no awareness of the groom's transsexuality or the crucifixion as a rape.63 Whatever Hippolytus may have made of the text, Fehribach's reading is extraordinarily ingenious, but quite unpersuasive. the Crucifixion 9.2. Ford's treatment of Mary Magdalene (p. 192) is sketchy and dependent on the speculative popular work of Vernard Eller, The Beloved Disciple, his Name, his Story, his Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), for whom Mary Magdalene is equivalent to Mary of Bethany, the sister of Lazarus, the Beloved Disciple. See also the more restrained comment of Seim, 'Roles of Women', p. 65, on Jn 19.25-27: 'Through the exaltation of Jesus the inclusive family of God is procreated and born of the Spirit.. .in the moment of his "hour", [Jesus] creates/gives birth to the new family of God consisting of "mothers and brothers".' 60. Fehribach, Life of the Bridegroom, pp. 128-30. Fehribach's interpretation of Jn 19.34 relies on various interesting medical and philosophical notions, to explore which would carry us far afield. For another reading, see J.P. Heil, Blood and Water: The Death and Resurrection of Jesus in John 18-21 (CBQMS, 27; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1995). 61. Her notion (Fehribach, Life of the Bridegroom, pp. 116-21) of Jesus' death as a 'blood sacrifice that establishes a patrilineal kingship group' involves a curious use of the analysis of Old Testament rituals. 62. Warrants for this claim (Life of the Bridegroom, pp. 125-29) are weak. The general point that Greco-Roman literary works from Plato's Symposium onward do bend gender is well taken, but it is hardly clear that this text, with this piercing (Jn 19.37) does so. Fehribach adduces Mieke Bal's suggestion that the death of Sisera at Jael's hands was a 'rape' (Fehribach, Women, p. 129). The sexual interpretation of a spear thrust might be obvious to any post-Freudian, but it is not clear that it would be so obvious to a first-century reader. 63. The elaborate mixed-metaphorical interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Gospel of Truth shows that playful interpretations relying on various intertextual moves and reconfigurations of the originating text were indeed possible by the second century, although sexual plays are absent (or hidden at some subtextual level). It is not at all apparent what, especially for a reader-response critic, converts general possibility uncovered by contemporary theory to a reading probability, and at what level of the implied reader's consciousness.

ATTRIDGE 'Don't Be Touching Me'

157

It is not, finally, the intricate symbolic framework but the generic affiliations of the scene that help with the problematic verse. Fehribach associates the prohibition of Jesus not to be touching him with the recognition episodes of the romances, where the reunited lovers passionately embrace. The fact that Jesus does not allow Mary to do so here does not serve as counter evidence to the generic parallel, but as an indication of manipulation of the scene's typical features. The function of the alteration is part of the patriarchal program of the text, which puts Mary in her marginal place: Jesus' correction of Mary Magdalene and his refusal to reciprocate her embrace effectively denies Mary Magdalene the positive affirmation that women in the Greek love-novels receive from their spouses. Indeed, this failure to embrace his bride is the most striking alteration the author makes on the recognition scenes from the Greek love-novels. Such a dramatic change would have caused the reader to wonder why Mary Magdalene is not embraced. I would maintain that the christology and patriarchal ideology of the author denies Mary Magdalene the embrace.64

Van Tilborg offered a similar explanation of the injunction, though he found a different aetiology for Mary's marginalization: At decisive moments Jesus retreats from this relation to women: he finds refuge in his relation with the male disciples (in the case of the Samaritan woman); he retires into himself (in the case of Martha and Mary) and, in the closing stories, he goes back to his relation with the beloved disciple (in the case of his mother and Mary Magdalene). One can surmise that the women are left empty-handed even though the story does not say so. The return to the male partner(s) is in the story something self-evident and demonstrates once again that the social role of Jesus in the Johannine Gospel is clearly circumscribed.65

The function that both van Tilborg and Fehribach detect illustrates a tendency of the gospel as a whole, a tendency to marginalize and subordinate the women characters in the drama to Jesus. The two scholars read this subordination in slightly different ways. Van Tilborg finds a consistent emphasis throughout the gospel on the love between a male teacher and his disciples, which conforms to Hellenistic philosophical patterns. Fehribach finds a less well-articulated pattern of patriarchal supremacy that came to dominate the Christian movement early in its history. Her response, inspired by the hermeneutical stance of Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, is to adopt a stance as resistant reader, alert to the positive potentiality of the Johannine stories, which intimate 'feminine' 64. Fehribach, Life of the Bridegroom, p. 164. 65. Van Tilborg, Imaginative Love, p. 208.

158

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

approaches to Jesus, but critical of their tendency to use and then discard the women in Jesus' life.66 Her interpretation of the problematic verse, like that of Kitzberger, but unlike that of Schneiders, O'Day, and others, is decidedly negative. Whatever the weaknesses of the overall allegorical interpretation of the gospel evident in Fehribach's reading, it is possible that some subtle or not so subtle patriarchy is at work in Jn 20.17, especially if the generic parallel is the most appropriate literary context in which to read the verse, but whether or not that is so remains to be seen. 'Don't Touch': Putting Uppity Women in their Place Many contemporary feminist interpreters offer a literary approach to the text by explaining its motifs in the light of their possible psychic effects on an implied or imagined, but in any case hypothetical, reader. Another line of analysis is interested in the realities of group rivalries in early Christianity that may lie behind the text. Several feminist scholars have seen in the resurrection pericopae of the Fourth Gospel a leveling tendency, with implications for ecclesial organization. All the leading figures get some 'bragging rights'. Peter is the first to reach the tomb; the Beloved Disciple, already entrusted with the care of Jesus' mother, is the first to 'believe', whatever the precise connotation of that belief. Mary is the first to see Jesus. Hence, there is a certain 'egalitarian interest' in the portrait of the first disciples.67 Yet recognition of such interests does not solve the problem of v. 17, as long as that comment is perceived as something negative.68 If the remark is negative, what the literary critics perceive as Mary's marginalization could be a repudiation of some other faction or group, perhaps some group seeking mystical union with Jesus.69 'Touching' 66. For another resisting reader, see Adele Reinhartz, 'The Gospel of John', in Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Commentary (2 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1993,94), II, pp. 561-600, here p. 596. Reinhartz applies her resistance primarily to the portrait of the Jews in the text, rather than to the portrait of women, which she finds rather positive. She is particularly drawn to the figures of Martha and Mary (p. 597). Reinhartz also defines her own reading strategy as that of a 'trickster7, following Claudia Camp, 'Feminist Theological Hermeneutics: Canon and Christian Identity', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, I, pp. 154-71. She does not, however, play any tricks on the problematic prohibition. 67. So Seim, 'Roles of Women', p. 67. 68. Seim, 'Roles of Women', p. 66, considers 20.17 a 'rather rude admonition' and 'rather deprecating remark', resembling the response of Jesus to his mother in 2.4. 69. See Ubieta, Maria, pp. 168-69.

ATTRIDGE 'Don't Be Touching Me'

159

then would be a metaphor for an inappropriate search for visionary ecstasy. While there may be such a polemical strand in John,70 it is hard to see how that metaphor works, particularly when the object of the apprehension is Jesus, who is the true revealer (Jn 1.18). Perhaps the prohibition rejects a faction or group that simply reveres Mary and perhaps even uses her as a model for women leadership. Fiorenza notes the polemical, and perhaps analogous, interpretations of Mary in other early Christian texts: How much scriptural interpretation and legitimization served political functions for the church can be illustrated by the example of Mary of Magdala.71 The canonical Gospels mention women such as Mary Magdalene and Salome as disciples of Jesus. Gnostic and other groups build on these traditions to claim the women disciples as apostolic authorities for the reception of revelation and secret teachings. Patristic Christianity, on the other hand, attempted to play down the significance of the women disciples and their leader Mary Magdalene and concentrated on apostolic figures like Peter and Paul or the twelve. The debate between various Christian groups on primacy in apostolic authority is reflected in various apocryphal texts which relate the competition between Peter and Mary Magdalene.72

Fiorenza's comments apply primarily to patristic interpretations of the text, but it is possible that a polemical use of the characters in the story as ciphers for ecclesial groups or factions could already be at work in the text itself. Various texts from the second century do indeed portray Mary in tension with the male leadership of the church. The texts are not uniform in their portraits, and the degree of tension between Mary and the 70. This thesis has been defended particularly by Gregory Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1995), and April D. de Conick,' "Blessed are Those Who Have Not Seen" (Jn 20.29): Johannine Dramatization of an Early Christian Discourse7, in John Turner and Anne McGuire (eds.), The Nag Hammadi Library After Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration (NHMS, 44; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997), pp. 381-98; eadem, Seek to See Him: Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas (VCSup, 33; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996). Not everyone is convinced. See Ismo Dunderberg, 'John and Thomas in Conflict?', in Turner and McGuire (eds.), Nag Hammadi Library, pp. 361-80. 71. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, p. 338 n. 76 cites various earlier treatments, culminating in Malvern, Venus in Sackcloth. 72. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, p. 304. She cites, e.g., the Sophia Jesu Christi, the Pistis Sophia, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip, as well as the arguments of the patriarchal opposition in the Didascalia, the Apostolic Church Order, the Questions of Bartholomew and the Dialogue between a Montanist and an Orthodox (In Memory of Her, pp. 305-309).

160

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

apostles, and between male and female disciples, varies considerably.73 Some early studies suggested that these texts might preserve historical reminiscences of early conflict between Mary and such leading apostles as Peter.74 Recent scholarship is more cautious on the origins of the tradition in the earliest apostolic generation,75 but recognizes the possibility that Tetrine' and 'Marist' elements did compete in the life of the early church. It is possible, then, that the Fourth Gospel is also involved in such potentially political competition. One of the most striking depictions of rivalry between Mary and other apostles appears in the Gospel of Mary. The key scene records an exchange between Mary and Peter. It begins with the disciples despondent over their commission to preach to the nations. If Jesus was not spared, how will they escape? Mary replies: 'Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for his grace will be entirely with you and will protect you. But rather let us praise his greatness, for he has prepared us and made us into men (n-rwme76)/ When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good and they began to discuss the words of the [Savior].

Peter, betraying a hint of jealousy, then intervenes: Peter said to Mary, 'Sister, we know that that Savior loved you more than the rest of women. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember— which you know (but) we do not, nor have we heard them/ Mary answered and said, 'What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you/ And she began to speak to them these words. 'I/ she said, 'I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to him, "Lord, I saw you today in a vision/' He answered and said to me, "Blessed are you, that you did not waver at the sight of me. For where the mind is, there is the treasure." I said to him, "Lord, now does he who sees the vision see it the soul through the

73. For the most recent analyses, see Antti Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved: Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and Related Documents (NHMS, 40; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), and de Boer, Mary, pp. 58-116. Concise summaries of the major texts may be found in Francois Bovon, 'Le privilege pascal de Marie-Madeleine', NTS 30 (1984), pp. 50-62, Karen L. King, 'The Gospel of Mary Magdalene', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 617-25, and Atwood, Mary Magdalene, pp. 186-204. 74. R.M. Price, 'Mary Magdalene: Gnostic Apostle?', Grail 6 (1990), pp. 54-76; H. Koivunen, The Woman Who Understood Completely: A Semiotic Analysis of the Mary Magdalene Myth in the Gnostic Gospel of Mary (Acta Semiotica Fennica; Imatra: International Semiotics Institute, 1994). 75. As Marjanen, Woman, p. 223, argues, the opposition is not uniform and seems to be a later development. 76. Although the Coptic word may be generic, the context indicates that males are in view.

ATTRIDGE 'Don't Be Touching Me'

161

spirit?" The Savior answered and said, "He does not see through the soul nor through the spirit, but the mind which [is] between the two — that is [what] sees the vision..."77

This fragmentary document opposes Mary and Peter but clearly accords a primacy to Mary, as the one whom the Savior particularly loved. Mary thus emerges as a rival not only to Peter but to any 'Beloved Disciple'. Whether the Gospel of Mary defends the role of women more generally or only defends a particular Marian 'primacy' is unclear, but its extremely positive depiction of this leading lady is obvious. Attempts to date the Gospel of Mary have not yielded a secure result, although an early second-century dating has been gaining favor.78 If the text is so early, it would not be much junior to the Fourth Gospel, and could provide evidence of the general environment out of which it emerged. In that environment it proved necessary to recognize, either for historical or symbolic reasons, the prominence of Mary among the disciples of Jesus and/or the early witnesses to the resurrection. At the same time the Gospel of Mary, like the Gospel of Thomas,79 explains, and perhaps qualifies, Mary's leadership role, by characterizing her as having been 'made a man'. That status may be metaphorical, or it may refer to her participation in an ascetical lifestyle in which gender differentiation had been overcome.80 In any case, Mary's status as the equivalent of male disciples permits her to play a role as a recipient of revelation and a purveyor of hidden wisdom. It is possible that a similar set of concerns is at work in Jn 20.17. As 1 Cor. 7.1 indicates, at least some early Christian circles recognized that it was good for a man 'not to touch' (MTI aimaBcu) a woman.81 Paul 77. BG 8502.1:9.14-10.22. For the translation, see Karen L. King, 'Introduction7, in Douglas M. Parrott (ed.), 'The Gospel of Mary (BG 8502,1)', in James M. Robinson (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library in English (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 523-27, here pp. 525-26. For the Coptic, see R. McL. Wilson and George W. MacRae, The Gospel According to Mary: BG, 1.7.1-19, 5', in Douglas M. Parrott (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codices V,2-5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,1 and 4, NHS11 (NHS, 11; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979), pp. 453-71, here pp. 461-63. 78. See King, 'Mary Magdalene', p. 628. 79. Cf. Cos. Thorn. 114. 80. For further discussion of the idealization of the masculine in ascetical Syrian Christianity, see Harold W. Attridge, 'Masculine Fellowship in the Acts of Thomas', in Birger Pearson (ed.), The Future of Early Christiantiy (Festschrift H. Koester; Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress, 1991), pp. 406-13. 81. For the ascetical connotations of the phrase, see Plutarch, Quaestiones conviviales 8.1.2 (717E): Ariston, Plato's father, is warned in a dream not to have intercourse with or to touch (|jr)S ' avpaoSai) his wife for ten months. The text is cited by Helmut Merklein, 'Agyptische Einfliisse auf die messianische Sohn-Gottes-Aussage',

162

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

struggles to resist a consistent application of that principle, but others were not so hesitant to embrace it. Jesus' command to Mary not to be touching him could be an invitation to asceticism, the equivalent of the notion in the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary that Jesus made Mary the equal of the ascetical male disciples, fit to be a revealer. Although the parallels are intriguing, a word of caution is in order, since the way in which the Gospel of Mary addresses the issue of Mary's status seems to be a secondary development of early gospel accounts. The Gospel of Mary reports that Mary had two visions of her savior. The second confirms the first and lends it meaning. After Mary tells Jesus, somewhat gratuitously, 'Lord, I saw you today in a vision/ Jesus replies, 'Blessed are you, that you did not waver at the sight of me. For where the mind is there is the treasure.'82 They then go on to discuss the faculty through which vision takes place, soul, spirit or mind. All of this smacks of an interpretation of an early account of the appearance of Jesus to Mary. The clear focus on Mary, rather than on Mary and other women, suggests that the source of this gospel's account of the appearance was closer to the longer ending of Mark (16.9-11) or to Jn 20.11-18 than to Mt. 28.8-10. The second appearance in the Gospel of Mary legitimates and confirms Mary as 'apostle to the apostles' against the challenge posed by Peter, while it also addresses general theoretical issues about the possibility of vision. The rest of the text suggests ways in which Mary might have instructed the disciples. The Gospel of Mary, like many other witnesses, offers valuable testimony to ecclesiological conflict over the role of Mary, and perhaps the role of women more generally, in the second century. Nonetheless, it is a work of fiction, happy to embellish an original tale with stories serving new ends. Hence, its value as an indication of the significance of the problematic episode and its problematic verse is limited. Political motives may be at work in the Fourth Gospel, but tracing them with the aid of second-century texts remains difficult.

in Hubert Cancik, Hermann Lichtenberger and Peter Schafer (eds.), Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift fur Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (3 vols.; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996), III, pp. 12-48 (41) n. 87. For use of John in a later ascetical context, see Tjitze Baarda, 'Jesus and Mary (John 20.16f.) in the Second Epistle on Virginity Ascribed to Clement', in Wolfgang Schrage (ed.), Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Heinrich Greeven (BZNW, 47; Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1986), pp. 11-34, repr. in idem, Essays on the Diatessaron (Kampen: Kok, 1994), pp. 87-110. 82. BG 8502,1:14.12-16.

ATTRIDGE 'Don't Be Touching Me'

163

'Don't Touch': A Warning for a Liminal Moment Most of the readings so far treated, feminist and otherwise, either ignore or have difficulty with the apparent explanation for the prohibition. Schneiders alone confronted the problem with her problematic construal of the clause as a question. Mary Rose D'Angelo, introducing a different text with which a first-century reader might be familiar,83 treats the overall issue of the verse and pays special attention to 17b. The most important datum that she brings to the interpretation of the verse is a striking parallel in the Apocalypse of Moses (= Life of Adam and Eve) 31.3-4: Then Adam said to Eve,'... when I die, leave me alone and let no one touch me (Mr)5eis M°u avpr|Tai) until the angel of the Lord shall say something about me; for God will not forget me, but will seek his own vessel which he has formed. But rather rise to pray to God until I shall give back my spirit into the hands of the one who has given it.84

The reason for the prohibition on touching in both cases remains obscure. D'Angelo, directly criticizing Bultmann,85 suggests that it has to do with issues of purity, a suggestion supported by Origen.86 The narrative of the Apocalypse of Moses provides the grounds for seeing the body of Adam to be impure before its assumption. As described by D'Angelo the relevant material reads: At the death of Adam, Eve and Seth have a vision in which God comes to the dead Adam in an eagle-drawn chariot of light, preceded by angels. The angels first perform a liturgy interceding for Adam as God's image and the work of God's hands. Then an angel blows a trumpet and they all announce God's mercy on Adam, and a six-winged seraph takes Adam to the Lake of Acheron and washes him three times. He lies before God until God commands him to be taken to the third heaven until the judgment.87 83. Mary Rose D'Angelo, 'A Critical Note: John 20.17 and Apocalypse of Moses 31', JTS NS 41 (1990), pp. 529-36. Though the article appeared well before those of either Schneiders or Kitzberger, neither cites it, and it seems to have made no impact on the mini-commentaries by O'Day or Reinhartz. D' Angelo notes the contribution in 'Reconstructing "Real" Women in Gospel Literature: The Case of Mary Magdalene', in Ross Shepard Kraemer and Mary Rose D'Angelo (eds.), Women and Christian Origins (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 105-28. D'Angelo does not frame her analysis in terms of a reader-response strategy, but it is instructive to compare the resources that she uses to interpret the text with those to which Kitzberger or Fehribach appeal. 84. Translation by Marshall D. Johnson in OTP, II, p. 287. 85. Bultmann, Gospel of John, p. 587 n. 4, in turn rejecting a suggestion of H. Kraft, 'Joh. 20,17', TLZ 76 (1951), p. 570. 86. Origen, Commentary on John 6.37 (p. 288), ANF, pp. 38-79. 87. D'Angelo, 'John 20.17', p. 532.

164

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

The parallel is not complete. Jesus is not, like Adam, a corpse, because he does speak to Mary and is clearly on his way up, not lying inert on the ground. Would Jesus spare Mary ritual impurity from touching his body, fresh from the tomb? Or is his own state precarious and potentially endangered by mortal contact? The text does not say, and D'Angelo wisely refrains from providing a definitive answer, although she does suggest a close relationship between the cases of Adam and Jesus: It is not necessarily the case that Mary would be ritually unclean if she were to touch him. Nor is it the case that the Apocalypse of Moses evinces a concrete concern with the ritual pollution of Eve or Seth. But the touching of Jesus' or Adam's body in some way would constitute a violation, a danger not only to Mary or Eve but also to Jesus or Adam in his strange state, or perhaps to the holy and awesome process each undergoes.88

D'Angelo's analysis, in line with Origen's perception of the text, provides a reasonable solution to the problem of the relationship of v. 17b to 17a. Despite commentators' resistance,89 it seems likely that the text assumes that 'exaltation' is a process, not completed on the cross, but taking place before the very eyes of Mary. Once that process is complete, Jesus can appear to his disciples and give them the gift of the Spirit (20.19-22).90 Although this notion may run counter to that strand of the gospel that intimately associates exaltation with crucifixion,91 there is no reason to exclude it from this verse. What, then, are the implications of the scene, a rebuke to Mary in her obsessiveness or inadequate faith? Unlikely: too much Freud and Heidegger. A marginalization of Mary in comparison with the male apostles to whom she announced the resurrection? Not immediately obvious, whatever the potential patriarchy that might loom behind the text. D'Angelo argues that the scene is as likely a recognition of Mary's unique role. Rejecting Origen's claim that the episode puts Mary in her place, D'Angelo maintains: It is equally possible that the uniqueness of the appearance may award Mary a special status. Far from showing the inadequacy of Mary's faith, the story intends to confer on her a unique privilege in this encounter.92

88. D'Angelo, 'John 20.17, p. 534. 89. Haenchen, as noted above, is an exception, in his positing a 'primitive' element in the story. 90. Lee, 'Partnership', argues that the appearance of Jesus to the disciples and bestowal of the spirit is the climatic center of the whole chapter, framed by two balanced stories of people coming to faith, Mary and Thomas. 91. John 3.14-15; 12.23-32; 19.30. 92. D'Angelo, 'John 20.17', p. 535.

ATTRIDGE 'Don't Be Touching Me'

165

D'Angelo then makes an important contribution with two significant moves. She takes seriously the connection between vv. 17b and 17a, and she does not dismiss or ignore what may seem to modern readers a very odd piece of logic. At the same time, rather than positing an ideal reader or a set of obscure intertextual plays, she adduces a generic scene with striking similarities to Johannine episodes. Those similarities extend to precisely the points that are most at issue in contemporary readings, feminist and otherwise: the elements of the text that elicit gasps of surprise and wonderment at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The result for the first-century reader aware of Jewish traditions about the odd status of people on their way to heavenly glorification is the recognition that Mary was there at the most delicate of moments, when Jesus could tell her of his victory over death but before he had taken his exalted place in the bosom of the Father. The point: it was Mary, not Peter nor the Beloved Disciple, who was privileged to have that most intimate of encounters. Concluding Reflection As the attempts of various scholars to wrestle with one problematic verse indicate, feminist exegesis is hardly a monolithic or uniform movement. The program to read the New Testament from a feminist perspective has produced an impressive body of literature, one that shows no signs of diminishing in intensity or scope. In the process it has produced results sometimes playful, sometimes profound, sometimes insightful and sometimes silly; in other words, it is like most other types of scholarly discourse. In the case of Mary Magdalene, as in many other cases, it has exposed a history of biased readings and scholarship, and it is a salutary lesson for all exegetes to have learned where those biases lurk. Yet feminist exegesis, like all other types of exegesis, still must wrestle with the problems within the text, as well as behind or in front of it. Some solutions proposed by feminist exegetes are objectively better than others, for the same reasons that one exegetical proposal has always been favored over another: the explanation is more comprehensive, with better evidence to support it, fewer gratuitous assumptions to ground it, and fewer 'loose ends' left when the argument is over. It is a lovely thing for there to be a plethora of readings, but in the egalitarian world of post-modern readings, some are more 'equal' than others. Many of the explanations proposed by feminist exegetes of Jn 20.17, like those of more traditional exegetes, over-interpret the problematic verse but in the end do not fully account for it. The most satisfying reading offers the most relevant parallel evidence and accounts for the

166

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

explanatory force of v. 17b. This reading suggests that the verse does not indicate a problem with Mary, but with the situation of Jesus' transitional state. On his way back on high, he was simply not fit to be touched. If cultural presuppositions suggested such a condition to the original transmitters of this take, it is impossible that they were using Mary to symbolize a problem in the readers that had to be corrected, be it an obsession with the physicality of Jesus, a search for mystical fulfillment or a dogmatic misapprehension of the nature of resurrection. If there was nothing wrong with Mary, she is not being marginalized or put in her secondary place by Jesus' command. She is not, moreover, being contrasted unfavorably with Thomas. After all, she does not need to touch Jesus in order to come to whatever degree of faith she achieves. Above all, she does not need to be touching him in order to do what all disciples are called upon to do: tell his story to others.

THINKING BACK THROUGH MARY MAGDALENE* Jane Schaberg Yet I am now and then haunted by some semi mystic very profound life of a woman, which shall all be told on one occasion; and time shall be utterly obliterated; future shall somehow blossom out of the past.1

A strange thing is happening during the course of research and writing for this article and an eventual book about the figure of Mary Magdalene. Compiling a 65-page bibliography of titles ranging from the sickening to the intriguing,2 reading my way through the abstracts, the photocopies, the volumes, trying to line up the issues and decide how to deal with them, I found myself distracted — this is how I put it for some time—by a presence, Virginia Woolf. Her books, her diaries, her letters kept getting into my hands, articles about her kept getting into my interlibrary loan requests, tapes of radio shows produced about her kept getting on my stereo,3 her name kept coming up in conversations, her thoughts kept after me. Like this one: the Society of Outsiders, she said, by criticizing religion would attempt to free the religious spirit from its present servitude and would help, if need be, to create a new religion based, it might well be, upon the New Testament, but, it might well be, very different from the religion now erected upon that basis'.4 * Originally published in Continuum I (Winter-Spring 1991), pp. 71-90. Reprinted by permission. 1. Anne Oliver Bell et al. (eds.), The Diary of Virginia Woolf (5 vols.; New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980), III, p. 118. 2. E.g. Edward F. Murphy, The Scarlet Lily (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1944); Andre Prevos, The Legend of Mary Magdalene in Afro-Cajun Spirituals', Pacific Quarterly 8 (1984), pp. 25-30; Czeslaw Milosz, 'Mary Magdalene and I', New Yorker 63 (1987), p. 40; Beth Ingber-Irvin, The Autobiography of Mary Magdalene (Nevada City, CA: Blue Dolphin, 1989). 3. E.g. Clayelle Dalferes, 'Va. Woolf & Co' (WITF Radio; Hershey, PA, 1980). 4. Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas (London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1938), p. 112. Cf. 'A Society', Monday or Tuesday (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1921), pp. 9-40.

168

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

What exactly are all those tentative qualifiers doing in this sentence, that 'if need be', those 'might well he's'? What did she have in mind, what was she glimpsing? For us, who may not be able to 'base' a new religion on the New Testament, what use, what help, will the New Testament be? There is this statement of hers, too, that makes the feminist New Testament critic in me cringe, pause, then read again because it is hers: What the Christian religion is has been laid down once and for all by the founder of that religion in words that can be read by all in a translation of singular beauty; and whether or not we accept the interpretation that has been put on them, we cannot deny them to be words of the most profound meaning. It can thus safely be said that whereas few people know what medicine is, or what law is, everyone who owns a copy of the New Testament knows what religion meant in the mind of its founder.5

She had a copy, then? Singular beauty? Profound meaning? I keep rooting through her work to know more, to find out what she thought 'religion meant in the mind of its founder', and more importantly what it meant in her mind.6 The 'sheer will and imagination' out of which alone Woolf made up for her characters and for herself 'an integrated, meaningful, and above all comforting vision', as Susan Kenney puts it, must be studied as part of our religious heritage and future.7 For Woolf the imagination is not alone; it expresses the collective consciousness.8 She regarded all of us 5. Woolf, Three Guineas, p. 121; cf. p. 180 n. 29. Contemporary feminist critics argue that it is not only much interpretation that is patriarchal and sexist, but aspects of the text itself, or, for some, the very structure and core of the text. 6. On the religious aspect of Woolf s thought, see Jane Marcus's 'Niece of a Nun: Virginia Woolf, Caroline Stephen, and the Cloistered Imagination', in Jane Marcus (ed.), Virginia Woolf: A Feminist Slant (Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1983), pp. 7-36; S.P. Rosenbaum, 'Virginia Woolf and the Intellectual Origins of Bloomsbury', in E.K. Ginsberg and L.M. Gottlieb (eds.), Virginia Woolf: Centennial Essays (Troy: Whitston, 1983), pp. 11-26; cf. Quentin Bell's disappointing discussion in Virginia Woolf: A Biography (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972), p. 135. 7. Susan M. Kenney, 'Two Endings: Virginia Woolf's Suicide and Between the Acts', University of Toronto Quarterly (Summer 1975), pp. 265-89 (275). The whole passage runs: Woolf 'made up for her lack of an integrated, meaningful, and above all comforting vision by literally making it up, creating it not out of conviction or even theory, but out of sheer will and imagination, and she gave it to all her characters... In doing so she was both exerting power over the imagined life, and giving the vision to herself as she existed in her characters/ 8. 'Masterpieces are not single and solitary births, they are the outcome of thinking in common, of thinking by the body of the people, so that the experience of the mass is behind the single voice' (A Room of One's Own [New York: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1929], p. 98).

SCHABERG Thinking Back through Mary Magdalene

169

human beings as parts of the work of art that is the whole world: 'Hamlet or a Beethoven quartet is the truth about this vast mass that we call the world. But there is no Shakespeare, there is no Beethoven; certainly and emphatically there is no God; we are the words; we are the music; we are the thing itself/9 Then too, of course, there is the suicide, and the question of how it relates to her powerful vision of life.10 It is not unusual, I know, for Woolf to exercise this fascination. The philosopher Sara Ruddick details how Woolf was the personal, direct agent of change in Ruddick's life. Conferring a mysterious gift of authenticity, Woolf freed her from dependence on men's judgment and from professionalism, made women real for her, and helped her find her own mind, eyes and voice. She taught her to allow feeling to inform her most abstract thinking. 'She showed me a place outside of charmed circles where I could stand/11 In my case too, I know Woolf is appearing as the mentor I never had. She teaches the writer's life of concentration and commitment. She makes it happier because she repudiates the sacrifice of the needs of others and of friendship, love and simple social pleasures. Scorning 'adultery of the brain', she urges connected thinking. She sees herself as a redeemer of lost lives, the deliverer of the stranded ghosts of ancestresses. Woolf insists on herself also in my imagination as in some way a counterpart or companion of the ghost I am hunting, the all-but-erased woman from the first Christian century, whose traditions need untangling. Virginia Woolf and Mary Magdalene. Why not? Both Outsiders to the patriarchal circus, and neither of them Apostles. Woolf's Outsiders have four teachers: poverty (intellectual), chastity, derision and freedom from unreal loyalties. Certainly these four taught with Jesus. The males of Woolf's family and circle were members of the Cambridge 'Apostles'. Woolf mocked this society by creating a 'parallel sisterhood of intellectual inquiry and social conscience' in her London conversazione society of fictional females.12 Mary Magdalene was not considered an apostle in the Lukan sense (Acts 1.21-22), and never even called a disciple in the 9. Woolf, Moments of Being (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 2nd edn, 1985), p. 72. 10. See Carolyn Heilbrun, 'Virginia Woolf in her Fifties', in J. Marcus (ed.), Virginia Woolf: A Feminist Slant, pp. 236-53 (248-49). 11. Sara Ruddick, 'New Combinations: Learning from Virginia Woolf', in C. Ascher, L. DeSalvo and S. Ruddick (eds.), Between Women (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984), pp. 13769 (138). 12. See Jane Marcus, 'Liberty, Sorority, Misogyny', in C.G. Heilbrun and M.R. Higonnet (eds.), The Representation of Women in Fiction (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), pp. 60-97 (67).

170

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

canonical texts. Luke 8.1-3 mentions those who traveled with Jesus in the Galilee: first the Twelve, and then (as though they were some sort of parallel society like Philo's Therapeutrides to the Therapeutae) many women, three of whom are named, Mary called Magdalene, Joanna and Susanna. The Magdalene is one of the three Marys, at least in the Johannine crucifixion scene and in harmonizations of Synoptic texts.13 So too is Woolf one of three, when in A Room of One's Own she revives for herself three Marys from an old ballad ('call me Mary Beton, Mary Seton, Mary Carmichael, or by any name you please — it is not a matter of any importance').14 Mary Magdalene and Virginia Woolf are two of the mothers through and towards whom we are thinking back.151 imagine a spirit like Woolf s for the Magdalene of history. Whether this imagined link is true or false to the woman of the distant past is irrelevant. The hope that she was (at least) as profoundly interesting as Woolf serves to energize the research— which, in the long run, is for the sake of creating 'a religion very different from that now erected on [the] basis [of the New Testament]'. Migdal May the Lord make us truly thankful. But who is the Lord. A transparency appears. 10,000 a year. The Arch, of Cant. The dappled dawn. The Do not raise monuments. Let us not praise famous women. (Virginia Woolf, notebook 1935 [Monk's House Papers/B 16b])16

Magdala, the town of Mary Magdalene, is generally identified with the site of Migdal on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, 5 km north of 13. In the Synoptic accounts of the crucifixion and of the empty tomb, she is one of two Marys, but in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus' mother (not named in this gospel), his mother's sister (Mary the wife of Clopas) and Mary Magdalene stand together at the cross. 14. Woolf, Room, p. 5; cf. Patricia Meyer Spacks, The Female Imagination (New York: Knopf, 1975), p. 155. 15. 'We think back through our mothers if we are women' (Woolf, Room, p. 79). See Jane Marcus, 'Thinking Back through our Mothers', in J. Marcus (ed.), New Feminist Essays on Virginia Woolf (Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1981), pp. 1-30. 16. Quoted by Brenda R. Silver, 'Three Guineas Before and After', in J. Marcus (ed.), Virginia Woolf: A Feminist Slant, pp. 254-76 (258).

SCHABERG Thinking Back through Mary Magdalene

171

Tiberias.17 No monuments here. It is easy to drive past, even if you are looking for it, which few people are. The place is marked by a road sign running with rust, stating that this was the birthplace of Mary Magdalene, a city that flourished towards the end of the Second Temple period, and one of the cities fortified by Joseph ben-Matityahu during the great revolt of the Jews against the Romans.18 It is not mentioned in major guidebooks, such as Jerome Murphy O'Connor's The Holy Land: An Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700.19 A popular guidebook claims inaccurately—and typically—that 'nothing but ruined masonry overgrown with weeds' marks the town, and that 'a small white-washed dome near the road is a reminder of the meeting between Jesus and Mary Magdalene (Mark VI, 53)'.20 The neglect apparent in this sentence is interesting. The dome actually covers an old and unidentified Islamic tomb, inside of which snuffed out candles and remains of meals and bedding may be evidence of some sort of sporadic occupation and/or veneration. No meeting with Mary Magdalene is recounted in Mk 6.53. And the weeds are growing over a dig under the direction of the Franciscans Virgilio Corbo and Stanislao Loffreda, on behalf of the Custodia di Terra Santa—a dig that was suspended after three campaigns (1971,1973,1976-77) because of a problem with water from springs underground. I have visited the place three times with students from the University of Detroit, and we joke about establishing an institute of feminist studies here, with no budget, no authorization, no permission even to enter. We joke about it as we try to overcome the great difficulties of finding out about the dig and even getting a decent look at it. 'Why in the world would you be interested in that place?' asked archeologist Lee Levine. 'Oh' (bored with the answer). Presently closed to the public, the site is surrounded by both an inner stone wall with chain link and barbed wire on top, and another outer fence of barbed wire. It is 'too dangerous' to enter, said Corbo when we interviewed him at Capernaum. 'Entry forbidden', reads the blue and white sign. Watchdogs are on patrol; 17. This is probably the town called Migdal Nunya (Tower of [Salted] Fish) in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Pes. 46b) and perhaps Taricheae by Josephus (War 2.21.8; 3.9.7-10.5), and also Migdal Seb'iya (Tower of Dyers) in the Jerusalem Talmud (y. Ta'an. 4.8). Magadan (Mt. 15.39) and Dalmanutha (Mk 8.10) are probably corrupt forms of Magdala. 18. See Josephus, Life, pp. 463-504. 19. Jerome Murphy O'Connor, The Holy Land: An Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700 (New York: Oxfprd University Press, 1986). 20. (No author) The Sea of Galilee and its Holy Sites: A Pictorial Guide (Israel: Palphot, n.d.).

172

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

bales of hay are stacked high. A stone house, once a Franciscan friary, stands empty. The family of Assadi Marwan (parents, son, daughters) and friends are the caretakers, living in a small hut and caring for a dozen or so sheep. Our taped interview with Marwan in the summer of 1989 was punctuated with loud bleating and discussion concerning a hugely bloated, dying sheep. We sat around a table in the shade in front of the shack, eating the chunks of watermelon and drinking the strong coffee offered with gracious hospitality. There is something haunting about the site. I asked if there were any ghosts there. 'Yes/ said Marwan, pointing, 'she sits over there'. Written materials about the dig are not extensive. The excavations are in the area once occupied by the Arab village of Al Medgel, bulldozed by the Israelis in 1948. (Where are the people who remember that bulldozing, in the year of Deir Yassin?) The archeologists found the following:21 On the northern edge of the excavations, a large structure near the sea, with badly damaged mosaic floors of geometric and cross designs (possibly a Byzantine monastery); on the eastern side of the main road that crossed through the Roman town, a complex of public and private buildings believed to be early Roman first century CE. These include one that has been variously identified as a first-century mini-synagogue or a nymphaeum (only 26.8 x 23.8 ft),22 a tower, an aqueduct, a large paved court to the south of the residential quarter and to the north, an urban villa. The latter has a mosaic floor containing the Greek inscription Kou ou and a square panel within which seven objects—regarded by some as magical symbols23 — are represented. One of these is a sailboat, a symbol of the cross or of the church.24 A sailboat turns up again in the legends of the Magdalene from Provence, where it is rudderless. 21. See V. Corbo, 'Scavi archeologici a Magdala (1971-1973)', Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuas 24 (1974), pp. 5-37; idem, 'La citta romana di Magdala7, Studio. Hierosolymitana I 0erusalem, 1976), pp. 355-78; idem,'Piazza e Villa Urbana a Magdala', in Studii Biblici Franciscani LiberAnnuas 28 (1978), pp. 232-40, photos and drawings, pp. 71-76. See also B. Bagatti, Antichi Villaggi Christiani di Galilea (Jerusalem: Tipografia del PP. Francescani, 1971), pp. 80-83. 22. Its identity as a synagogue is now considered erroneous; Corbo, Tiazza e Villa Urbana a Magdala'; see also Marilyn Joyce Segal Chiat, Handbook of Synagogue Architecture (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), p. 116; Bemadette J. Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 250-51 nn. 6,14. 23. Michele Piccirillo, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem, Museum (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1983), p. 31; R. Riech, 'A Note on the Roman Mosaic from Magdala on the Shore of the Sea of Galilee' [Hebrew], Qadmoniot 22 (1989), pp. 43.44; New Testament Abstracts 34 (1990), p. 213. 24. B. Bagatti, The Church of the Circumcision (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1971), p. 219.

SCHABERG Thinking Back through Mary Magdalene

173

Literary sources concerning the spot have been compiled by Frederic Manns, and tell a sad story.25 Rabbinic literature mentions a synagogue and a famous beth midrash (study house) at Magdala, as well as the town's reputation for opulence and immorality (prostitution: y. Taan. 4.69c).26 Christian pilgrim sources, from the ninth to the thirteenth century, speak of a church there in which was found the house of Mary Magdalene, which could be entered. This church (or temple [vaos, templum] ) is said to have been built in the fourth century by Queen Helena, who is said to have found the house of Mary Magdalene. In the thirteenth century, in the period of the Mamelukes, according to these sources the beautiful church was not destroyed but transformed into a stable. By the seventeenth century, only ruins are reported there. Manns remarks that it is important to note the silence of the first pilgrims, the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 CE), Egeria (385 CE) and Jerome (386 CE). This silence is explained in part, he argues, by the fact that many places that recalled the memory of Jesus were in the hands of Jewish Christians, who were separated and alienated from Gentile Christians, especially after the council of Nicea took strongly anti-Judaic positions.27 What else does the silence say? Why am I, who deal with texts for a living, squeezing through the barbed wire? Why are we driving, then climbing up the cliff of Mount Arbel, which overlooks Migdal? Why are we sitting here on the edge of a

25. Frederic Manns, 'Magdala dans les Sources litteraires', Studia Hierosolymitana I, 22 (Jerusalem, 1976), pp. 307-37. Cf. John Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1977), and Donatus Baldi, Enchiridion Locorum Sanctorum (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2nd edn, 1982), p. 260. 26. Cf. Midrash Ekha 2, 2: Magdala was destroyed because of the profound corruption of its inhabitants. Adolphe Neubauer, La Geographic du Talmud (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967), p. 217. James Hastings (ed.), A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (2 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1917), II, p. 139; cited by H.M. Garth, Saint Mary Magdalene in Mediaeval Literature (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1950), p. 77, suggests that 'Mary the Magdalene' might be the equivalent of 'Mary the Harlot'. Giving no reference, Garth says 'by the Jews, the word Magdala was used to denote a person with plaited or twisted hair, a practice then much in use among women of loose character'. The Aramaic for hairdresser is megaddlela in b. Sabb. 104b and b. Sanh. 67a, the mother of the 'son of Stada' or 'son of Pandira' (a reference to Jesus) is called Mary the hairdresser, an adulteress; apparently she has been confused with Mary Magdalene. 27. The Bordeaux Pilgrim, however, may have been a Jewish Christian (see Herbert Donner, Die ersten Palestinapilger [Stuttgart: Catholic Bibelwerk, 1983], pp. 4142). Further, the Jewish-Christian house church at Capernaum was visited by Egeria (see below).

174

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

sheer drop, in rebel territory,28 thinking of the ancient city whose name translates 'Tower', and of present challenges? 'The dappled dawn'. Surely this 'pilgrimage' is like the relief parties, the search parties Woolf led to ferret out the lives of the obscured. We are here to rescue a stranded ghost. Our 'trespass' is meant as an act of usurpation. We are here to insist on the flesh and blood, the bone and rock of our own history. Our desire is to connect over past time in present space with a real and historical foremother. 'A transparency appears'. Superimpose over the ruins here at Migdal a slide of what is going on 11 km up the road, at Capernaum (Kefar Nahum), one of the most important Christian excavations in Israel. There, a modern church (magnificent? tasteless? expensive) is under construction, purported to be shell-shaped. Slabs of concrete with iron rods protruding; wood and metal scaffolding; great puffs and snorts of dust mark the quick movement of the tractor driven energetically by Corbo and his colleagues: moving, removing, reconstructing, covering. The church will incorporate the remains of a fifth-century memorial structure of three concentric octagons, considered by some archeologists to have been built over the actual house of Peter, which in the mid-first century CE became a house-church that survived four hundred years. The single large room of this house was plastered, and graffiti mentioned Jesus as 'Lord' and 'Christ';29 fish hooks were found between layers of the floor; pieces of broken lamps and storage jars were recovered in the room, but no domestic pottery. The reasonable but cautious conclusion has been that 'this may be the earliest evidence for Christian gatherings that has ever come to light'.30 The pilgrim Egeria visited the site in the fourth century and reported in her diary, 'In 28. In 160 BCE, partisans of the Maccabees were slaughtered here by the Syrian general Baccides (1 Mace. 9.2), and in 38 BCE the soldiers of Herod the Great slaughtered supporters of his rival Antigonus who had taken refuge in the caves (Josephus, Ant. 14.423-26). Josephus tells also of the naval battle at Tarichaeae, in which 6700 Jews were killed by Vespasian's army in 67 CE. The lake, he says, was stained with blood and crammed with corpses; a stench hung over the region, which revolted the conquerors. 29. There are also etched crosses, a boat, and over one hundred Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Latin and Hebrew graffiti from the second and third centuries. Some may mention Peter, but this is unconfirmed. 30. James E. Strange and Hershel Shanks, 'Has the House Where Jesus Stayed in Capernaum Been Found?' BAR 8 (1982), pp. 26-37; J.H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism (New York: Doubleday, 1988), pp. 109-15: 'The possibility [that this is the house of Peter] is so remarkable that it elicits from an audience the charge of slipping from the rigors of scholarship into sensationalism. Yet it is not the claim, but the discovery, which may well be sensational' (p. 109).

SCHABERG Thinking Back through Mary Magdalene

175

Capernaum a house-church [domus ecclesia] was made out of the home of the prince of the apostles, whose walls still stand today as they were'.31 This oldest Christian sanctuary, soon to be contained in a fancy modern church welcoming the tour buses, offers a striking contrast to the barbed wire of Migdal, the sheep walking down its Roman road and through its paved court. 'And I thought how unpleasant it is to be locked out; and I thought how it is worse perhaps to be locked in'.32 To Capernaum, Corbo has carted the boat mosaic of Migdal. The politics of archeology; the sexual politics of archaeology. 'Let us not praise famous women'. There is no need to travel in imagination to Rome's great basilica of St Peter's to illustrate the contrast in attention and honor paid currently and earlier to the two biblical figures of Peter and Mary Magdalene. There is no rivalry between the sites along the Sea of Galilee, because it is no contest. But open rivalry it is in the ancient Gnostic texts, with roots that twist and turn deep in the New Testament. Silence, Conflation, Distortion, Legend There was always an element of heat. This heat took many forms; it showed itself in satire, in sentiment, in curiosity, in reprobation. But there was another element which Way was often present and could not immediately be identified. Anger, I called it. But It was anger that had gone underground and mixed itself with all kinds of other emotions. To judge from its odd effects, it was anger disguised and complex, not anger simple and open (Virginia Woolf, A Room of One's Owrc).33

According to all four New Testament gospels, Mary Magdalene is the primary witness for the fundamental data of the early Christian faith. It takes time for this statement to sink in. She is said to have participated in the career of Jesus of Nazareth, stood by at his execution and burial, found his tomb empty, and been sent with a commission to proclaim to the disciples that he had been raised from the dead. According to three of the accounts (Mt. 28.9-10; Jn 20.14-18; Mk 16.9 [the Markan Appendix34]), she was the first to receive a resurrection appearance. In spite of her importance to history and to the gospel narrative, there is a paucity of material about her in the New Testament. There is no 31. John Wilkinson, Egeria's Travels (London: SPCK, 1971), p. 194. 32. Woolf, Room, p. 24. 33. Woolf, Room, p. 24. 34. The Markan appendix is the longer ending of Mark (vv. 9-20) found in many manuscripts and accepted as canonical. It is not considered by scholars to have been written by the author of the Gospel of Mark, but to have been added later. Some consider vv. 9-20 to be dependent on the other gospels, but others regard it as independent tradition.

176

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

narrative of her call by Jesus (or of any other woman's call), nor is there any discussion or teaching during the ministry that involves her. She is spoken to only by the figure(s) at the empty tomb and by the risen Jesus. She speaks only to and of them, or of the empty tomb. Dialogue with her as an individual occurs only in the Fourth Gospel. Outside of the gospels, she is mentioned by name nowhere else in the New Testament, even in 1 Cor. 15.5-8, which lists those to whom the risen Jesus appeared. In Lk. 24.34 the first appearance is to Peter; Jn 20.8 presents the Beloved Disciple as the first to believe. Analysis of the differences among the four gospel accounts of the crucifixion, the empty tomb and the postresurrection appearances indicates that already in the New Testament period her role was in the process of being diminished and distorted. Rivalry had reared its head. Perhaps in part (but surely only in part) because of this paucity of material, there is as yet no full-scale scholarly work that focuses on what we do have: her name in the lists, the association with seven demons, the claims about her presence, the omissions and contradictions in the several narratives, the relationship and historicity of the traditions, and the silence itself, which must be read carefully. Take Lk. 8.1-3, in which Mary Magdalene and other women are said to have traveled with Jesus and the Twelve and to have 'ministered (or: served; Greek SICXKOVECO) them out of their means'. The passage raises many important questions, for example, about the social/economic makeup and lifestyle of the Jesus movement, the Lukan presentation of women and the verb SICXKOVECO, which by the time of Luke had become a technical term for eucharistic table service, proclamation and leadership, and which, though used by Jesus to characterize his own work (Mk 10.45), is used elsewhere in the gospels only to describe the activity of women and slaves. But in 1979, Ben Witherington III could say in his short study on this pericope that no article had appeared on it in the previous one hundred years.35 Two major studies have been sponsored by the United States Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue, Peter in the New Testament and Mary in the New Testament?6 but there is no study of the Magdalene. She has not been, I admit, a figure at the forefront of Christian controversy and ecumenical 'brotherly' concern. But Gnostic materials show her importance in the earliest controversies over the role of women, and she has 35. Ben Witherington III, 'On the Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Other Disciples-Luke 81-2', ZNVV70 (1979), pp. 243-48. 36. R.E. Brown, K.P. Donfried and J. Reumann (eds.), Peter in the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress, 1973); R.E. Brown, K.P. Donfried, J.A. Fitzmyer and J. Reumann (eds.), Man/ in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978).

SCHABERG Thinking Back through Mary Magdalene

177

had quite a different post-biblical career in Eastern Christianity than in Western. A major study of her role would contribute to focusing truly ecumenical issues in current controversies between male and female Christians, Christians and Jews, Christians and feminists. The situation of academic neglect is slowly being remedied, especially by the groundbreaking work of Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza.37 There is a twofold reason for the new interest: the growth of Gnostic studies, and growth of women's studies. The dominant depictions of the Magdalene are startlingly different in the New Testament, in the Gnostic literature, and in the visual arts, popular legend and culture. As the spade-work is being done in each area, the need for coordination of the different scholarly tasks is becoming apparent. So too is the possibility that study of the Magdalene is a key, an angle, to rereading important aspects of the New Testament documents. The New Testament material about Mary Magdalene must be examined (a) in the light of new evidence about the roles of women in Greco-Roman Judaism, early Christianity, and Gnosticism, and (b) in the context of a comparative study of each gospel that takes into account the sexual politics of the Bible and of Christian history. If this figure were important only in the New Testament, there would be reason enough for a concentrated focus of scholarly attention. But in fact no other biblical figure—including Judas, and perhaps even Jesus — has had such a vivid and bizarre post-biblical life in the human imagination, in legend and in art. If Mary Magdalene did not exist, we who are interested in the history of man's ideas of woman would have to 37. Already in 1964: Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, Der Vergessener Partner (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1964), pp. 57-59; idem, 'Mary Magdalene: Apostle to the Apostles', UTS Journal (April 1975), pp. 22-24; idem, 'Word, Spirit, and Power Women in Early Christian Communities', in R. Ruether and E. McLaughlin (eds.), Women of Spirit (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979), pp. 51-56; idem, In Memory of Her (New York: Crossroad, 1985). There have also recently appeared several semipopular works of uneven quality by New Testament scholars or by those using New Testament scholarship (e.g. Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel, The Women around Jesus [London: SCM Press, 1982]; idem, 'Motherhood or Friendship?' Concilium 168 [1983], pp. 17-22; G. O'Collins and D. Kendall, 'Mary Magdalene as Major Witness to Jesus' Resurrection', TS 48 [1987], pp. 631-46; F.J. Moloney, First among the Faithful [London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985]). Dissertations and a Habilitationsschrift on Magdalene traditions are in progress in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and elsewhere. A section on 'Female and Male in Gnosticism' chose as its theme 'Mary Magdalene in Christianity and Gnosticism' at the 1989 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. And the possibility is being explored of publishing a collection of essays on Mary Magdalene (to include studies of Miriam traditions in the Hebrew Bible, the Gnostic Gospel of Philip and the Pistis Sophia, New Testament and Islamic traditions) edited by Deirdre Good and Phyllis Trible.

178

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

invent her. A survey of the post-biblical image of the Magdalene, literary and visual, leads to disturbing insights. Successive epochs, beginning with the time of the evangelists, have found their own thoughts in her, created her in accord with their own character and needs, with the effect, however, and perhaps in some sense the intent, that the memory of the historical woman (and later, the New Testament character) did not live but die, or nearly die. The most fundamental questions concerning sexuality and the spirit, guilt and transcendence, authority and love, and unspoken questions too, have been answered by her changing image. Fiorenza has remarked that post-New Testament distortion of the image of Mary Magdalene signals a deep distortion in the attitudes toward, and in the self-understanding and identity of, the Christian woman and man.38 That distortion, which amounts at times to a pathology, needs precise documentation and analysis. We can be sure that the image functioned differently for women and for men; and it is probable, given its strength and durability, that it empowered in some way as well as imprisoned. In the rest of this article I will look at how the texts were used to create medieval and modern legends. In a later article I intend to examine how texts and traditions functioned in Gnostic materials and then re-examine the New Testament passages themselves. The central image, of course, and the word most people today freeassociate with the name of Mary Magdalene is: whore. With a few qualifications. Repentant whore. Whore who loved and was forgiven by Jesus. She is the saved prostitute, a figure that is relatively rare in literature, as the more negative archetypes prevail. Venus in Sackcloth is the title of the most recent book (1975) that attempts to arrive at a synthesis of Magdalene traditions from the New Testament period to the present.39 Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber presented her in the early 1970s in Jesus Christ Superstar as a prostitute in love with Jesus 'mentally', not having an affair with him but obsessed and baffled by him, not knowing how to love him.40 In Zefferelli's made-for-TV movie Jesus Christ, Anne Bancroft played her in the mid-1970s as a prostitute of angry intelligence; the door she slams on the disciples who do not believe her report of the 38. Fiorenza, 'Mary Magdalene', p. 5. 39. Marjorie M. Malvern, Venus in Sackcloth: The Magdalen's Origins and Metamorphoses (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1975). This study is flawed by its treatment of the Gnostic material, but valuable for its reproduction of 20 works of art. 40. Jesus-Christ Superstar, the authorized version compiled by Michael Braun et al (New York: Ballantine, 1972); transcript of interview by David Frost. In this rock opera, she is the foil for Judas; both characters sing 'I Don't Know How to Love Him'. The anointing of Jesus is a soothing massage.

SCHABERG Thinking Back through Mary Magdalene

179

resurrection echoes the door Nora slams in A Doll's House. The Scorsese film The Last Temptation of Christ, based on the 1955 novel by Kazantzakis, depicted the Magdalene in the late 1980s as a tattooed prostitute to whom Jesus was attracted physically, and as his last temptation (to become ordinary, sensual, fettered).41 For the 1990s, Denys Arcand's movie Jesus of Montreal gives us a sensitive and courageous Magdalene whose boyfriend says she has (only) a nice ass; she is saved from a career in beer commercials.42 It has been argued that, with contemporary interest in the historical Jesus, Magdalene mythology analogous to that of the Gnostics is on the increase in our time.43 The assumption that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute is the result of the conflation of several gospel stories. Her name appears in the New Testament only in Lk. 8.1-3, in all four crucifixion scenes and empty tomb scenes, in resurrection appearance narratives in Matthew and John, and in the list in the Markan Appendix of those who received resurrection appearances. But she early acquired a biography when seven other pericopae were combined with those that mention her. Her unsuccessful attempt to anoint Jesus in the tomb (in Mark, Luke and the apocryphal Gospel of Peter) was linked to the following: (a) the anointing of Jesus' head by the unnamed woman in Mk 14.3-9, par. Mt. 26.6-13 (this is a prophetic gesture, and an anointing, Jesus says, that anticipates his burial); (b) Luke's account of the anointing of Jesus' feet by an unnamed public 'sinner' (7.36-50); (c) John's story of a woman who anointed Jesus' feet with perfume (12.1-8, again an anointing for burial and a prophetic gesture); (d) the naming in Jn 11.2 of that anointing woman as Mary, sister of Lazarus and Martha of Bethany; (e) the story of Mary who sits at Jesus' feet and Martha who waits on him, in Lk. 10.3842. Joined also to this complex at times were the stories of (f) the woman taken in adultery (Jn 7.53-8.11); and (g) the Samaritan woman (Jn 4.4-42). The logic of this conflating can be appreciated (it is still operating for many readers). The most important motif that links the stories is the motif of anointing: Jesus, the Anointed One (Xpiaros) is anointed (that is, literally made the Christ, not just recognized as the Christ) only by a woman. In addition, the stories are linked in other ways. For example, the name Simon appears in (a) and (b); Bethany in (a), (c), and (d); sexual 'sin' in (b), (f) and (g). The motif of rebuke addressed to a woman, and 41. As originally shot, the Scorsese film began with the broken engagement of the young Jesus to the Magdalene, a decision that forced her, dishonored, into prostitution (compare to the legend associated with Ephesus, below). 42. Arcand gives her a beautiful scene: running out of darkness with her robes flowing to announce the resurrection. 43. Marina Warner, Alone of All her Sex (New York: Knopf, 1976), p. 229.

180

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

defense by Jesus appears in (a), (b), (c), (f?) and (g); the motif of intimacy in (a), (b), (c), (e?) and (g); of a woman's touch in (b) and in Jn 20.17 (resurrection appearance to Mary Magdalene); of a Mary's tears at a tomb in Jn 11.31-33 and 20.11-15. Moreover, the placement of texts is important: the anointing in Mark 14 and its Matthean parallel directly precedes the betrayal by Judas; that in Luke 7 immediately precedes the mention in 8.1-3 of the ministering women, among whom Mary Magdalene is named first. A primary or initial reason behind this conflation seems to me to have been the desire to read (or hear) the gospels with intelligence and sensitivity to echoes and what appeared to be allusions within the texts, and to their silences. The process of harmonizing and legend-making yields one actual anointing of Jesus: by Mary Magdalene 'the sinner', whose act is penitential and loving, not prophetic. The modern critic, in contrast, may see one prophetic anointing during the ministry, by an unnamed woman, a tradition that may have proliferated into three versions, none of which concerned Mary Magdalene. One reason the conflation was and is so popular is that it fulfills the desire to fill in the gaps in the texts concerning the Magdalene (and perhaps, earlier, concerning the unnamed anointing woman, whose deed was to be told 'wherever the Gospel is preached in the whole world.. .in memory of her' [Mk 14.9]). Conflation produced a biography of the woman who was clearly more important to the story of Jesus than the gospel writers explicitly indicated. These motives behind the conflation I regard as benign, even creative. However, the fact that this biography gave the Magdalene a past of sexual 'sin' that could be and was exploited and expanded is another matter. It was Luke who downgraded the anointing woman from prophet to 'sinner', implying that her sin was sexual promiscuity, prostitution; the prophetic anointing before the passion is omitted in this gospel. Luke's juxtaposition of the story of the 'sinner' with the first mention of Mary Magdalene in 8.2 suggests her denigration as well—though I see no way to argue that this juxtaposition is internal commentary; no way, that is, to trace to Luke the slur on the Magdalene. Inclusion of the element of prostitution in the later Magdalene legend fulfills the desire, the need, to downgrade the authority of a woman, as well as the desire to attach to female sexuality the notions of evil, repentance and mercy. Unless one would want to hold that the anointing prophet historically was Mary Magdalene-and I do not-it appears that the Magdalene inherited the slur Luke directed at the unnamed prophet. Marina Warner speaks of the Magdalene of legend as 'brought into existence by the powerful undertow of misogyny in Christianity, which associates women with the dangers and degradation of the flesh. For this

SCHABERG Thinking Back through Mary Magdalene

181

reason [emphasis mine] she became a prominent and beloved saint'. Her prominence, Warner insists, was 'assisted but not caused by' the frequency and significance of her appearances in the gospels. Rather, the need for a penitent whore-heroine in Christian thought shaped the understanding of passages that did and (in the Christian imagination) might concern her. This need is not to be reduced to the human appetite for 'romance' or drama; it contains 'Christianity's fear of women, its identification of physical beauty with temptation, and its practice of bodily mortification'.44 Only, however, if we see the story of the 'sinner' as added to the story of the Magdalene, and not vice versa, do we realize, as Warner does not, that the process was reaction against the female power and authority of the major witness. How early conflation produced the legend of Mary Magdalene, we do not know. Origen and John Chrysostom commented that Mary Magdalene was a wholly unsuitable first witness. In the sixth century, Pope Gregory the Great gave prestige, authoritative sanction and wide promulgation to the conflation in his homilies.45 The earliest extant text that assembles the harmonizing into a single, concise, coherent narrative appears to be a tenth-century sermon attributed to Odo of Cluny.46 The tenacity and force with which the imagination has clung to the portrait of the harlot-saint is shown not only in modern media presentations, but in sixteenth-, seventeenth-, and nineteenth-century reactions against attempts to deharmonize the texts47 and in the richness of artistic portraits of the Magdalene of legend. David Mycoff, building on the work of Victor Saxer, has classified popular Magdalene legends from the first through the seventeenth century.48 Different writers created different emphases within the same 44. Warner, Alone of All her Sex, pp. 225-26, 232. 45. XL Homiliarum in Evangelia, 11.25 (PL 76.1188-96). 46. BHL 5439; printed in Ada Sanctorum, July V.218-21; also in PL 133.713-21. 47. In 1517 Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples published a critique of the traditional Magdalene, De Maria Magdalene & triduo Christi Disceptatio. Within three years, 15 major treatises had been written on the controversy, and Lefevre had been censured by the theological faculty of the Sorbonne and his works placed on the Index. The issue was raised fiercely again in the seventeenth century, and serious debate continued until after the end of the nineteenth century. Today both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism agree officially with Eastern Orthodoxy in distinguishing among Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and the sinner/penitent in Luke. 48. David Mycoff, The Life of Saint Mary Magdalene and of her Sister Saint Martha (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1989); idem, A Critical Edition of the Legend of Mary Magdalene from Caxtoris Golden Legend of '1483 (Salzburg: Universitat Salzburg, Institut fur Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 1985); Victor Saxer, Le culte de Marie Madeleine en Occident des origines a lapin du moyen age (2 vols.; Auxerre/Paris, 1959); Le dossier

182

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

basic story, depending on whether their interest was in the roles of women, in disputes over ecclesiastical privilege and material assets, in the mystery of grace and the nature of the contemplative or active vocations, in the individual layperson's spiritual aspirations, or in conflict between conservatives and reformers. From the tenth century through the Reformation, the Magdalene literature burgeoned. Stress on the Magdalene as apostle as well as penitent was a commonplace in twelf thand thirteenth-century hagiography and exegesis. But after the Reformation in Protestant and many Catholic works the attribution of apostleship to her disappeared. She was no longer typically associated with preaching or evangelism, but became almost exclusively a figure of penitence for Protestants and of penitence and contemplation for Catholics. 'The private aspects of her cult, i.e., the aspects dealing with inferior "acts", dominate the public aspects, which deal with ministry'.49 Mycoff classifies the patristic and medieval legends of Mary Magdalene in this way. (1) Heretical and orthodox early materials. His definition of these two categories is particularly interesting. What defines the orthodox as a group is their belief that Mary Magdalene is a mortal creature who only witnesses or perhaps plays a minor role in the salvation of mankind [sic]. What unites the various gnostic traditions is their higher estimate of Mary's significance.50

Within the orthodox range, he identifies one extreme represented by Christianus Druthmarus (who attributes to her the status of evangelist and apostle, by dint of her being the first human being to whom the risen Christ appeared), and the other extreme represented by John Chrysostom (who emphasizes Mary's obtuseness: due to lack of faith and feminine frailty, she did not recognize the risen Lord at first glance). (2) Theories of unity and theories of multiplicity. By and large, the Western church held that the women in all or most of the New Testament stories listed above are one woman, Mary Magdalene, while the Eastern church held that Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, and the 'sinner' are different women. All the Magdalene legends involved in the transmission of the story to the English vernacular are based on the unity theory.51 Vezelien de Marie Madeleine (Brussels: Sac. des Boll., 1975); and numerous articles by Saxer, mainly in Recherches de Science Religieuse. See also H.M. Garth, Saint Mary Magdalene in Medieval Literature (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1950). 49. Mycoff, Critical Edition, p. 169. 50. Mycoff, Life of Saint Man/ Magdalene, p. 5. In an attempt to pinpoint the heresy, he says they base 'her status on a special and unique knowledge she possesses rather than on some gracious gesture Christ makes to her' (p. 46 n. 6). 51. For a contemporary example, see Mary Magdalene: A Woman Who Showed her

SCHABERG Thinking Back through Mary Magdalene

183

(3) Versions of the Magdalene's post-Ascension career. Legends differ according to whether they locate the site of her last days in Palestine, Ephesus, the town of Saintes Maries de la Mer in the Camargue in southeastern France, or the towns of Aix or Marseilles in Provence. The most widely accepted in the East was the Ephesian legend, which plays on the tradition that Mary Magdalene was engaged to John the Evangelist, who abandoned her when he was called away—as she was not—to be a disciple of Christ (Marguerite Yourcenar makes use of this story in Fires).52 The Provencal legend was the most influential in the West, particularly after the twelfth century. Its fully developed and relatively stable thirteenth-century form is that told by Jacobus de Voragine in the popular Legenda aurea (probably not later than 1267).53 Since it is not readily accessible but indispensable for reading her iconography, let me summarize it here. The account begins with interpretations of the names 'Mary' and 'Magdalen', with stress on penance (most accented), contemplation and enlightenment, and with no stress on discipleship or witness to the crucifixion and resurrection. Mary Magdalene, her sister Martha and her brother Lazarus were born of royal, wealthy parents. So entirely had Mary 'abandoned her body to pleasure that she was no longer called by any other name than "the sinner"'. But one day by divine inspiration, Gratitude, retold (for children) by Marlee Alex (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987). Part of the series 'Outstanding Women of the Bible', the book is 'designed to communicate a positive identity as a woman': 'Mary Magdalene was not famous for the great things she did or said, but she goes down in history as a woman who truly loved Jesus with all her heart and was not embarrassed to show it despite criticism from others'. Tales of her lustful early life and repentance take up half the text. 52. Marguerite Yourcenar, Fires (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1981). John's abandonment causes her prostitution and an unsuccessful attempt at Simon's house to seduce Jesus (God). She becomes a disciple who rivals John. At the empty tomb: 'For the second time in my life, I was standing in front of a deserted bed' (p. 75). 53. Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda aurea (ed. T. Graesse; Dresden, 1846); ET: Granger Ryan and Helmut Rippergar (trans.), The Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine (New York: Longmans, 1941; reprint New York: Arno, 1969), pp. 355-64. Over 700 manuscripts and 173 early printed editions survive; the last figure includes translations, of which there is at least one for every Western European language (Mycoff, Critical Edition, p. 55 n. 37). Caxton's Golden Legend of 1483, a prose legend in Middle English, was the last full-scale hagiographical compendium published in English before the Reformation; it disappeared 'a victim of a conscious policy of the Protestant state, bent on obliterating all material associated with Catholicism, and not a change in popular taste' (Mycoff, Critical Edition, p. 2). The most original and interesting drama of Middle English on the Magdalene is the Digby Play, which makes some dramatic changes in the legend.

184

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

she entered the house of Simon the leper, the Pharisee of Bethany, where the Lord was at dinner. She bathed his feet with her tears of penance, dried them with her hair, anointed them with precious ointment. (The prophetic anointing before the passion is later omitted.) Although the Pharisee objected, the Lord forgave her. 'And thenceforth there was no grace that He refused her, nor any mark of affection that He withheld from her' (there is no indication this is meant erotically). He delivered her from seven devils, 'admitted her to His friendship, condescended to dwell in her house, and was pleased to defend her whenever occasion arose' (before the Pharisee, Martha and Judas). He raised Lazarus from the dead 'for love of her' whom he could not see in tears without himself weeping. Magdalen also had the honor of being present at the death of Jesus, standing at the foot of the cross: and it was she that anointed his body with sweet spices after his death, and who stayed at the sepulchre when all the disciples went away. And to her first the risen Jesus appeared, and made her apostle to the apostles.

So the great bulk of the pre-Ascension part of the story concerns the stories conflated with the New Testament Mary Magdalene references; only the above two sentences' worth of attention is paid to the passion and resurrection scenes. The notion of her great wealth is not connected to financial support of Jesus and the Twelve (Lk. 8.1-3) but rather serves to emphasize her prior life of luxury. The figures with which the Magdalene was conflated have overwhelmed the Magdalene; emphasis is on her sin and repentance, and on love. The story continues 14 years after the Ascension. When the disciples went out worldwide to preach, St Peter entrusted Mary Magdalen to St Maximinus, one of the 72 disciples. With Maximinus, Lazarus, Martha, Martilla (Martha's servant) and other Christians, Mary was put out to sea by 'the infidels' in a boat without a rudder, in the hope that all would drown (the rudderless boat appears also in the legend of the three seaborne Marys, associated with the Camargue). But they landed safely at Marseilles and were sheltered under the portico of a pagan temple. 'And when Mary Magdalen saw the pagans going into their temple to offer sacrifice to their gods, she arose with calm mein and prudent tongue', and began to preach Christ to them. 'And all wondered at her, not only for her beauty but for her eloquence, which eloquence was not indeed a matter of surprise on lips that had touched the Lord's feet'. She converted the prince and princess of Marseilles and successfully threatened them with punishment for their neglect of the poor 'servants of God'. One day when Magdalene was preaching, the ruler asked if she could give proof of the faith she preached. She answered that it was confirmed

SCHABERG Thinking Back through Mary Magdalene

185

by miracles 'and through the preaching of Peter, my master, the bishop of Rome!' Even though she interceded with God to obtain the conception of a child for him, the prince wished to consult St Peter 'in order to know whether all that Magdalen said of Christ were true'. On the journey to Rome, during a storm at sea, the princess gave birth prematurely and died. Her body and the living newborn infant were abandoned on a hilly coast. Blaming Mary Magdalene, but commending his wife and child to her and to God, the prince continued on to Rome and was received there by St Peter, who accompanied him on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. After two years' instruction in the faith from Peter, the prince started back to Marseilles. Along the way, the child ('whom Mary Magdalene had taken into her care, watching over him from afar to keep him alive') was found. As the prince offered a prayer to Mary Magdalene, the body of the princess came alive. She announced that Mary Magdalene had also escorted her on a trip to Jerusalem:'.. .when Saint Peter led thee about Jerusalem, showing thee the scenes of Christ's life and death, I too was there, with Mary Magdalen as my guide'. Finally back in Marseilles, the family found Mary Magdalene 'busy at preaching with her disciples'. The royal couple were baptized by Maximinus, and the citizens of Marseilles replaced all pagan temples with Christian churches. Lazarus was chosen to be bishop of Marseilles, and when Mary and her followers went to Aix, Maximinus was elected bishop there. This portion of the legend is interesting for its subordination of Mary Magdalene to Peter (without conflict), its attribution to her of fertility powers, and its emphasis on her preaching. The last phase of the story concerns the retirement of Mary Magdalene ('moved by her wish to live in contemplation of the things of God') to a mountain cave, where she spent her last 30 years in isolation. Her lack of 'earthly satisfaction' is not explained as punishment or penance, though shortly before her death she introduced herself to a priest in the wilderness in this way: 'Dost thou recall having read in the Gospel the story of Mary, the notorious sinner who washed the Savior's feet, wiped them with the hairs of her head, and obtained pardon for all her sins?... I am that sinner'. She sent him to Maximinus to tell him to expect her to appear with angels in his oratory on the day after Easter. When she appeared, raised two cubits above the earth and surrounded by angels, her face was radiant. After she received the viaticum, 'her body fell lifeless before the altar and her soul took its flight to the Lord'. Maximinus buried her and commanded that he be buried beside her at his death. The legend ends with an alternate, less dramatic death account, an account of the theft of her relics from Aix to Vezelay, the author's insistence that the story of Mary's betrothal to John is 'a false and

186

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

frivolous tale', and five stories of her post-burial miracles. The remote source of the account of her 30-year solitude, the legend of the prostitute Mary of Egypt (who did penance naked and wrapped in her hair in a desert retreat), had been blended into Mary Magdalene's story by the ninth century. The New Testament Mary Magdalene has all but disappeared by the end of her story. A bit earlier than Legenda aurea is the relatively little-known De vita Beatue Mariae Magdalenae et sororis ejus Sanctue Marthae, influenced by the spiritual, mystical doctrine of St Bernard of Clairvaux.54 Like the more popular Legenda aurea, this work (which is 50 chapters long) harmonizes New Testament texts. But its tone and emphases are quite different and interesting in terms of how the spiritual elite imagined the Magdalene. The bulk (chs. 4 through 36) is a retelling of the gospels and Acts 1-7, with only parts of five chapters given to the post-ascension career of Mary. Dismissed as false are the stories of her naked solitude in the cave and angelic transport, and nothing is said about a rudderless boat or the prince and princess of Marseilles. This author is interested primarily in what was believed to be the New Testament profile of the Magdalene. Five chapters (instead of two sentences) are devoted to summarizing separately and harmonizing the empty tomb and appearance stories, with awareness of the different tellings: this gives four appearances to Mary of six angels, and two appearances to her of the risen Jesus (first alone, then with the other women). Her unmeasured friendship (familiaritas) and intimacy with Christ is celebrated, their 'mutual love' (ch. 15), linked with reflection on his humanity. She is his 'first servant' (premiceria; chs. 24,26), 'special friend' (arnica specialis), 'the most tenderly loved among all women except for the Virgin Mother of God' (ch. 27). This love is usually presented erotically (chs. 18, 33, 28) and as bridal (ch. 45) but is said to be chaste (ch. 8). Sexual imagery is used: 'Impregnated [by Jesus] with [the seven gifts of the Spirit], by faith she conceived a good hope within herself, and gave birth to a fervent charity' (ch. 6), but as far as I can see, the Magdalene does not become a spiritual mother of souls or mother of God. Her early life of sexual sin is explained as the result of youth, physical attractiveness, 'the weakness of the [female?] sex', and wealth. An extended contrast with Eve is drawn (ch. 27). The first anointing at the house of Simon is described with allusions to the prodigal son, and, illustrating the notion of prevenient grace, as a kind of call ('for in truth, [Jesus] came to her first, through the seven-fold gifts of the spirit... 54. Mycoff, Life of Saint Mary Magdalene; cf. idem, 'The Legend of Mary Magdalene in a Twelfth-Century Cistercian Context', Cistercian Studies 23 (1988), pp. 310-18.

SCHABERG Thinking Back through Mary Magdalene

187

drawing her to himself, ch. 5). This suggests that the story in all the conflated biographies takes the place of a call by Jesus, such as male disciples receive in the New Testament. Her role as traveller with Jesus in his ministry is acknowledged, but she is later said to stay behind at home often with her sister Martha, sending supplies to Jesus and his followers (chs. 9,11). Mary Magdalene is presented as eyewitness to all the events of the passion of Jesus, from the garden, to the hearings and 'trial', the way of the cross, death, entombment (chs. 20-23; she is, however, excluded from the last supper).55 'Loyalty did not forsake Mary Magdalen. The skin of her flesh adhered to the bones of the Saviour, for when Judas betrayed him, Peter denied him, and the ten apostles fled from him, there still was found in Mary Magdalen the courage of the Redeemer' (ch. 20). Her loyalty illustrates that 'love is as strong as death. This was seen in the Lord's passion, when Mary's love did not die' (ch. 21). Almost identified with Christ on the cross (ch. 21), she is once said to be a 'man' ('a man's soul was manifested in a woman') because she fulfills a passage attributed to Solomon (ch. 23). It is not Peter, but Mary who is the first to see the risen Lord (no allusion is made to 1 Cor. 15.5). She, not the Beloved Disciple, is the first to believe. And she is the first to announce the resurrection and predict the ascension (chs. 25, 26, 27, 29). All this makes her an apostle, evangelist and prophet and, because of her conversion and intimacy with Christ, more than a prophet (chs. 29, 32). In ch. 21 she is present for the commission, but in the post-ascension section of this work she is not at first a preacher (rather, her penitence is often the subject of the male preaching). She becomes instead a maid to the Virgin Mary, and her companion in contemplation 'frequently enjoying angelic visions and visitations' (chs. 34-35). Peter, who sets up his 'patriarchal throne' in Antioch, delegates the Western religions to male preachers, and Maximinus is sent to Gaul. Mary Magdalene joins and entrusts herself to him (chs. 36-37). While Maximinus preaches and new faith springs up, Mary still devotes herself primarily to contemplation ('for she was in fact the most ardent lover of the Redeemer, the woman who had wisely chosen the best part which—witness God—was never taken from her once she received it from Christ at his feet'). But 'also mindful of the well-being of her friends', she 'from time to time' leaves the joys of contemplation and preaches to the unbelievers and believers, presenting herself to sinners as an example of conversion, and 55. The medieval mystery plays often present the resurrection through her eyes, following her from the shop where she buys the embalming unguents to the garden where she sees the risen Christ (Warner, Alone of All Her Sex, p. 228).

188

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

becoming 'an evangelist for believers throughout the world' (ch. 38). On the whole, it is difficult to say which the author has emphasized more, her sin/conversion/penitence (symbolized by her alabaster jar) or her role as witness/apostle/prophet. But in the post-Ascension section, the former receives the heavier weight. In ch. 30 the author writes: most happy by far [is] the one who has been so moved by and who has taken such delight in the surpassing fragrance of Mary's deeds that he has followed the example of her conversion, has imprinted in himself the image of her repentance, and has filled spirit with her devotion, to the degree that he has made himself a partaker of that best part which she chose (emphases mine).

Again, the women from the other stories have overwhelmed the New Testament Mary Magdalene. In this case, the power to tame her comes most strongly from the story of Mary of Bethany, listening and silent at the feet of Jesus. It comes from the story which many have thought of as promoting the liberation of women, but which Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza has shown promotes with dangerous subtlety the patriarchal restriction of women.56 In a final irony that escapes the author, after the Magdalene's death she is removed from women: when Maximinus is laid beside her, the place became so holy that no king, prince, or other person, no matter what earthly pomp attended him, would enter the church to pray for help without making some sign of humble devotion, first disposing of his weapons and all other marks of brutal ferocity. No woman was ever so audacious as to enter that temple, no matter what condition, order, or dignity she enjoyed. That monastery is called the Abbey of Saint Maximin.. / (ch. 50).

Has the author had in mind all along as reader only the individual contemplative monk, whose soul is a 'she' urged to strive to imitate the Magdalene? What can we say that is not utterly obvious about the sexual politics of these two medieval versions of her legend? The conflations and accretions successfully reduce the significance of the New Testament Magdalene, with the focus even in the Life of Saint Mary Magdalen on penitence and contemplation, rather than on prophetic action, courage, perception. Single, she functions as a sexual being only as a whore, then lives as a chaste penitent whose love is spiritual and whose beauty— especially her hair — one is allowed to admire. In the Legenda aurea, however, she has miraculous power to aid others in conception, and is in this sense a'mother'. 56. Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza, 'A Feminist Critical Interpretation for Liberation: Martha and Mary: Lk. 10.38-42', Religion & Intellectual Life 3 (1986), pp. 21-36.

SCHABERG Thinking Back through Mary Magdalene

189

As long as the legend emphasizes her Easter role and her apostleship, she is contrasted with the fearful and unbelieving male disciples, and so is a somewhat subversive character.57 But she offers no real challenge to the hierarchy of the medieval church, subordinating herself in the story to Peter and to Maximinus (who are not threatened by her), and living a life more contemplative than active. Authorized by the risen Christ, she strangely has no official authority. Even though her characteristic is extravagant love for Christ, from whom she draws all her meaning, and her life is depicted as one of extremes, there is a controlled calmness and prudence about her in these legends. She is a woman of warm emotion and loyalty, but not of ideas or great intelligence. She is presented as understanding herself as a sinner who has been given mercy, and in the end she has nothing much to say to others except to point to herself as a sinner.58 In short, even though she is acknowledged as the most extraordinary woman, she does not disturb but rather confirms the patriarchal structures. She is at their service. For men, there is a reassurance here: you have nothing to fear from such a strong woman. For women, a message concerning salvation (from female sexuality) and protection by the male (Jesus, then the church authorities). This is the destiny even of the greatest women, and in fact this is their greatness. For all, the story of this great sinner reconciled to God makes the promise that no one is beyond the reach of God's mercy. But the sins women name as theirs are not the same as the sins of men or the sins men name as women's.59 For the sins of women, as defined by women, the Magdalene legend offers no definition and no remedy. The stranded ghost of Migdal is trapped in two stories by Luke: that of the anointing woman who was a 'sinner' (7.36-50) and that of Mary of Bethany who chose silent contemplation rather than service (10.38-42). Lucan artistry, at the service of misogynistic impulses, provides the distorting lenses. At bottom, as Woolf put it in another, similar context, 'Love was the only possible interpreter'60 of a woman of power. 57. Garth may imply that her popularity in the Middle Ages had something to do with anti-clericalism when she argues that her superiority over the other apostles was a major factor (Saint Mary Magdalene, p. 105). 58. In the South English Legendary version of the Magdalene legend (written probably in 1276 or 1279) there is a 22-line speech purporting to be her sermon (2.199238); neither the Legenda aurea nor any other legends related to it has a corresponding passage. The theme is the greatness, eternity, and lordship of God the creator (Mycoff, Critical Edition, pp. 91-92). 59. Valerie Saiving, 'The Human Situation: A Feminine View', JR 40 (1960), pp. 100-12, reprinted in C.P. Christ and J. Plaskow (eds.), Womenspirit Rising: A Feminist Reader in Religion (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), pp. 25-42. 60. Woolf, Room, p. 87.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrahams, R.D., 'Trickster, the Outrageous Hero', in T.P. Coffin (ed.), Our Living Traditions: An Introduction to American Folklore (New York: Basic Books, 1968). Ackerman, S., '"And the Women Knead Dough": The Worship of the Queen of Heaven in Sixth-Century Judah', in P.L. Day (ed.), Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 109-24. Alex, M., Mary Magdalene: A Woman Who Showed her Gratitude (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987). Alter, R., The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981). — The Pleasures of Reading in an Ideological Age (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989). Arminger, M., Die verratene Papstin: Maria Magdalena, Freundin und Geliebte Jesu, Magierin der Zeitenwende (Munich: List, 1997). Arthur, R.H., The Wisdom Goddess: Feminist Motifs in Eight Nag Hammadi Documents (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984). Ashton, J., Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991). Attridge, H.W., 'Masculine Fellowship in the Acts of Thomas', in Birger Pearson (ed.), The Future of Early Christiantiy (Festschrift H. Koester; Minneapolis: Augsburg/ Fortress, 1991), pp. 406-13. Atwood, R., Man/ Magdalene in the New Testament Gospels and Early Tradition (Bern: Peter Lang, 1993). Augustine, St. Augustine: Tractates of the Gospel on John 112-24 (trans. J.W. Rettig; Fathers of the Church, 92; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1995). Aune, D., Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983). Aus, R., Water into Wine and the Beheading of John the Baptist: Early Jewish-Christian Interpretations of Esther 1 in John 2.1-11 and Mark 6.17-29 (BJS, 150; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Baarda, T., 'Jesus and Mary (John 2016f.) in the Second Epistle on Virginity Ascribed to Clement7, in T. Baarda (ed.), Essays on the Diatessaron (Kampen: Kok, 1994), pp. 87-110, reprinted in Wolfgang Schrage (ed.), Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Heinrich Greeven (BZNW, 47; Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1986), pp. 11-34. Bach, A., The Pleasure of her Text: Feminist Readings of Biblical and Historical Texts (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1990). Bagatti, B., Antichi villaggi Christiani di Galilea (Jerusalem: Tipografia dei PP. Francescani, 1971). — The Church of the Circumcision (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1971). Baigent, M., R. Leigh and H. Lincoln, Holy Blood, Holy Grail (London: Jonathan Cape, 1982; New York: Dell, 1983).

Bibliography

191

Bal, M., Death and Dissymmetry: The Politics of Coherence in the Book of Judges (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988). -'Tricky Thematics', in Cheryl J. Exum and Johanna W.H. Bos (eds.), Reasoning with the Foxes: female Wit in a World of Male Power (Semeia, 42; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 133-55. Baldi, D., Enchiridion Locorum Sanctorum (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2nd edn, 1982). Ball, D.M.,' "My Lord and my God": The Implication of "I am" Sayings for Religious Pluralism', in A.D. Clarke and B. W. Winter (eds.), One God One Lord in a World of Religious Pluralism (Cambridge: Tyndale Press, 1991), pp. 53-71. Barosse, T., 'The Seven Days of the New Creation in St. John's Gospel', CBQ 21 (1959), pp. 507-16. Barr, J., 'Biblical Theology', IDBSup, pp. 104-11. — The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961). Barrett, C.K., Essays on John (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982). - The Gospel According to St. John (New York: Macmillan, 1955). — The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (London: SPCK; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1978). Bartlett, J. (ed.), Familiar Quotations (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 16th edn, 1992). Bassler, J., 'Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel', JBL108 (1989), pp. 635-46. Bauer, W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans and augmented by W. Arndt and F.F. Gingrich; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edn, 1979). Baumgarten, J., '4Q502, Marriage or Golden Age Ritual?', JJS 34 (1983), pp. 125-35. Beasley-Murray, G.R., John (WBC, 36; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987). Beck, D.R., 'The Narrative Function of Anonymity in Fourth Gospel Characterization', in Adele Berlinand Elizabeth Struthers Malborn (eds.), Characterization in Biblical Literature (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), pp. 143-58. Beck, E., 'Mennonite Trickster Tales: True to Be Good', Mennonite Quarterly Review 61 (1987), pp. 58-74. Bell, A.O., et al. (eds.), The Diary of Virginia Woolf(5 vols.; New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977-85). Bell, Q., Virginia Woolf: A Biography (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972). Bennett, M., West African Trickster Tales (Oxford Myths and Legends; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994). Benoit, P., 'Marie-Madeleine et les disciples au tombeau selon Joh 20,1-18', in Walter Eltester (ed.), Judentum-Urchristentum-Kirche (Festschrift Joachim Jeremias; BZNW, 26; Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1960), pp. 141-52. Bergant, D.,' "My Beloved Is Mine and I Am His" (Song 2.16): The Song of Songs and Honor and Shame', Semeia 68 (1994), pp. 23-40. Biale, R., Women and Jewish Law: An Exploration of Women's Issues in Halakhic Sources (New York: Schocken Books, 1984). Biggs, R.D. (trans.), 'Akkadian Oracles and Prophecies', in J.B. Pritchard (ed.), The Ancient Near East (2 vols.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), II, pp. 168-69. Bledstein, A.J., 'Binder, Trickster, Heel and Hairy-Man: Rereading Genesis 27 as a Trickster Tale Told by a Woman', in Brenner (ed.), Genesis, pp. 282-95.

192

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Boers, H., Neither on This Mountain Nor in Jerusalem: A Study of John 4 (SBLMS, 35; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Bonwetsch, G.N. (ed.), Hippolyt's Kommentar zum Hohenlied (TU, 8; Leipzig; J.C. Hinrichs, 1902). Bonwetsch, G., and H. Achelis (eds.), Hippolytus Werke (GCS, 1.1; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1897). Borgen, P., 'God's Agent in the Fourth Gospel7, in Jacob Neusner (ed.), Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968), pp. 137-48. Boring, M.E., The Continuing Voices of Jesus: Christian Prophecy and the Gospel Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991). Boring, M.E., K. Berger and C. Colpe (eds.), Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995). Botha, J.E., Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: A Speech Act Reading of John 4.1-42 (NovTSup, 65; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991). - 'Reader "Entrapment" as Literary Device in John 4.1-42', Neot. 24 (1990), pp. 37-47. Bovon, F., 'Le privilege pascal de Marie-Madeleine', NTS 30 (1984), pp. 50-62. Bowman, J., Samaritan Studies (Manchester: John Rylands Library; Manchester University Press, 1958). Boyarin, D., Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993). —'Masada or Yavneh? Gender and the Arts of Jewish Resistance', in Jonathan Boyarin and Daniel Boyarin (eds.), Jews and Other Differences: The New Jewish Cultural Studies (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 1997), pp. 306-29. —A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994). Braun, M., et al., Jesus Christ Superstar (New York: Ballantine, 1972). Brenner, Athalya (ed.), A Feminist Companion to Genesis (Feminist Companion to the Bible, 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1993). —A Feminist Companion to Wisdom Literature (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). Brettler, M., 'On Becoming a Male Feminist Bible Scholar', BR 8 (1992), pp. 44-45. Bright, W., and M.B. Kendall (eds.), Coyote Stories (2 vols.; Native American Texts Series 1, 6; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978,1980). Brodie, T.L., The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). Brooten, B.J., 'Early Christian Women and their Cultural Context: Issues of Method in Historical Reconstruction', in Collins (ed.), Feminist Perspectives, pp. 65-91. -Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue (BJS, 36; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982). Brown, P., The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988). Brown, R.E., The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (AB Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 2nd edn, 1993). — The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (London: Geoffrey Chapman; New York: Paulist Press, 1979).

Bibliography

193

— The Death of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the four Gospels (2 vols.; AB Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 1994). - The Gospel According to John (2 vols.; AB, 29-29A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966, 1970). -'Roles of Women in the Gospel of John', TS 36 (1975), pp. 688-99; reprinted in Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), pp. 183-98. Brown, R.E., K.P. Donfried, J.A. Fitzmyer and J. Reumann (eds.), Mary in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978). Brown, R.E., K.P. Donfried and J. Reumann (eds.), Peter in the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1973). Buckley, J.J., 'Two Female Gnostic Revealers', HR 19.3 (1980), pp. 259-69. Bultmann, R., The Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951-55). — The Gospel of John: A Commentary (ed. and trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray et al.; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964,1971). Burke, P., Sociology and History (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1980). Burnett, F.W., 'Characterization and Reader Construction of Characters in the Gospels', in B.L. Callen (ed.), Listening to the Word of God: A Tribute to B.W. Blackwelder (Anderson, IN: Anderson University Press, 1990), pp. 69-88. Bynum, C.W., Fragmentation and Redemption: Essays on Gender and the Human Body in Medieval Religion (New York: Zone Books, 1991). —Holy feast Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). —Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982). Cahill, P.J., 'Narrative Art in John IV, RSB 2 (1982), pp. 41-48. Calinescu, M., Rereading (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993). Callaway, M., 'A Hammer That Breaks the Rock in Pieces: Prophetic Critique in the Hebrew Bible', in Craig A. Evans and Donald A. Hagner (eds.), Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1993), pp. 21-38. Cambre, M., 'L'influence du Cantique des Cantique sur le Nouveau Testament', RevThom 62 (1962), pp. 5-26. Camp, C, 'Feminist Theological Hermeneutics: Canon and Christian Identity', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, I, pp. 154-71. — 'The Wise Women of 2 Samuel: A Role Model for Women in Early Israel?', in A. Bach (ed.), Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader (London: Routledge, 1999), pp. 195-207. Carmichael, C.M., 'Marriage and the Samaritan Woman', NTS 26 (1980), pp. 332-46. Castelli, E.A., 'Interpretations of Power in 1 Corinthians', Semeia 54 (1991), pp. 197222. Cave, T., 'Recognition and the Reader', in Elinor Shaffer (ed.), Comparative Criticism: A Yearbook (24 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), pp. 49-69. -Recognitions: A Study in Poetics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988). Chance, J.K., 'The Anthropology of Honor and Shame: Culture, Values, and Practice', Semeia 68 (1994), pp. 139-51. Charlesworth, J.H., Jesus Within Judaism (New York: Doubleday, 1988). -'Odes of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction', OTP, II, pp. 725-71.

194

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Chatman, S., Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978). Cheney, E., She Can Read: Feminist Reading Strategies for Biblical Narrative (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996). Chiat, M.J.S., Handbook of Synagogue Architecture (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982). Clarke, E.G., 'Jacob's Dream at Bethel as Interpreted in the Targums and the New Testament', SR 4 (1974-75), pp. 367-77. Collins, A.Y. (ed.), Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship (SBLBSNA, 10; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985). Collins, J.J., 'Sibylline Oracles: A New Translation and Introduction', OTP, I, pp. 317472. Collins, R., 'Mary in the Fourth Gospel: A Decade of Johannine Studies', Louvain Studies 3 (1970), pp. 000-00. —'The Representative Figures in the Fourth Gospel', Downside Review 94 (1976), pp. 26-46,118-32. Constable, G., 'The Interpretation of Mary and Martha', in eadem, Three Studies in Medieval Religious and Social Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 3-141. Conway, C.M., Men and Women in the Fourth Gospel: Gender and Johannine Characterization (SBLDS, 167; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), pp. 69121. Conway Grant, C., Men and Women in the Forth Gospel: Gender and Johannine Characterization (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999). Corbo, V., 'La citta romana di Magdala', Studia Hierosolymitana I (Jerusalem, 1976), pp. 355-78. —'Piazza e Villa Urbana a Magdala', Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuas 28 (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1978), pp. 232-40. —'Scavi archeologici a Magdala (1971-1973)', Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuas 24 (1974), pp. 5-37. Corley, K.E., Private Women, Public Meals: Social Conflict in the Synoptic Tradition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993). —'Were the Women around Jesus Really Prostitutes? Women in the Context of GrecoRoman Meals', in David J. Lull (ed.), 1989 Seminar Papers (SBLSP, 28; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 487-521. Craig, K.M., and Margret A. Kristjansson, 'Women Reading as Men/Women Reading as Women', Semeia 51 (1990), pp. 119-36. Culpepper, R. A., Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). -'The Gospel of John and the Jews', RevExp 84 (1987), pp. 273-88. Dalferes, C., 'Va. Woolf & Co' (WITF Radio; Hershey, PA, 1980). Dana, H.E., and J.R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: MacMillan, 1927). D'Angelo, M.R., 'A Critical Note: John 20.17 and the Apocalypse of Moses 12', JTS 41 (1990), pp. 529-36. — 'Reconstructing "Real" Women from Gospel Literature: The Case of Mary Magdalene', in Kraemer and D'Angelo (eds.), Women and Christian Origins, pp. 105-28. —'Re-membering Jesus: Women, Prophecy, and Resistance in the Memory of the Early Churches', Horizons 19 (1992), pp. 199-218.

Bibliography

195

— '(Representations of Women in the Gospels: John and Mark', in Kraemer and D'Angelo (eds.), Women and Christian Origins, pp. 129-49. Darr,}., On Character Building: The Reader and the Rhetoric of Characterization in LukeActs (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992). Daube, D., 'Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: The Meaning of Sygchraomai'', JBL 69 (1950), pp. 137-47. Da vies, J., G. Harvey and W. Watson (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1995). Davies, M., Rhetoric and Reference in the fourth Gospel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). de Boer, E., Mary Magdalene: Beyond the Myth (trans. John Bowden; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997). de Boer, M.C., 'John 4.27—Women (and Men) in the Gospel and the Community of John', in George J. Brooke (ed.), Women in the Biblical Tradition (Studies in Women and Religion, 31; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1992), pp. 208-30. deConick, A.D., '"Blessed Are Those Who Have Not Seen" (Jn 20.29): Johannine Dramatization of an Early Christian Discourse', in Turner and McGuire (eds.), Nag Hammadi Library, pp. 381-98. — Seek to See Him: Ascent and Vision Mysticism in the Gospel of Thomas (VCSup, 33; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996). de la Huerta, C, Coming Out Spiritually: The Next Step (New York: Tardier; Putnam's Sons, 1999). Delaney, C., The Seed and the Soil: Gender and Cosmology in Turkish Village Society (Comparative Studies in Muslim Societies, 11; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991). — 'Seeds of Honor, Fields of Shame', in Gilmore (ed.), Honor and Shame, pp. 35-48. De Man, P., Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979). Denaux, A. (ed.), John and the Synoptics (BETL, 101; Leuven: Leuven University Press; Peeters, 1992). DeRoche, M., 'Israel's "Two Evils" in Jeremiah II13', VT31.3 (1981), pp. 369-71. Derrett, J.D., 'Law in the New Testament: The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery', NTS 10 (1963-64), pp. 13-15. - 'Miriam and the Resurrection (John 20.16)', Downside Review III (1993), pp. 174-86. -'The Samaritan Woman's Pitcher', Downside Review 102 (1984), pp. 252-61. Derrida, J., OfGrammatology (trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976). —Positions (trans. Alan Bass; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981). — 'Qual Quelle: Valery's Sources', in Margins of Philosophy (trans. Alan Bass; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), pp. 273-306. DeSilva, D.A., Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000). — The Hope of Glory: Honor Discourse and New Testament Interpretation (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999). Detweiler, R. (ed.), Derrida and Biblical Studies (Semeia, 23; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982). Dibelius, M., From Tradition to Gospel (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965).

196

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Dillenberger, J., 'The Magdalene: Reflections on the Image of the Saint and Sinner in Christian Art', in Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad and Ellison Banks Findly (eds.), Women, Religion, and Social Change (Albany: SUNY Press, 1985), pp. 115-45. Dodd, C.H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1963). - The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968 [1953]). Dormer, H., Die ersten Palestinapilger (Stuttgart: Catholic Bibelwerk, 1983). Dormeyer, D., Das Neue Testament im Rahmen der antiken Literaturgeschichte: Eine Einfuhrung (Die Altertumswissenschaft; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993). Doty, W.G., and W.J. Hynes, 'Historical Overview of Theoretical Issues: The Problem of the Trickster7, in Doty and Hynes (eds.), Mythical Trickster Figures: Contours, Contexts, and Criticisms (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1993), pp. 1332. Downing, C, 'Athena7, in Mircea Eliade (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Religion (16 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1987), I, p. 490. Downing, F.G.,' "Honor77 among Exegetes7, CBQ 61 (1999), pp. 53-73. Duke, P., Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985). Dunderberg, I., 'John and Thomas in Conflict?7, in Turner and McGuire (eds.), Nag Hammadi Library, pp. 361-80. Dunn, J.D.G., Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM Press, 1989). —'Let John Be John: A Gospel for its Time7, in P. Stuhlmacher (ed.), Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (WUNT, 28; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1983), pp. 309-39. Dunne, J.S., The Homing Spirit: A Pilgrimage of the Mind, of the Heart, of the Soul (New York: Crossroad, 1987). Durber, S., 'The Female Reader of the Parables of the Lost7, JSNT 45 (1992), pp. 59-78. Edwards, J.D., The Afro-American Trickster Tale: A Structural Analysis (Monograph Series of the Folklore Publications Group, 4; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978). Edwards, W.D., W.J. Gabel and F.E. Hosmer, 'On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ7, Journal of the American Medical Association 255 (1986), pp. 1455-63. Eilberg-Schwartz, H., 'The Fruitful Cut7, in idem, The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), pp. 149-62. Eliot, T.S., The Complete Poems and Plays ofT.S. Eliot (London: Guild Publishing, 1969). Eller, V., The Beloved Disciple, his Name, his Story, his Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987). Elliott, J.H., A Home for the Homeless: A Social Scientific Criticism ofl Peter, its Situation and Strategy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1990). Engar, A.W., 'Old Testament Women as Tricksters7, in Tollers and Maier (eds.), Mappings of the Biblical Terrain, pp. 143-57. Eslinger, L., 'The Wooing of the Woman at the Well: Jesus, the Reader, and ReaderResponse Criticism7, Journal of Literature and Theology I (1987), pp. 167-83 (reprinted in Stibbe [ed.], Gospel of John, pp. 165-82). Exum, J.C., Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical Narratives (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1993).

Bibliography

197

-'"Mother in Israel": A Familiar Figure Reconsidered', in Russell (ed.), Feminist Interpretation, pp. 73-82. Exum, J.C., and J.W.H. Bos (eds.), Reasoning with the Foxes: Female Wit in a World of Male Power (Semeia, 42; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Falk, M, Love Lyrics from the Bible: The Song of Songs, a New Translation (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993). Farley, Margaret A., 'Feminist Consciousness and the Interpretation of Scripture', in Russell (ed.), Feminist Interpretation, pp. 41-51. Fehribach, A., The Women in the Life of the Bridegroom: A Feminist Historical-Literary Analysis of the Female Characters in the Fourth Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998). Felman, S., Literature and Psychoanalysis: The Question of Reading (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982). Feuillet, A., 'La recherche du Christ dans la Nouvelle Alliance d'apres la christophanie de Jn. 20,11-18: Comparison avec Cant. 3,1-4 et 1'episode des Pelerins d'Emmaus', in L'Homme devant Dieu: Melange offerts an Pere Henri de Lubac (Melanges H. de Lubac; 3 vols.; Paris: Montaigne, 1963), I, pp. 103-107. Fewell, D.N., 'Judges', in Carol Newsom and Sharon Ringe (eds.), The Women's Bible Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), pp. 67-77. Fewell, D.N., and D.M. Gunn, Gender, Power and Promise: The Subject of the Bible's First Story (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993). Fewell, D.N., and G. A. Phillips (eds.), Bible and Ethics of Reading (Semeia, 77; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). Fiorenza, E. Schiissler, Bread Not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist Biblical Interpretation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984). —But She Said: Feminist Practices of Biblical Interpretation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1993). -'The Ethics of Interpretation: Decentering Biblical Scholarship', JBL 107 (1988), pp. 3-17. — 'A Feminist Critical Interpretation for Liberation: Martha and Mary: Lk. 10.38-42', Religion and Intellectual Life 3 (1986), pp. 21-36. —Jesus: Miriam's Child, Sophia's Prophet: Critical Issues in Feminist Christology (New York: Continuum, 1994). —In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (London: SCM Press, 2nd edn, 1995). -'Mary Magdalene: Apostle to the Apostles', UTS Journal (April 1975), pp. 22-24. -Revelation: Vision of a Just World (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991). -Rhetoric and Ethic: The Politics of Biblical Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999). - 'Rhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in 1 Corinthians', NTS 33 (1987), pp. 386-403. — Der Vergessener Partner (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1964). -'The Will to Choose or Reject: Continuing our Critical Work', in Russell (ed.), Feminist Interpretation, pp. 130-36. -'Wisdom Mythology and the Christological Hymns of the New Testament', in Robert L. Wilken (ed.), Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1975), pp. 17-41. -'Word, Spirit, and Power Women in Early Christian Communities', in R. Ruether and E. McLaughlin (eds.), Women of Spirit (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979), pp. 51-56.

198

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Fiorenza, E. Schiissler (ed.), Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Commentary (2 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1993,1994). Fish, S., 'Literature in the Reader: Affective Stylistics', NLH 2 (1970), pp. 123-62. Fishbane, M., Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). Fontaine, C, /rThe Deceptive Goddess in Ancient Near Eastern Myth: Inanna and Inaras', Semeia 42 (1988), pp. 84-102. Ford, J.M., Redeemer, Friend and Mother: Salvation in Antiquity and in the Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1997). Fortna, R.T., The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). Fortunado, J.E., AIDS: The Spiritual Dilemma (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987). Fowler, D.C., 'The Meaning of "Touch Me Not" in John 20.17, EvQ 47 (1975), pp. 1625. Fowler, R.M., Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991). Frontain, R.-J., 'The Trickster Tricked: Strategies of Deception and Survival in the David Narrative', in Tollers and Maier (eds.), Mappings of the Biblical Terrain, pp. 170-92. Fuchs, E., 'The Literary Characterization of Mothers and Sexual Politics in the Hebrew Bible', in Collins (ed.), Feminist Perspectives, pp. 117-36. Garitte, G., Traites d'Hippolyte sur David et Goliath, sur le Cantique des cantiques et sur I'Antechrist (CSCO, 263-64; Scriptores Iberici, 15-16; 2 vols.; Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus SCO, 1965). Garth, H.M., Saint Mary Magdalene in Mediaeval Literature (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1950). Gaventa, B.R., Mary: Glimpses of the Mother of Jesus (Personalities of the New Testament; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1995). Genette, G., Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980). Georgi, D., 'The Early Church: Internal Jewish Migration or New Religion', HTR 88 (1995), pp. 35-68. Giblin, C., 'Suggestions, Negative Response and Positive Action in St. John's Portrayal of Jesus [John 2.1-11; 4.46-54; 7.2-14; 11.1-44]', NTS 26 (1980), pp. 197-211. Gilhus, I.S., 'Trimorphic Protennoia', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 55-65. Gilligan, C., In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982). Gilmore, D.D., 'Introduction: The Shame of Dishonor', in Gilmore (ed.), Honor and Shame, pp. 2-21. Gilmore, D.D. (ed.), Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean (Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association, 1987). Gilson, A.B., The Battle for Americas Families: A Feminist Response to the Religious Right (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1999). Glaser, C., Coming Out as a Sacrament (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998). Gmehling, M.S., Die Siinderin: eine Studie uber die HI. Maria Magdalena (Lauerz [Switzerland]: Theresia-Verlag, 1996). Goffman, E., 'The Arrangement between the Sexes', Theory and Society 4 (1977), pp. 301-31.

Bibliography

199

Goodman, P. and H. Goodman, The Jewish Marriage Anthology (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1965). Goss, R.E., and A.S. Strongheart (eds.), Our Families, Our Values: Snapshots of Queer Kinship (New York: Hayworth Press, 1997). Goss, R.E., and M. West (eds.), Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 2000). Gottwald, N.K., The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). Graham, S.L., 'Silent Voices: Women in the Gospel of Mark', Semeia 54 (1991), pp. 14558. Grassi, C, and J. Grassi, Mary Magdalene and the Women in Jesus' Life (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1986). Grassi, J.A., 'The Role of Jesus' Mother in John's Gospel: A Reappraisal', CBQ 48 (1986), pp. 67-80. Gray, J., 'Jesus and Women—The Johannine Community Responds', unpublished paper. Green, J.B. (ed.), Hearing the New Testament: Strategiesfor Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Green, J.P. (ed.), The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew-Greek-English (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2nd edn, 1986). Grottanelli, C., 'Tricksters, Scapegoats, Champions, Saviors', History of Religions 23 (1984), pp. 117-39. Habel, N.C., 'The Symbolism of Wisdom in Proverbs 1-9', Int 26 (1972), pp. 131-57. Haenchen, E., John: A Commentary on the Gospel of John 1-6 (trans. R.W. Funk with Ulrich Busse; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). Hagg, T., Narrative Technique in Ancient Greek Romances: Studies ofChariton, Xenophon, Ephesius and Achilles Tatius (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1971). — The Novel in Antiquity (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1983). Hall, E.T., Beyond Culture (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976). - The Dance of Life: The Other Dimensions of Time (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983). Hampson, D., Theology and Feminism (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1979). Handelman, D., 'Gossip Encounters: The Transmission of Information in a Bounded Social Setting', Man 8 (1973), pp. 210-27. Harari, J.V., Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1979). Hare, A.P., 'Groups: Role Structure', IESS, VI, pp. 283-88. Harland, R., Superstructuralism: The Philosophy of Structuralism and Post-Structuralism (New Accents; New York: Methuen, 1987). Harvey, S. A., 'The Odes of Solomon', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 86-98. Haskins, S., Mary Magdalen: Myth and Metaphor (London: HarperCollins, 1993). Hastings, J. (ed.), A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (2 vols., New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1917). Heidebrech Thiessen, K., 'Jesus and Women in the Gospel of John', Direction 19 (1990), pp. 53-64. Heil, J.P., Blood and Water: The Death and Resurrection of Jesus in John 18-21 (CBQMS, 27; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1995).

200

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Heilbrun, Carolyn, 'Virginia Woolf in her Fifties', in J. Marcus (ecL), Virginia Woo//, pp. 236-53. Heine, S., 'Eine Person von Rang und Namen: Historische Konturen der Magdalenerin', in D.-A. Koch et al (eds.), Jesu Rede von Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte im fruhen Christentum (Festschrift Willi Marxsen; Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1989), pp. 179-94. Heise, Jiirgen, Bleiben: Menein in den johanneischen Schriften (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1967). Hengel, M., /rThe Interpretation of the Wine Miracle at Cana: John 2.1-11', in L.D. Hurst and N.T. Wright (eds.), The Glory of Christ in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 83-112. —'Maria Magdalena und die Frauen als Zeugen', in O. Betz, M. Hengel and P. Schmidt (eds.), Abraham Unser Vater: Juden und Christen im Gesprach tiber die Bibel (Festschrift Otto Michel; AGJU, 5; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1963), pp. 243-56. Heyward, C., Touching our Strength: The Erotic as Power and the Love of God (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989). Hooke, S.H., 'The Spirit Was Not Yet', NTS 9 (1962-63), pp. 372-80. Horsley, R. A., 'Pneumatikos vs Psychikos: Distinctions of Spiritual Status among the Corinthians', HTR 69 (1976), pp. 269-88. Hoskyns, B.C., The Fourth Gospel (ed. F.N. Davey; London: Faber & Faber, 2nd edn, 1947). Howard-Brook, W. Becoming Children of God: John's Gospel and Radical Discipleship (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1994). Hubbard, B.J., The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning: An Exegesis of Matthew 28.16-20 (SBLDS, 19; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974). Huber, B.C., Women and the Authority of Inspiration: A Reexamination of Two Prophetic Movements from a Contemporary Feminist Perspective (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985). Hynes, W.J., 'Mapping the Characteristics of Mythic Tricksters: A Heuristic Guide', in Doty and Hynes (eds.), Mythical Trickster Figures, pp. 33-45. Ilan, T., Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). Ingber-Irvin, B., The Autobiography of Mary Magdalene (Nevada City, CA: Blue Dolphin, 1989). Irigary, L., An Ethics of Sexual Difference (trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993). —'The Envelope: A Reading of Spinoza', in Ethics of Sexual Difference, pp. 83-94. —'The Fecundity of the Caress: A Reading of Levinas, Totality and Infinity', in Ethics of Sexual Difference. —'Questions to Emmanuel Levinas', in M. Whitford (ed.), The Irigaray Reader (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991). Iser, W., 'The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach', in Tompkins (ed.), Reader Response Criticism, pp. 50-69. Jacobus, M., 'Is There a Woman in This Text?', in eadem, Reading Women: Essays in Feminist Criticism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), pp. 83-109. Jasper, A., 'Interpretive Approaches to John 20.1-18: Mary at the Tomb of Jesus', ST 47 (1993), pp. 107-18. -The Shining Garment of the Text: Gendered Readings of John's Prologue (JSNTSup, 165; Gender, Culture, Theory, 6; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).

Bibliography

201

Jay, N., 'Sacrifice, Descent and Patriarchs', VT38 (1988), pp. 52-70. — 'Sacrifice, a Remedy for Having Been Born of Women', in C. Atkinson et al (eds.), Immaculate and Powerful: The Female in Sacred Image and Social Reality (Boston: Beacon Press, 1985), pp. 283-309. Jeremias, J., Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1969). Jobling, D., 'Writing the Wrongs of the World: The Deconstruction of the Biblical Text in the Context of Liberation Theologies', Semeia 51 (1990), pp. 81-118. Jobling, D. and S.D. Moore (eds.), Poststructuralism as Exegesis (Semeia, 54; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991). Johnson, A.R., The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1961). Johnson, B., A World of Difference (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987). Johnson, D.H., 'Our Father Jacob: The Role of the Jacob Narrative in the Fourth Gospel Compared to its Role in the Jewish Bible and the Writings of Early Judaism' (PhD dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, 1992). Johnson, E.A., 'Jesus, the Wisdom of God: A Biblical Basis for Non-Androcentric Christology', ETL 61 (1985), pp. 261-94. — She Who Is: The Mystery of God in feminist Theological Discourse (New York: Crossroad, 1992). Jones, D., 'Gossip: Notes on Women's Oral Culture', Women's Studies International Quarterly 3 (1980), pp. 193-98. Jonge, M. de, Jesus, Stranger from Heaven and Son of God: Jesus Christ and the Christians in Johannine Perspective (trans. J.E. Steely; SBLSBS, 11; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1977). Karris, R.J., Jesus and the Marginalized in John's Gospel (Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990). Keating, T., The Human Condition: Contemplation and Transformation (New York: Paulist Press, 1999). Keck, Leander, et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter's Bible (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994). Kelber, W.H., 'In the Beginning Were the Words: The Apotheosis and Narrative Displacement of the Logos', JAAR 58 (1990), pp. 69-98. Keller, E.F., Reflections on Gender and Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). Kenney, S.M., 'Two Endings: Virginia Woolf's Suicide and Between the Acts', University of Toronto Quarterly (Summer 1975), pp. 265-89 (275). Keuls, B.C., The Reign of the Phallus: Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens (San Franciso: Harper & Row, 1985). Kimelman, R., 'Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity', in E.P. Sanders et al. (eds.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (3 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), II, pp. 234-35. King, K.L., 'Introduction', in D.M. Parrott (ed.), 'The Gospel of Mary (BG 8502,1)', in J.M. Robinson (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library in English (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 523-27. King, L., 'The Book of Norea, Daughter of Eve', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 66-85.

202

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

—'The Gospel of Mary Magdalene', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 601-34. Kinukawa, H., 'On John 7.53-8.11: A Well-Cherished but Much-Clouded Story', in Segovia and Tolbert (eds.), Reading from This Place, II, pp. 82-96. Kitzberger, I.R., 'Aging and Birthing: Open-ended Stories and a Hermeneutics of Promise', in Essays in Honour of]. Severino Croatto on his 70th Birthday (Buenos Aires, forthcoming.) —'Border Crossing and Meeting Jesus at the Well: an Autobiographical Re-reading of the Samaritan Woman's Story in John 4.1-44', in I.R. Kitzberger (ed.), The Personal Voice in Biblical Interpretation (London: Routledge, 1999), pp. 97-110. —' "How Can This Be?" (John 3.9): A Feminist-Theological Re-reading of the Gospel of John', in Segovia (ed.), 'What Is John?', II, pp. 19-41. -'Love and Footwashing: John 13.1-20 and Luke 7.36-50 Read Intertextually', Biblnt 2 (1994), pp. 190-206. —'Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala—Two Female Characters in the Johannine Passion Narrative: A Feminist, Narrative-Critical Reader Response', NTS 41 (1995), pp. 564-86. —'Synoptic Women in John: Interfigural Readings', in eadem (ed.), Transformative Encounters: Jesus and Women Re-viewed (Biblical Interpretation Series, 43; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000), pp. 77-111. —'Untying Lazarus—A Sisters' Task? Re-visioning Gender and Characterization in John 11'. Paper presented in the Johannine Literature Section at the AAR/SBL Annual Meeting in Orlando, FL, on 22 Nov. 1998. Koester, C, 'The Savior of the World Qohn 4.42]', JBL109 (1990), pp. 665-80. — Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1995). Koester, H., Ancient Christian Gospels (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1990). Koivunen, H., The Woman Who Understood Completely: A Semiotic Analysis of the Mary Magdalene Myth in the Gnostic Gospel of Mary (Acta Semiotica Fennica; Imatra: International Semiotics Institute, 1994). Kolodny, A., The Lay of the Land: Metaphor as Experience and History in American Life and Letters (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975). Kraemer, R.S., 'The Book of Aseneth', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 859-88. Kraemer, R.S. (ed.), Hellenistic Jewish Women: The Epigraphical Evidence (SBLSP, 1986), pp. 183-200. —Her Share of the Blessings: Women's Religions among Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992). —'Jewish Women and Christian Origins: Some Caveats' in Kraemer and D'Angelo (eds.), Women and Christian Origins, pp. 50-79. —Maenads, Martyrs, Matrons, Monastics: A Sourcebook on Women's Religions in the GrecoRoman World (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). Kraemer, R.S., and M.R. D'Angelo (eds.), Women and Christian Origins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). Krafft, E., 'Die Personen des Johannesevangeliums', EvT 16 (1956), pp. 18-32. Kraft, H., 'Joh. 20,17', TLZ 76 (1951). Kraft, R., 'The Multiform Jewish Heritage of Early Christianity', in J. Neusner (ed.),

Bibliography

203

Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults (4 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975), III, pp. 174-99. Kressel, G.M., 'An Anthropologist's Response to the Use of Social Science Models in Biblical Studies', Semeia 68 (1994), pp. 153-61. Kugel, J.L., Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to The Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998). Kiigler, J., 'Gold, Weihrauch und Myrrhe. Eine Notiz zu Mt 2,11', BN 87 (1997), pp. 24-33. Kummel, W.G., Introduction to the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1977). Kysar, R., John the Maverick Gospel (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, rev. edn, 1993). —John (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament; Minneapolis: Augsburg/ Fortress, 1986). Lacan, J.L., Ecrits: A Selection (trans. Alan Sheridan; New York: W. W. Norton, 1977). -'Introduction to the Names-of-the-Father Seminar', October 40 (1987), pp. 89-90. LaCugna, C.M., God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991). Lakoff, R.T., and D. Tannen, 'Conversational Strategy and Metastrategy in a Pragmatic Theory: The Example of Scenes from a Marriage', in D. Tannen, Gender and Discourse (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 137-73. Laqueur, T., Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990). Lee, D. A., 'Beyond Suspicion? The Fatherhood of God in the Fourth Gospel', Pacifica 8 (1995), pp. 140-54. — 'Partnership in Easter Faith: The Role of Mary Magdalene and Thomas in John 20', JSNT 58 (1995), pp. 37-39. — 'Reclaiming the Sacred Text—Christian Feminism and Spirituality', in J. Morny and P. Magee (eds.), Claiming our Rites: Studies in Religion by Australian Women Scholars (Sydney: Australian Association for the Study of Religion, 1994), pp. 80-84. — The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994). — 'The Symbol of Divine Fatherhood', in A. Reinhartz (ed.), God the Father in the Gospel of John (Semeia, 85; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), pp. 177-87. Leon-Dufour, X., Etudes d'Evangile (Paris: Seuil, 1965). Lesses, R., 'The Daughters of Job', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 13947. Levine, A.-J., 'The Sibylline Oracles', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 99-108. -'Who's Catering the Q Affair? Feminist Observations on Q Paraenesis', Semeia 50 (1990), pp. 145-61. Leyerle, B., 'John Chrysostom on the Gaze', JECS 1 (1993), pp. 159-74. Lieu, J., 'The Mother of the Son in the Fourth Gospel', JBL 117 (1998), pp. 61-77. -'Scripture and the Feminine in John', in Athalya Brenner (ed.), A Feminist Companion to the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament (Feminist Companion to the Bible, 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), pp. 225-40. Lightfoot, R.H., St. John's Gospel: A Commentary (ed. C.F. Evans; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 1956).

204

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (NCB; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972). -Gospel of John (London: Oliphants, 1978). Lipsitz, G., Time Passages: Collective Memory and American Popular Culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1990). Loisy, A., Le Quatrieme Evangile (Paris: Nourry, 2nd edn, 1921). Lorde, A., Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde (Freedom, CA: Crossing Press, 1984). Luckert, K.W., 'Introduction', in Berard Haile, Navajo Coyote Tales: The Curly to Aheedliinii Version (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984), pp. 3-19. Maccini, R.G., Her Testimony Is True: Women As Witnesses according to John (JSNTSup, 125; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Mace, D., Hebrew Marriage: A Sociological Study (London: Epworth Press, 1953). MacRae, G., 'The Ego-Proclamation in Gnostic Sources', in E. Bammel (ed.), The Trial of Jesus (SBT, 2.13; London: SCM Press, 1970), pp. 122-34. Maisch, I., Mary Magdalene: The Image of a Woman through the Centuries (trans. Linda Moloney; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998). Malbon, E.S., and A. Berlin (eds.), Characterization in Biblical Literature (Semeia, 63; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). Malina, B.J., 'Mary-Mediterranean Woman: Mother and Son', BIB 20 (1990), pp. 5464. — The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981; rev. edn, 1993). Malina, B.J. and J.H. Neyrey, 'Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World', in J.H. Neyrey (ed.), The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 25-66. Malina, B.J., and R.L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1998). Maloney, F., John (Sacra Pagina, 4; Collegeville: MN; Liturgical Press, 1998). Malvern, M.M., Venus in Sackcloth: The Magdalene's Origins and Metamorphoses (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1975). Manns, F., 'Magdala dans les sources litteraires', Studia Hierosolymitana I, 22 (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1976), pp. 307-37. Manson, T.W., 'The Pericope de Adultera (Joh 7,53-8,11)', ZNW44 (1952-53), pp. 25556. Marcus, J., 'Liberty, Sorority, Misogyny', in C.G. Heilbrun and M.R. Higonnet (eds.), The Representation of Women in Fiction (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), pp. 60-97. —'Niece of a Nun: Virginia Woolf, Caroline Stephen, and the Cloistered Imagination', in Marcus (ed.), Virginia Woolf, pp. 7-36. -'Thinking Back through our Mothers', in J. Marcus (ed.), New Feminist Essays on Virginia Woolf (Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1981), pp. 1-30. Marcus, J. (ed.), Virginia Woolf: A Feminist Slant (Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1983). Marcus, R. (trans.), Philo, Supplement I (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961). Marjanen, A., The Woman Jesus Loved: Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and Related Documents (NHMS, 40; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996).

Bibliography

205

Marr, N., Ippolit: Toklovanie Pjesni pjesnej (Teksty I razyskanija po armjano-gruzinskoi filologee, III, Saint Petersburg, 1901). Marshall, J.L., Counseling Lesbian Partners (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1997). Martin, D.B., The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). Martin, J.L., 'The Johannine Community and It's Jewish Neighbors: A Reappraisal', in F. Segovia (ed.), What Is John?, II, pp. 111-38. Martinez, F.G., and Eibert J.C. Tigehelaar (eds. and trans.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. II. Q272-11Q31 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998). Martyn, J.L., History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York: Harper & Row, 1968; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2nd edn, 1979). Massey, J.E., 'Reading the Bible as African Americans', in Keck et al (eds.), New Interpreter's Bible, I, pp. 154-60. — 'Reading the Bible from Particular Social Locations', in Keck et al (eds.), New Interpreter's Bible, I, pp. 150-53. Matera, F., 'John 20.1-18', Int 43 (1989), pp. 402-406. Matthews, V.H., 'Jacob the Trickster and Heir of the Covenant: A Literary Interpretation', Perspectives in Religious Studies 12 (1985), pp. 185-95. Matthews, V.H., and D.C. Benjamin (eds.), Honor and Shame in the World of the Bible, Semeia 68 (1994). Maurus, R., The Life of Saint Mary Magdalene and of her Sister Saint Martha: A Medieval Biography (ed. D. Mycoff; Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1989). Mays, J.L., Hosea (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969). McGuire, A., 'Thunder, Perfect Mind', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 39-54. McKane, W., Proverbs: A New Approach (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970). McKinlay, J.E., Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and Drink (JSNTSup, 216; Gender, Culture, Theory, 4; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). McKnight, E.V., The Bible and the Reader: An Introduction to Literary Criticism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). — Post-Modern Use of the Bible: The Emergence of Reader-Oriented Criticism (Nashville: Abingdon, 2nd edn, 1990). McLaughlin, T., 'Figurative Language', in F. Lentricchia and T. McLaughlin (eds.), Critical Terms for Literary Study (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), pp. 80-90. Meeks, W.A., The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983). -The Man From Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism', JBL 91 (1972), pp. 141-73, reprinted in John Ashton (ed.), The Interpretation of John (Issues in Religion and Theology 9; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986). — The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967). Merklein, H., 'Agyptische Einflusse auf die messianische Sohn-Gottes-Aussage', in H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger and P. Schafer (eds.), Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift fur Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (3 vols.; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996), III, pp. 21-48.

206

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Metzger, B., and R. Murphy (eds.), The New Oxford Annotated Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). Meyer, P.W., 'John 2.10', JBL 86 (1967), pp. 191-97. Michaels, J.R., John: A Good News Commentary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984). Miller, J.A. (ed.), Le Seminaire, livre III: Les psychoses (Paris: Seuil, 1981). Milosz, C, 'Mary Magdalene and I', New Yorker 63 (1987), p. 40. Minear, P.S.,' "We Don't Know Where..." John 20.2', Int 30 (1976), pp. 125-39. Mitulski, J., 'Ezekiel Understands AIDS: AIDS Understands Ezekiel, or Reading the Bible with HIV, in R.E. Goss and M. West (eds.), Take Back the Word, pp. 153-60. Moeller, H., 'Wisdom Motifs and John's Gospel', Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 6 (1963), pp. 92-100. Moloney, F.J., First among the Faithful (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985). -Glory Not Dishonor: Reading John 13-21 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1998). — The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina, 4; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998). Moltmann-Wendel, E., 'Motherhood or Friendship?', Concilium 168 (1983), pp. 17-22. - The Women around Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1982; New York: Crossroad, 1997). Moore, S.D., Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). —Mark and Luke in Poststructuralist Perspectives: Jesus Begins to Write (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992). — Poststructuralism and the New Testament: Derrida and Foucault at the Foot of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1994). Morris, L., The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971). Muecke, D.C., The Compass of Irony (London: Methuen, 1969). Mtiller, W.G., 'Interfigurality: A Study on the Interdependence of Literary Figures', in H.E. Plett (ed.), Intertextuality (Research in Text Theory, 15; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1991), pp. 101-21. Murphy, E.F., The Scarlet Lily (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1944). Mycoff, D., A Critical Edition of the Legend of Mary Magdalene from Caxton's Golden Legend of 1483 (Salzburg: Universitat Salzburg, Institut fur Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 1985). —'The Legend of Mary Magdalene in a Twelfth-Century Cistercian Context', Cistercian Studies 23 (1988), pp. 310-18. Nakos, L., Lilika Nakos (Boston: G.K. Hall, 1983). Neirynck, F., 'John and the Synoptics', ETL 45 (1977), pp. 73-106. - 'John and the Synoptics: The Empty Tomb Stories', NTS 30 (1984), pp. 161-87. Neubauer, A., La geographic du Talmud (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967). Newsom, C.A., 'Women and the Discourse of Patriarchal Wisdom: A Study of Proverbs 1-9', in P. Day (ed.), Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 142-60. Newsom, C.A., and S.H. Ringe (eds.), The Women's Bible Commentary (London: SCM Press; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992). Neyrey, J.H., Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1998). —An Ideology of Revolt: John's Christology in Social-Science Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988). -'The Jacob Allusions in John 1.51', CBQ 44 (1982), pp. 586-605. -'Jacob Traditions and the Interpretation of Jn 4.10-26', CBQ 41 (1979), pp. 419-37.

Bibliography

207

- The Resurrection Stories (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988). — The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991). - 'The Sociology of Secrecy and the Fourth Gospel7, in Segovia (ed.), 'What Is John ?', II, pp. 79-109. -'What's Wrong with This Picture? John 4, Cultural Stereotypes of Women, and Public and Private Space', BTB 24 (1994), pp. 77-91. Niditch, S., 'Samson as Culture Hero, Trickster, and Bandit: The Empowerment of the Weak', CBQ 52 (1990), pp. 608-24. — Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore (New York: Harper & Row, 1987). Nortjea, S.J., 'The Role of Women in the Fourth Gospel', Neot 20 (1986), pp. 21-28. O'Brien, M., The Politics of Reproduction (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981). O'Collins, G., and D. Kendall, 'Mary Magdalene as Major Witness to Jesus' Resurrection', TS 48 (1987), pp. 631-46. O'Connor, J.M., The Holy Land: An Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986). -'Sex and Logic in 1 Cor. 11.2-16', CBQ 42 (1980), pp. 482-500. O'Day, G.R., 'John', New Interpreter's Bible in Keck et al. (eds.), IX, pp. 491-865. — 'John', in Newsom and Ringe (eds.), Women's Bible Commentary, pp. 294-302. -'John 7.53-8.11: A Study in Misreading', JBL III (1992), pp. 631-40. — Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986). Odeberg, H., The Fourth Gospel: Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Amsterdam: Gruner, 1968 [1929]). Okure, T., The Johannine Approach to Mission: A Contextual Study of John 1.1-12 (WUNT, 2nd ser., 32; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1988). — 'The Significance Today of Jesus' Commission to Mary Magdalene (Jn 20.11-18)', International Review of Mission 81 (1992), pp. 177-88. Olsson, B., Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A Textual-Linguistic Analysis of John 2.1-11 and 4.1-42 (trans. J. Gray; ConBNT, 6; Lund: CW.K. Gleerup, 1974). Osborne, R.E., 'Notes and Comments: Pericope Adulterae', Canadian Journal of Theology 12 (1966), pp. 281-83. Osiek, C, The Feminist and the Bible: Hermeneutical Alternatives', in A.Y. Collins (ed.), Feminist Perspectives, pp. 93-105. Osiek, C., and D.L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World: Household and House Churches (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1997). Overholt, T., Channels of Prophecy: The Social Dynamics of Prophetic Activity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989). Pamment, M., 'Is There Convincing Evidence of Samaritan Influence on the Fourth Gospel?', ZMV73 (1982), pp. 221-30. Patte, D., Discipleship According to the Sermon on the Mount: Four Legitimate Readings, Four Plausible Views of Discipleship, and their Relative Values (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996). -Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: A Reevaluation (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995).

208

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Pazdan, M.M., 'Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman: Contrasting Models of Discipleship', BTB 17 (1987), pp. 145-48. Pearson, B.A., The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians: A Study in the Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul and its Relation to Gnosticism (SBLDS, 12; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973), pp. 15-26. Perkins, P., 'The Gospel According to John', in Raymond Brown et al. (eds.), New Jerome Biblical Commentary (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1989), pp. 942-85. —' "I Have Seen the Lord" (John 20.18): Women Witnesses to the Resurrection7, Int 46 (1992), pp. 31-41. Perles, O., 'Noch einmal Mt 8,22, Lk 9,60, sowie Joh 20,17, ZNW25 (1926), pp. 286-87. Pesch, R.,' "Kind, warum hast du so an uns getan?" (Lk 2,48)', BZ12 (1968), pp. 24548. Petersen, N.R., The Gospel of John and the Sociology of Light: Language and Characterization in the Fourth Gospel (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1993), pp. 110-32. Phillips, G. A. (ed.), Poststructural Criticism and the Bible: Text/History/Discourse (Semeia, 51; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). Piccirillo, M., Studium Biblicum Franciscanum (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1983). Pilch, J., The Cultural Dictionary of the Bible (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999). Plaskow, J., Sex, Sin and Grace: Women's Experience and the Theologies ofReinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1980). Plunkett, R.S.G., 'The Samaritan Woman: Partner in Revelation', paper presented at the New England regional meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Boston, March 1988. Pomeroy, S., Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity (New York: Schocken Books, 1975). Porsch, P.P., Pneuma und Wort: Ein exegetische Beitrag zur Pneumatologie des Johannesevangeliums (Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1974). Prevos, A., 'The Legend of Mary Magdalene in Afro-Cajun Spirituals', Pacific Quarterly 8 (1984), pp. 25-30. Price, R.M., 'Mary Magdalene: Gnostic Apostle?', Grail 6 (1990), pp. 54-76. Radin, P., The Trickster: A Study in American Indian Mythology (New York: Schocken Books, 1955). Reardon, B., The Form of the Greek Romance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991). Regina, V., Maria Maddalena nella storia, nella tradizione, nella legenda e nelle arti figurative della provincia di Trapani (Alcamo: V. Regina, 1993). Reinhartz, A., Befriending the Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John (New York: Continuum, 2001). -'The Gospel of John', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 561-600. -'The Johannine Community and its Jewish Neighbors: A Reappraisal', in Segovia (ed.), 'What Is John?', II, pp. 111-38. —'To Love the Lord: An Intertextual Reading of John 20', in F. Black, R. Boer, C. Kelm and E. Runions (eds.), The Labour of Reading: Desire Alienation and Biblical Interpretation (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), pp. 56-69. - The Word in the World: The Cosmological Tale in the Fourth Gospel (SBLMS, 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992).

Bibliography

209

Rena, J., 'Women in the Gospel of John7, Eglise et Theologie 17 (1986), pp. 131-47. Rensberger, D., Overcoming the World: Politics and Community in the Gospel of John (London: SPCK, 1988). — 'Sectarianism and Theological Interpretation in John', in Segovia (ed.), 'What Is John?, pp. 139-56. Ricci, C, Maria di Magdala e le molte altre: donne sul cammino di Gesu (Napoli: M. D'Auria, 1991). —Mary Magdalene and Many Others: Women Who Followed Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1994). Riech, R., 'A Note on the Roman Mosaic from Magdala on the Shore of the Sea of Galilee' [Hebrew], Qadmoniot 22 (1989), pp. 43-44. Riley, G., Resurrection Reconsidered (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1995). Ringe, S.H., 'A Gentile Woman's Story', in Russell (ed.), Feminist Interpretation, pp. 65-72. — Wisdom's Friends: Community and Christology in the Fourth Gospel (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1999). Ritt, H., 'Die Frauen und die Osterbotschaft: Synopse der Grabesgeschichten (Mk 16,1-8; Mt 27,62-68; Lk 24,1-12; Joh 20,1-18)', in Gerhard Dautzenberg and Helmut Merklein (eds.), Die Frau im Urchristentum (Freiburg: Herder, 1983), pp. 117-33. Roberts, J.W., From Trickster to Badman: The Black Folk Hero in Slavery and Freedom (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989). Robinson, H.W., 'The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality', in P. Volz, F. Stummer and J. Hempel (eds.), Werden und Wesen des Alien Testaments: Vortrage gehalten auf der International Tagung Alttestamentlicher Forscher zu Gottingen vom 4.-10. September 1935 (BZAW, 66; Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1936). Robinson, J.A.T., The Priority of John (London: SCM Press, 1985). Rosenbaum, S.P., 'Virginia Woolf and the Intellectual Origins of Bloomsbury', in E.K. Ginsberg and L.M. Gottlieb (eds.), Virginia Woolf: Centennial Essays (Troy: Whitston, 1983), pp. 11-26. Rouselle, A., Porneia: On Desire and the Body in Antiquity (trans. Felicia PheasantOxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988). Rowland, C., 'John 1.51, Jewish Apocalyptic and Targumic Traditions', NTS 30 (1984), pp. 498-507. Rubin, G., 'The Traffic in Women: Notes on the "Political Economy" of Sex', in R. Reiter (ed.), Toward an Anthropology of Women (New York: Monthly Review, 1975), pp. 157-210. Ruddick, S.R., 'New Combinations: Learning from Virginia Woolf, in C. Ascher, L. DeSalvo and S. Ruddick (eds.), Between Women (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984), pp. 137-69. Ruether, R.R., Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology (Boston: Beacon Press, 1983). Russell, Letty (ed.), Feminist Interpretation of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985). Ryan, G., and H. Rippergar (trans), The Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine (New York, Longmans, 1941). Sabbe, M., 'The Footwashing in Jn 13 and its Relation to the Synoptic Gospels', ETL 58 (1982), pp. 279-308.

210

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

-'The Johannine Account of the Death of Jesus and its Synoptic Parallels (Jn 19,16b42)', ETL 70 (1994), pp. 34-64. Safrai, S., 'Home and Family', in S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (Compendia rerum ludaicarum ad Novum Testamentum; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), II, pp. 728-92. Saiving, V., 'The Human Situation: A Feminine View', JR 40 (1960), pp. 100-12, reprinted in C.P. Christ and J. Plaskow (eds.), Womanspirit Rising: A Feminist Reader in Religion (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), pp. 25-42. Satlow, M.L., Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). Sawicki, M., Crossing Galilee: Architectures of Contact in the Occupied Land of Jesus (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000). Saxer, V., Le culte de Marie Madeleine en Occident des origines a lapin du moyen age (2 vols.; Auxerre/Paris, 1959). Schiller, G., Iconography of Christian Art (2 vols.; London: Lund Humphries, 1971,1972). Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel According to St. John (3 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1980). — The Gospel According to St. John (trans. Kevin Smyth et al; Herders Theological Commentary on the New Testament; New York: Herder & Herder, 1968). — The Gospel According to John (3 vols.; London: Burns & Oates, 1982). - The Gospel According to St. John (HTKNT; 3 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1990). Schneiders, S., 'The Foot Washing (John 13.1-20): An Experiment in Hermeneutics', Ex auditu I (1985), pp. 140-43. —'John 20.11-18: The Encounter of the Easter Jesus with Mary Magdalene —A Transformative Feminist Reading', in Segovia (ed.), 'What Is John?', I, pp. 155-68. — The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1991). — 'Women in the Fourth Gospel and the Role of Women in the Contemporary Church', BTB 12 (1982), pp. 35-45. —Written That You May Believe: Encountering Jesus in the fourth Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1999). Schottroff, L., Lydia's Impatient Sisters: A Feminist Social History of Early Christianity (trans. B. and M. Rumscheidt; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995). —'Maria Magdalena und die Frauen am Grabe Jesu', EvT 42 (1982), pp. 3-25. — 'The Samaritan Woman and the Notion of Sexuality in the Fourth Gospel', in Segovia (ed.), 'What Is John?', II, pp. 157-81. Schroer, S., 'The Book of Sophia', in Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, II, pp. 1738. Scobie, C, 'The Origins and Development of Samaritan Christianity', NTS 19 (1973), pp. 390-414 Scott, M., Sophia and the Johannine Jesus (JSNTSup, 71; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). Scott, R.B.Y., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965). Sedgwick, E., Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985). Segovia, F.F., The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991).

Bibliography

211

-Love Relationships in the Johannine Tradition (SBLDS, 58; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982). Segovia, F.F. (ed.), What Is John?': Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel (SBL Symposium Series, 3.7; 2 vols.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996,1998). Segovia, F.F., and M.A. Tolbert (eds.), Reading from This Place (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1995). Seim, T.K., 'Roles of Women in the Gospel of John', in Lars Hartman and Birgir Olsson (eds.), Aspects on the Johannine Literature: Papers Presented at a Conference of Scandinavian New Testament Exegetes at Uppsala, June 16-20, 1986 (ConBNT, 18; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987), pp. 56-73. Selvidge, MJ., 'Nicodemus and the Woman with Five Husbands', Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society 2 (1982), pp. 63-75. Setzer, C., Jewish Responses to Early Christians: History and Polemics, 30-150 C.E. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1994). Sidebottom, E.M., The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (London: SPCK, 1961). Silver, B.R., 'Three Guineas before and after', in Marcus (ed.), Virginia Woolf: A Feminist Slant, pp. 254-76. Simkins, R., 'Gender Construction in the Yahwist Creation Myth', in Brenner (ed.), Genesis, pp. 32-52. Sloyan, G., 'The Samaritans in the New Testament', Horizons 10 (1980), pp. 7-21. Smith, D.M., John among the Gospels: The Relationship in Twentieth-Century Research (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1992). — The Theology of the Gospel of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Smith, J.Z., 'Native Cults in the Hellenistic Period', HR 11.1 (1971), pp. 236-49. Snijders, L., 'The Meaning of zar in the Old Testament: An Exegetical Study', OTS10 (1954), pp. 1-110. Snyder, G.F., 'John 13.16 and the Anti-Petrinism of the Johannine Tradition', BibRes 16 (1971), pp. 5-15. Spacks, P.M., The Female Imagination (New York: Knopf, 1975). Spencer, F.S., 'Out of Mind, Out of Voice: Slave-Girls and Prophetic Daughters in Luke-Acts', Biblnt 7 (1999), pp. 133-55. Spivak, G.C., 'The New Historicism, Political Commitment and the Postmodern Critic', in S. Harasym (ed.), The Post-Colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues (New York: Routledge, 1990). Staley, J.L., The Print's First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel (SBLDS, 82; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Stansell, G., 'Honor and Shame in the David Narratives', Semeia 68 (1996), pp. 55-79. Starbird, M., Tlie Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail (Santa Fe, NM: Bear, 1993). Stauffer, E., Jesus and His Story (London: SCM Press, 1960). Stegemann, E. W., and W. Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social History of its First Century (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999). Steinberg, N., 'Israelite Tricksters, Their Analogues and Cross-Cultural Study', Semeia 42 (1988), pp. 1-13. Sternberg, M., The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985). Stibbe, M., 'The Elusive Christ: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel', /SNT44 (1991), pp. 19-37.

212

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Stibbe, M. (ed.), John (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993). - The Gospel of John as Literature: An Anthology of Twentieth-Century Perspectives (NTTS, 17; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993). Strange, J.E., and H. Shanks, 'Has the House Where Jesus Stayed in Capernaum Been Found?', BARev 8 (1982), pp. 26-37. Street, G.C., The Strange Woman: Power and Sex in the Bible (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1997). Stroumsa, G.G., 'Myth into Metaphor: The Case of Prometheus', in S. Shaked et al (eds.), GILGUL: Essays on Transformation, Revolution, and Permanence in the History of Religions (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987), pp. 309-23. Sturrock, J.S. (ed.), Structuralism and Since: From Levi-Strauss to Derrida (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979). Swidler, L., Biblical Affirmations of Women (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979). Synek, E.M.,' "Die andere Marie": Zum Bild der Maria von Magdala in den ostlichen Kirchentraditionen', Oriens Christianus 79 (1995), pp. 181-96. Talbert, C, Reading John (New York: Crossroad, 1992). Tannen, D., Gender and Conversational Interaction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). — Gender and Discourse (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). — Talking from 9 to 5: How Women's and Men's Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit, and What Gets Done at Work (New York: William Morrow, 1994). — Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). — That's Not What I Meant! How Conversation Style Makes or Breaks Relations with Others (New York: William Morrow, 1986). — You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (New York: William Morrow, 1990). Taylor, M.C., Altarity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). Thiessen, K.H., 'Jesus and Women in the Gospel of John', Direction 19 (1990), pp. 5364. Thistlethwaite, S., 'Inclusive Language and Linguistic Blindness', TTod 43.4 (1987), pp. 533-39. Thompson, C., 'Hairstyles, Headcoverings, and St. Paul', BA 51 (1988), pp. 99-115. Thompson, M.R., Mary of Magdala: Apostle and Leader (New York: Paulist Press, 1995). Thomson, G., Aeschylus and Athens: A Study in the Social Origins of Drama (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1941). Thurian, M., Mary, Mother of All Christians (New York: Herder & Herder, 1964). Tilborg, S. van, Imaginative Love in John (BIS, 2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993). Tollers, Vincent L., and John Maier (eds.), Mappings of the Biblical Terrain: The Bible as Text (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1990). Tompkins, J.P. (ed.), Reader Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980). Torjesen, K.J., When Women Were Priests: Women's Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993). Tovey, D., Narrative Art and Act in the Fourth Gospel (JSNTSup, 151; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).

Bibliography

213

Trible, P., God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978). -Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984) Trombley, F., 'Prolegomena to the Systemic Analysis of Late Hellenic Religion: The Case of the Aretalogy of Isis at Kyme', in J. Neusner, E.S. Frerichs and A.-J. Levine (eds.), Religious Writings and Religious Systems (2 vols.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), I, pp. 95-113. Trudinger, P., 'John's Gospel as Testimony to the Non-Deity of Jesus', Faith and freedom 48.2 (1995), pp. 106-110. Turner, John, and Anne McGuire (eds.), The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration (NHMS, 44; Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1997). Ubieta, C, Maria Magdalena: tradiciones en el cristianismo primitivo (Institucion San Jeronimo, 27; Estella, Navarra: Editorial Verbo Divina, 1994), pp. 146-74. Vanhoye, A., 'Interrogation johannique et exegese de Cana (Jn 2,4)', Bib 55 (1974), pp. 157-67. Verner, D.C., The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles (SBLDS, 71; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983). Voragine, Jacobus de, The Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine (trans. G. Ryan and H. Rippergar (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1941; reprint Salem, NH: Ayer Co., 1969). — Legenda aurea (ed. T. Graesse; Dresden, 1846). Wainwright, E., 'Jesus Sophia: An Image Obscured in the Johannine Prologue', Bible Today 36/2 (1998), pp. 92-97. Walker, N., The Reckoning of Hours in the Fourth Gospel', NovT4 (I960), pp. 69-73. Warner, M, Alone of All Her Sex (New York: Knopf, 1976). Washington, H., 'Strange Woman of Proverbs 1-9 and Post-exilic Judaean Society', in Brenner (ed.), Wisdom Literature, pp. 157-84. Watson, A., Jesus and the Jews: The Pharisaic Tradition in John (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1995). Webster, J., 'Sophia: Engendering Wisdom in Proverbs, Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon', /SOT 78 (1998), pp. 63-79. Weems, R.J., Battered Love: Marriage, Sex, and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1995). —'The Song of Songs', in Keck et al. (eds.), New Interpreter's Bible, V, pp. 361-434. Wegner, J.R., Chattel or Person ? The Status of Women in the Mishnah (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988). West, A., Deadly Innocence: Feminism and the Mythology of Sin (London: Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co., 1995). West, G., and M.W. Dube (eds.), 'Reading With': An Exploration of the Interface between Critical and Ordinary Readings of the Bible: African Overtures (Semeia, 73; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). West, M., 'Reading the Bible as Queer Americans: Social Location and the Hebrew Scriptures', Theology and Sexuality 10 (1999), pp. 28-42. Wilkinson, J., Egeria's Travels (London: SPCK, 1971). -Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1977). Willett, M., Wisdom Christology in the Fourth Gospel (San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1992).

214

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Wilson, R.M., and G.W. MacRae, 'The Gospel According to Mary: BG, 1.7.1-19,5', in D.M. Parrott (ed.), Nag Hammadi Codices V,2-5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,1 and 4 (NHS, 11; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979), pp. 453-71. Wilson-Kastner, P., Faith, Feminism and the Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). Wind, R., Maria aus Nazareth, aus Bethanien, aus Magdala: drei Frauengeschichten (Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlaghaus, 1996). Windisch, H., 'Die johanneische Weinregel Qn. 2.10]', ZNW14 (1931), pp. 248-57. Wink, W., John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (SNTSMS, 7; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968). Winkler, J.J., The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece (New York: Routledge, 1990). Wire, A.C., The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul's Rhetoric (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1990). Witherington, B., John's Wisdom: A Commentary of the Fourth Gospel (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995). —'On the Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Other Disciples—Luke 8 1-2', ZNW70 (1979), pp. 243-48. —Women in the Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). Wolde, E. van, 'Intertextuality: Ruth in Dialogue with Tamar', in A. Brenner and C. Fontaine (eds.), A Feminist Companion to Reading the Bible: Approaches, Methods and Strategies (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 426-51. Woll, D.B., Johannine Christology in Conflict: Authority, Rank, and Succession in the First Farewell Discourse (SBLDS, 60; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). Woolf, V., Moments of Being (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 2nd edn, 1985). -Monday or Tuesday (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1921). -A Room of One's Own (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1929). — Three Guineas (London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1938). Wyatt, N., '"Supposing Him to Be the Gardener" (John 20,15): A Study of the Paradise Motif in John7, ZNW81 (1990), pp. 21-38. Wyschgrod, E., D. Crownfield and C.A. Raschke (eds.), Lacan and Theological Discourse (SUNY Series in Philosophy; Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989). Yamaguchi, Satoko, Mary and Martha: Women in the World of Jesus (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002). Yee, G., 'I Have Perfumed my Bed with Myrrh: The Foreign Woman in Proverbs 1-9', in Brenner (ed.), Wisdom Literature, pp. 110-26. -'Jezebel', ABD, III, pp. 848-49. Young, P.D., Feminist Theology/Christian Theology: In Search of Method (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1990). Yourcenar, M., Fires (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1981). Zahn, T., Das Evangelium des Johannes (NKZ, 22; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1911). Zeitlin, F., 'The Dynamics of Misogyny: Myth and Mythmaking in the Oresteia', in J. Peradotto and J.P. Sullivan (eds.), Women in the Ancient World: The Arethusa Papers (SUNY Series in Classical Studies; Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984), pp. 159-94.

INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES

BIBLE Genesis 1.1-27

40

2

10, 123,

2.21-22 2.21 2.22 2.23

3 3.3-6 3.15 6.1-4 17.1-2 17.5-8 21.9-21 24.10-61 24.33 24.54 27.1-46 28.3 29.1-10 29.14 35.11 48.3 Exodus 3.14 4.16

6.3 15.20 20.2 20.7

139 138 119, 131

136 136 9 9 149 40 47 106 105 106 108 108 105 48 106 108 48 48

37,85

41 48 53 47 40

22.16-20 34.10-16

122 105

Deuteronomy 5.10 14.1 22.29 29.1-5 32.10-12 32.39

105 106 122 41 42 47

4.21-22 5.28-30

40 50

Psalms

Judges

4.4

2.1 28

53 122 122

9.8 22.8-11 36.7 61.4 71.5-6 71.18 82.1 111.3 111.9 118.26

68 48 42 42 48 48 40 68 68 42

Proverbs

1-9

2 Kings 9.22 17.13-34 17.29-32 22.14

55 106 85 53

2 Chronicles 34.22

53

9.11

50 48 48 61 61 107 61 61 61 61 61

Nehemiah 6.12-14

53

Ecclesiastes 2.13

61

40

1.2

1 Kings 18.19

55

1.23 3.16-18 3.16-17 5.15-18 8.25 8.32-35 8.34-35

9.5

Job 1.6

1.1

Song of Songs

105

216

A feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Song of Songs (cont.) 1.12 110 48 1.13

2.4 2.9 (LXX) 3.1-4 3.2-5

3.4 3.11

4.9 4.10 4.12

5.1 5.2 8.6-7

8.8 8.10

105 149 92 149 118 121 155 155 155 155 155 149 155 48

Isaiah 7.20 22.17-20 25.6 40.8 43.3 43.10 43.11 44.6 44.24 45.5-7 45.18 45.22 46.3-4 46.9 51.12 54.4-8 61.10

109 41 105 68 47 38 47 47 48 47 47 47 48 47 47 105 121

Jeremiah 2.2-3

108

2.2

105, 107

2.13

107 107 46 41 105 42 46 105

3.1 7.16-20 9.1-2 11.15 22.5 44.15-19 49.11-12

Ezekiel 16.8-13 43.7 Hosea 1.2-9

2.1 2.2-10

2.2 2.14-23 13.4

Matthew

105 68 105 106 105 108 108 47

Joel 2.27 4.17 4.18 Zechariah 2.11 12.10 13.1

41 68 105 68 122 122

Wisdom of Solomon 61 7.26-30 68, 70, 77 7.27 61 8.13 106 12.7 Ecdesiasticus 61 4.12 42 6.24-28 6.26 61 50,61 24 68 24.4 61 24.16-19 48 24.18 61 24.21 48 24.24 42 51.23-27 Baruch

3-4

50

1 Maccabees

9.2 2 Maccabees 7.34

174

6.9 6.70 6.71 10.19-20 11.25-30 12.24 12.27 12.28 15.39 16.16-18 16.23 23.37-39

26 26.6-13 26.8 28.8-10 28.9-10 28.9

140, 162

175 148

Mark 1.16-20 1.24 6.53 8.10 8.29 8.33 10.45 13.11 13.22

68 89 171 171 87 89 176 42 42

14

12, 180

14.3-9 14.4 14.9 16.9-20 16.9-11 16.9

179 92 180 175

Luke 1.5-24 1.26-38 1.39-55 2.36 3.23-38 4.34

7 7.36-50

106

42 89 89 42 42 42 42 42 171 88 89 42 12 179 92

140, 162

175 138 138 54 54 10, 138

89 12, 180 109, 147, 179, 189

217

Index of References 7.37-39 7.38 8 8.1-3 8.2 10 10.38-42 11.2 11.15 11.19 11.20 13.34-35 21.15 24 24.10 2411 24.12 , 24.23 24.34 24.36-49

John 1.11-12 1.11 1.12-13 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.18 1.23-33 1.26 1.32-33 1.35-51 1.36 1.38-39 1.38 1.41 1.45 1.49 2 2.1-11

110 91, 147 12 170, 176, 179, 180, 184 147, 180 3,12 179, 189 42 42 42 42 42 42 95 140 95 95 140 176 140 75, 104 72 112 105, 119 71, 122, 129 71 39, 71, 159 71 88 68,69 27 88 68 25, 69, 116, 117 88 88 87,88 2,107 18, 66, 104

2.4 2.5 2.6-10 2.8-10 2.10 2.11 2.12

2.23-25 3.1-21 3.1 3.2 3.3-9 3.3-6 3.3 3.14-15 3.14 3.15-16 3.16-18 3.16 3.18 3.29 3.35 3.36 4 4.1-44 4.1-42 4.4-42 4.4-14 4.6 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.13-14 4.14 4.15-18 4.16-18 4.16 4.20-21 4.21 4.23 4.25

18, 19, 81, 96, 158 105 105 104 18 105 68, 105, 112 82,83 106 82 82,83 71 123, 127 83 164 124 126 112 71, 72, 75, 127 127 106, 155 71 72, 126 22, 27, 81, 82, 85, 87, 106-108 21 21,66 179 106 82 21 21, 69, 84 84, 124 124 76 106 83 84, 106 85 19, 22, 81, 96 21, 116 21,87

4.26 4.27 4.28 4.34 4.35-38 4.35 4.36-38 4.37 4.40 4.42 4.53 4.54 5.17-30 5.18 5.21-27 5.21-26 5.30 5.36 5.38-40 5.38 5.44 6 6.20 6.27-29 6.27 6.33-40 6.33 6.35-59 6.35 6.38 6.40 6.41 6.47-48 6.47 6.48 6.51 6.53-54 6.56 6.57 6.60 6.61 6.63 6.64 6.65 6.66

37, 84, 85 6, 28, 80, 83-85 21, 106 108, 145 107 108 22, 108 22 69 86,87 29 28 71 127 112 126 117 145 112 72 105, 117 27, 28, 89 37 112 69 112 126 88 37, 60, 124 122 126 37, 60, 88 112 126 37,60 37,60 112 69,71 71, 126 27 88 89 88 90 89

218 John (cont.) 6.67 6.68-69 6.68a 6.69 6.70 6.71 7.3 7.9 7.18 7.34 7.36 7.37-38 7.38-39 7.38 7.40-44 7.50 7.53-8.11 8.4 8.10 8.12 8.18 8.21 8.23 8.24 8.28 8.31 8.35 8.41-47 8.41-42 8.42 8.44 8.50 8.54 8.55 8.58 9 9.4 9.16 9.22 9.27 9.38 9.41 10 10.2 10.3

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II 28 89 89 87,88 89,90 91 27 68 105, 117 117 117 83, 124 123 77 88 86 12, 179 60 81 37,60 37,60 117 37, 112 37,60 37, 124 69,72 71 112 127 122 17 105, 117 105 122 37 16,99 122 88 16 27 87 72 96, 141, 153 141 96, 117

10.4 10.7 10.9 10.11-13 10.11 10.14

10.16 10.17-18 10.18 10.25-30 10.26 10.27 10.28 10.30 10.38b 10.40 11 11.1-46 11.1-44 11.1-2 11.2 11.5 11.6 11.19 11.20 11.21 11.22 11.23 11.24 11.25-26 11.25 11.26 11.27-39 11.27

11.28-31 11.30 11.31-33 11.31 11.32 11,33 11.45-46 11.45 11.52 11.54

153 37,60 37,60 141 37,60 37, 60, 117 75 122 101 112 25 25 126 43,71 71 68 24, 86, 87 108 23 86, 110 109, 179 102, 111 68 155 111 86, 112 86 87 87 126 37, 60, 87, 112 87 66 6, 23, 87, 90, 112 111 111 180 110, 155 112 110 88 110, 155 106 68

12 12.1-11 12.1-8

12.2 12.3-4 12.3 12.4 12.5-6 12.7 12.8 12.23-32 12.24 12.27 12.32 12.36 12.43 12.44 12.46 13-21 13 13.5 13.6-11 13.12-17 13.13 13.14-15 13.16 13.19 13.23-25 13.23 13.24 13.30 13.33 13.34 14-17 14.1-11 14.2 14.6

14.9-11 14.9 14.10 14.12 1413-14 14.15

12, 110 109 23, 66, 86, 179 109 109 91, 109, 147 91 91 92, 110, 155 110 164 72 86, 101 124 71 105 43 69 28 27, 28, 91 91 76 76 59,96 91 26 37 93 102 27 92 117 152 60 71 69, 118 37, 60, 126 71 39 71 59 87 152

219

Index of References 14.16 14.17 14.19 14.20 14.21 14.23 14.24 14.25 14.26 14.28 15.1-17 15.1-8 15.1 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8 15.947 15.9-10 15.10 15.14-15 15.15 15.16 15.18-16.4a 15.26 16.2 16.7 16.8 16.19 16.20 16.20b 16.21-22 16.21 16.22 16.23-24 16.32 17.2 17.4 17.6 17.9 17.1448 17.20-23 17.23 18 18.1 18.5 18.6

26 69,71 126 71 19 69 43 68 26 43 69, 70, 72 70 37,60 37, 60, 71 72 72, 87 27 70 71 152 59 75 87 72 26 32,73 26 26 95 95 95 123 71,96 95 87 7,94 126 145 32 72 32 71 71 91 116, 121 37,92 37, 101

18.8 18.11 18.26 19 19.2-5 19.11 19.25-27

19.25-26 19.25 19.26-27 19.26 19.30 19.31 19.33-34 19.34

19.35 19.37 19.39 19.41 20

20.1-18 201-2 20.1 20.2

20.3-10 20.3-9 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.8 20.9-10 20.9 20.10 2011-18

37 91 116, 121 10 121 101 18, 20, 27, 66, 70, 156 103, 112 66, 114 127 81,96 8, 101, 125, 126, 145, 164 126 114 10, 77, 120, 13032, 138, 155, 156 16 156 86 116, 121 11, 28, 29, 99 24, 25, 28, 66,92 92 115 29, 93, 96, 114 92-95 27 93 93 93 93 7, 93, 176 94 7, 93, 94, 115 94 11, 92, 140, 162

2018 2019-29 2019-23 2019-22 20.21 20.22 20,26-29 20.27 20.28 20.29 20.30-31 20.31 20.36 21 21.14 21.22-23 21.24 21.25

180 116, 149 95 95 25, 92, 95, 96, 114 116 175 116 19, 81, 92, 95, 96, 114, 116 117 30 8, 25, 27, 97, 98, 118, 119, 127, 145, 148, 153, 158, 161, 165, 180 164, 165 148, 150, 163-66 29 98 28 164 90 8,126 28 144 87, 122 29,93 18 87, 126 122 30, 91, 99 28 68 17 13

Acts 1-7 1.21-22 21.9

184 169 54

201145 20.11 2011a 2011b 2013 2013a 2014-18 2014 2015 2016a 201748 20.17

2017a 2017b

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

220 Romans 12.5 16 1 Corinthians 4.8 7.1 7.3-4 11

138 3

11.9 11.11-12 11.11 11.12 11.15 12.12 14.1 14.12 14.39 15.5-8 15.5 15.22 Galatians 3.28

102, 136

Ephesians 5.22-23

137

1.13

119

PRE 16

121

Revelation 2.2 2.9 2.20-23

55 55 54

Philo Flacc. 2.89

111

Hypothetica 11.13

20

Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 50 42 2 Baruch 29.5

105

Quaest. in Gen. 1.27 137 1.28 137

Apoc. Mos. 31.3-4

118, 163

Spec. Leg. 3.169

111

Odes 8.14 17.1-7 19.1-5

52 42 53

Vit. Cont. 68

20

Josephus Ant. 14.423-26

174

110

Life 463-504

171

9.14

121

War

Talmuds b. Pes. 46b

171

Christian Authors Cos. Mary (BG) 8502.1:14.1216 162 85021:9.1410.22 161

Mishnah Ket. 2.1 Sot.

1 Timothy 2.9 2.12-15 5.9-15

109 137 20

1 Peter 3.3

109

IJohn 2.10 2.11 2.14 2.24 3.14-15 3.17 3.24

Midrash Midrash Ekha (Lamentations) 2 2 173

2 John

55 161 137 9, 135, 137, 138 134, 136, 137 135 136 137 135 109 138 55 55 55 176 187 138

11.2-16

71 70 70

4.12 4.13 4.15-16

b. Sab.

69 119 69 69 72 71 70

104b

173

b. Sanh. 67a

173

;'. Tflfln. 4.8 4.69c

171 173

2.21.8 3.9.7-10.5

Gos. Thorn. 114

171 171

161

Index of References Ambrose On the Christian Faith 4.2.25 143

Refutation of Heresies 8.12 57

221 38 45 50

188 186 188

Classical Apuleius Metam. 2.9 2.17

155 155

Athenaeus Deipn. 12.553a 12.553od

110 110

Jerome On Virgins 1.5 Augustine In Jo. cxx 2 Serm. 244.2-3

Ep. 155

131

143

Clement of Alexandria Excerpta ex Theodoto 32.1 108 68 108 Paedagogos 1.6

155

Ephraem Syrus Hymns on the Crucifixion 9.2 155, 156 Epiphanius Medicine Box 48 49.1.3 49.2 Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.7-17 5.16.17 5.18.13

(Panarion) 57 57 57

54 57 57

Hippolytus Commentary on the Song of Songs 23.1 155 24.2-4 146 25.2 148 25.6-7 149

59

143

Origen Commentary on John 6.287 143 6.37 163 10.245 143 13.179-80 143 Tertullian On the soul 9

56

Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica 1 Q. 92, art. I 134 De vita Beatue Mariae Magdalenae et sororis ejus Sanctue Marthae 4-36 186 5 187 6 186 8 186 9 187 11 187 15 186 18 186 20-23 187 20 187 21 187 23 187 24 186 25 187 26 186, 187 27 186, 187 28 186 29 187 30 188 32 187 33 186 34-35 187 36-37 187

Artemidorus Oneirocritica (Dream Analysis) 5.63 107 Chariton Chaereas and Callirhoe 8.1.7-8 116 8.1.7 154 Cornelios Nepos Praef. 4-7 111 Galen of Pergamum De semine 2.1 124 On the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body 2.640-43 124 Heliodorus An Ethiopian Tale 2.6.3 154 Hierocles On Duties 4.28.21

111

Petronius Satyricon 57

155

222

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Plutarch Quaestiones conviviales 8.1.2 (717E) 161 Proklos (ad Hesiod) Erga 425 107 Xenophon Oeconomicus 7.19-22 111 An Ephesian Tale 512.1-5.13.4 115 512.3-13.2 154

INDEX OF AUTHORS Achelis,H. 146 Ackerman, S. 46 Alex,M. 183 Alter, R. 106 Arminger, M. 141 Arthur, R.H. 50-52 AshtonJ. 152 Attridge, H.W. 10,11,161 Atwood, R. 117, 118, 141, 145, 160 Aune,D. 37,44,46

Brown, P. 108,109 Brown, R.E. 2, 15, 16, 21, 34, 39, 56, 66, 68, 79, 96, 99, 100, 108, 109, 113, 115, 117-20, 122, 123, 125, 126, 140, 142-44, 146, 147, 151, 153, 176 Buckley, JJ. 52 Bultmann, R. 38, 45, 69, 89, 96, 97, 141, 142, 144, 145, 148, 163 Bynum,CW. 130-32,134

Baarda, T. 162 Bagatti,B. 172 Baigent,M. 145 Bal, M. 122, 156 Baldi,D. 173 Ball, D.M. 38 BarrJ. 66,68 Barrett, C.K. 39, 68, 69, 72, 89, 93, 96, 116, 118, 143, 151 BasslerJ. 86 Bauer, W. 125 Baumgarten, J. 20 Beck,D.R. 20,21 Bell,A.O. 167 Bell,Q. 168 Benoit,P. 146 Berger,K. 50 Biggs, R.D. 46 Bonwetsch, G.N. 146 Borgen,P. 43 Boring, M.E. 44, 48, 50, 59 Botha, J.E. 106 Bovon,F. 160 Boyarin,D. 103,128,136 Braun,M. 178 Brodie,T.L. 83 Brooten,B.J. 54,172

Cambre,M. 92 Camp,C 158 Carmichael, C.M. 83, 107 Cave,T. 115 Charlesworth, J.H. 42, 52, 174 Cheney, E. Ill Chiat,MJ.S. 172 Collins, JJ. 46 Collins, R. 120 Colpe,C. 50 Constable, G. 147 Conway, C.M. 6, 7, 9, 79, 133 Corbo,V. 172 Corley, K.E. 109, 111, 112, 143 Culpepper, R A. 32, 59, 86, 104, 108, 110, 115, 117, 119, 120, 146, 153 D'Angelo, M.R. 3, 15, 23, 35, 44, 97, 98, 118, 133, 142, 143, 163-65 Dalferes,C. 167 Davies,M. 35,43,61 De Boer, E. 141, 143, 145, 147, 148, 152, 154, 160 DeBoer,M.C 79,80,83 deConick, A.D. 159 dejonge, M. 43 Delaney,C 107

224

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

DerrettJ.D. 116,121,155 DillenbergerJ. 141 Dodd, C.H. 39, 71 Donfried, K.P. 176 Dormer, H. 173 Downing, C 123 Duke, P. 117 Dunderberg, I. 159 DunnJ.D.G. 34,35 Dunne, J.S. 75 Eilberg-Schwartz, H. 107 Eller,V. 156 Eslinger, L. 22, 83, 84, 155 ExumJ.C 105,123 Fehribach, A. 7-9, 11, 104, 105, 107, 108, 112, 113, 127, 150, 154-58, 163 Feuillet,A. 118,119,149 Fewell,D.N. 122 Fiorenza, E.S. 2, 15, 23, 25, 48, 49, 54, 55, 57, 58, 61, 64-66, 92, 101, 102, 117, 129, 133, 135, 153, 159, 177, 178, 188 Fitzmyer, J.A. 176 FordJ.M. 155 Fowler, D.C 142 Fuchs,E. 105 Garitte,G. 146,148-50 Garth, H.M. 173,182,189 Giblin, C 112 Gilhus,LS. 50 Gmehling, M.S. 141 Goodman, H. 121,122 Goodman, P. 121, 122 Gottwald, N.K. 44 Grassi,C 115,155 GrassiJ. 115,155 Gray,J. 71 Green, J.P. 36 Haenchen, E. 90, 143-45, 148, 164 Hagg, T. 113, 114, 116 Harvey, S. A. 52,53 Haskins,S. 141,146 Hastings,!. 173

Hauck,F. 68 HeilJ.P. 156 Heilbran,C 169 Heine, S. 146 HeiseJ. 68 Hengel,M. 146 Hoskyns,E. 120-23,126 Huber,E.C 56-58 Ingber-Irvin, B. 167 Irigaray, L. 5, 73, 74, 76, 77 Jasper, A. 28 Jay,N. 127 Jeremias,J. 110 Johnson, A.R. 40,41 Johnson, E. A. 50,70 Johnson, M.D. 163 Keller, E.F. 5, 74, 77 Kendall, D. 146,177 Kenney,S.M. 168 Kimelman,R. 32 King, K.L. 50, 58, 160, 161 Kitzberger, I.R. 2, 140, 146, 152-55, 158, 163 Koivunen, H. 160 Kolodny,A. 108 Kraemer, R.S. 16, 49-51, 54, 56, 57, 111, 112 Kraft, H. 163 Kraft, R. A. 62 Kummel,W.G. 136 Kysar,R. 38,39,91 LaCugna,CM. 75 Laqueur, T. 101, 124, 125 Lee, D.A. 5, 6, 65, 71, 120, 133, 143, 150, 164 Leigh, R. 145 Leon-Dufour, X. 151 Lesses, R. 54 Levine, A.-J. 20, 33, 46, 53, 101 LieuJ. 101 Lightfoot, R.H. 116,121 Lincoln, H. 145 Lindars,B. 93,94,96 Lipsitz,G. 34

Index of Authors Loisy, A. 119, 151 Maccini,R.G. 146 Mace,D. 111,121,122 Maclean, J.K.B. 2 MacRae,G.W. 51,52,161 Maisch,!. 141 Malina, B.J. 105, 111, 112 Maloney, F. 141, 145, 146, 148 Malvern, M.M. 141,159,178 Manns, F. 173 Marcus, J. 168-70 Marcus, R. 137 Marjanen, A. 160 Marr,N. 146 Martin, D.B. 136 Martinez, F.G. 20 Martyn,J.L. 15,16 Marxsen, W. 146 Matera,F. 118 Maurus,R. 147,153 McGuire,A. 52 Meeks,W.A. 31,50,97,98 Merklein,H. 161 Metzger, B. 121 Milosz,C 167 Minear, P.S. 94, 97, 115, 117, 150 Moloney, F.J. 177 Moltmann-Wendel, E. 177 Moore, S.D. 2 Morris, L. 143 Muller,W.G. 152 Murphy, E.F. 167. Murphy, R. 121 Mycoff, D. 181-83, 186, 189 Neirynck,F. 140 Neubauer, A. 173 Newsom, C.A. 65 NeyreyJ.H. 2,111,155 Norrjea, S.J. 79 O'Brien, M. 127,129 O'Collins, G. 146, 177 O'Connor, J.M. 109,171 O'Day, G.R. 25, 66, 70, 75, 90, 91, 93, 95, 108, 151, 152, 158, 163 Okure, T. 115, 117-19

225

Osiek,C 129 Overholt,T. 54 Pazdan, M.M. 81, 82 Perkins,?. 118,119 Perles,O. 143 Petersen, N.R. 101 Piccirillo, M. 172 Pilch, J. 109,110 PlaskowJ. 76 Pomeroy, S. 109 Price, R.M. 160 Reardon, B. 113 Regina,V. 141 Reich, R. 172 Reinhartz, A. 2-4, 7, 16, 25, 59, 66, 67, 85, 117, 158, 163 Rena,J. 79,100,117 Rensberger, D. 72 Reumann,J. 176 Ricci,C 141,148 Richter, G. 126 Riley,G. 159 Ringe,S.H. 65 Ritt,H. 140,146 Robinson, H.W. 40 Robinson, J.A.T. 35,39 Rosenbaum, S.P. 168 Rousselle,A. 124,125 Rubin, G. Ill Ruddick,S.R. 169 Ruether,R.R. 67 Safrai,S. 121 Saiving,V. 76,189 Saldarini, A.J. 10 Satlow, M.L. 103 Sawyer, D. 9-11,130 Saxer,V. 181 SchabergJ.D. 10,12 Schiller, G. 132 Schnackenburg, R. 38, 70, 86, 89, 93, 94, 120, 122, 123, 126 Schneiders, S.M. 2, 15, 27, 59, 66, 70, 79, 80, 90, 106, 107, 119, 140, 146, 147, 149, 150, 152, 154, 156, 158, 163

226

A Feminist Companion to John, Vol. II

Schottroff, L. 51,60,146 Schroer,S. 48 Scott, M. 48, 60, 61, 66, 70, 101 Sedgwick,E. Ill Segovia, F.F. 69,72 Seim, T.K. 66, 79-81, 147, 149, 156 Selvidge, M.J. 81 Setzer,C 28 Shanks, H. 174 Sidebottom, E.M. 39 Silver, B.R. 170 Simkins,R. 123,126 Sloyan,G. 106 Smith, J.Z. 49 Snyder,G.F. 89 Spacks,P.M. 170 Spencer, F.S. 2 Staley,J.L. 108 Starbird,M. 145 Stauffer,E. 38 Stegemann, E.W. 14,20,33 Stegemann, W. 14,20,33 Stibbe, M. 108, 117, 118, 120, 147 Strange, J.E. 174 Swidler,L. 146,147 Synek,E.M. 147 Theissen, K.H. 80,84 Thistlethwaite, S. 40 Thompson, C. 109 Thompson, M.R. 141 Thomson, G. 123,127 Thurian,M. 120,122 Tigchelaar, EJ.C 20

Tilborg, S. van 66, 149, 154, 155, 157 Toensing, H. 2 Torjesen, KJ. 56 Trible,P. 136 Trombley,F. 50 Trudinger,P. 39 Ubieta, C.B. 149, 158 Vanhoye,A. 150 Voragine, J. de 12, 183 Wainwright, E. 61 Warner, M. 179-81,187 Webster,J. 2 West, A. 76 West,M. 2 Wilkinson,}. 173,175 Wilson, R.M. 161 Wilson-Kastner, P. 77 Wind,R. 141 Winkler,JJ. 101,107 Wire,A.C. 55 Witherington, B. Ill 109, 176 Woll, D.B. 45, 59 Woolf, V. 12, 167-70, 174, 175, 189 Wyatt,N. 149 Yamaguchi,S. 4-6,34,63 Yee,G. 55 Young, P.D. 65 Yourcenar, M. 183 Zeitlin,F. 123,126,127