[ Inhaltsverzeichnis ] [ Contents ] [ Table des matières ] |
||
Mary Magdalene and the Disciple Jesus Loved [1]
One of the mysteries of the Gospel of John is the identity
of the disciple Jesus loved. Modern exegetes have offered a number
of suggestions as to the identity of the tantalizingly anonymous
figure: John Mark, John the son of Zebedee, John the Elder, Apollos,
Paul, a Paulinist, Benjamin, Judas Iskariot, Philip, Nathanael,
Judas Jesus’ brother, Matthias, a disciple of the Baptist, Thomas,
an Essene monk from Jerusalem, Lazarus, Andrew, or a symbolic figure, representing the Johannine
community, the Hellenistic brand of the Church or the ideal Christian
disciple. [2]
The historical figures which have been suggested vary widely,
but they have one thing in common: they are all men. Only recently
has another suggestion been put forward. Ramon K. Jusino, in his article ‘Mary Magdalene: Author of the Fourth
Gospel?’ argues in favor of the possibility that Mary Magdalene
could be the Beloved Disciple of the Gospel of John. In his view,
Mary Magdalene, who is called the disciple most loved by Jesus
in the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary, [3]
is in the Gospel of John, after first being mentioned by name,
deliberately turned into the anonymous and male Beloved Disciple.
In the two instances where Mary Magdalene’s name could not be
avoided, namely in John 19,25-27 and 20,1-11, the redactor added
the Beloved Disciple to make sure that Mary Magdalene and he would
be interpreted as two different people. [4]
Jusino suggests, on the basis of the widely respected research of Raymond
E. Brown on the Johannine Community, [5]
that this was done as part of a later process. [6]
According to him, the female beloved disciple is made anonymous
and male to be acceptable to mainstream ideology. Brown argues
that the Johannine community in a very early stage became divided
because of a christological argument. The more heterodox believers
defended a very high christology, whereas the more orthodox believers
wanted to be part of the mainstream emerging Church which defended
Jesus’ corporeality. To those wanting to take part in the growing
institutional Church, Jusino argues, ‘the claim that a female
disciple of Jesus had been their community’s first leader and
hero quickly becomes an embarrassment’. [7] According to
him, the other, more heterodox believers of the community held
on to their tradition. This is the reason why Mary Magdalene in
various heterodox writings appears to be the one loved most by
Jesus. Jusino supports his argument by showing where and how the
redaction of the text was done. Again, drawing on Brown, he shows
that especially in 19,25-27 and 20,1-11, where Mary Magdalene
and the male beloved disciple occur together, there are inconsistencies
in the text, which reveal the hand of a redactor. [8]
In my view, however, there are no significant inconsistencies
in these texts. In this article
[9] I want to argue, like Jusino,
that Mary Magdalene is concealed in the male anonymous disciple,
but, unlike Jusino, my argument does not draw on the Gospel of
Mary or the Gospel of Philip nor on Brown’s research on the Johannine
community. My argument is not one of a redactional nature, revealing
a repressive environment from outside, but is rather based on
the Gospel of John considered as a meaningful unity. [10] In my view, a repressive
atmosphere with regard to women is fundamental to the Gospel of
John as a whole, disclosing a repressive environment within the
Johannine community, which corresponds to the one outside. This
article, however, does not pretend to offer a final solution to
the major problem of the identity of the anonymous disciple Jesus
loved. It is presented as one possibility among others and is
meant to contribute to the on-going debate. Taking into account
the numerous and very different scholarly solutions that have
been offered this far, one can only conclude that, if, indeed,
the Gospel of John wanted the disciple Jesus loved to remain anonymous,
at least to outsiders, the author has proved to be very successful. |
1. John 19,25-27 The idea, that
Mary Magdalene could perhaps be identified as the disciple
Jesus loved, first entered my mind, while I was studying
John 19,25-27.
If one considers this pericope
as a meaningful unity, [11]
the interpretation, which views 19,25 as a parallelism
and suggests that two women are standing
under the cross, instead of four or three, [12] seems the most logical one, verse 25 introducing
what happens in verses 26 and 27. In these latter verses
John describes Jesus as seeing two persons: his mother
and the disciple he loved. This coincides with the interpretation
that John in verse 25 also only means two people: the
mother of Jesus, for the first time mentioned here by
name as Mary of Clopas now that she is on the verge of
losing her identity as a mother, and her sister-in-law
or niece, Mary Magdalene. There would have been no one
else there. The description of the two women also fits
perfectly with a peculiar Johannine trait that William
Watty discerned: the Gospel’s ‘massive effort at precision’
when introducing places or persons, not only giving names
as such, but also several connections with other places
or persons. [13]
So far my main objection against this conjecture was that the disciple
Jesus loved in John is obviously grammatically male. [14]
But if anonymity in the case of the disciple Jesus loved
was so important to the author of John, would indeed the
use of masculine gender not guarantee the anonymity in
a better way than the use of feminine gender, which would
obviously reveal to the readers at least one important
feature of the disciple, namely that she is a woman? It
also occurred to me that a woman being referred to as
male perhaps was not so strange at the time, as it would
be to us now. Grace M. Jantzen showed that spirituality
in early Christianity gradually became identified with
maleness. [15]
She gives several examples of the fact that ‘women whose
spirituality was beyond question were described as honorary
males’. [16]
She also gives examples of cases of cross-dressing. With
regard to Mary Magdalene there is a tradition which speaks
of her maleness. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus promises
Peter that he will lead Mary Magdalene in order to make
her male ‘so that she too may become a living spirit resembling
you males. For every woman who will make herself male
will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.’ [17]
In the Acts of Philip the Savior praises Mary Magdalene
for her manly character. Because of this he gives her
the task of joining the weaker Philip on his mission journey.
But she is not to join him as a woman. ‘As for you, Mary,’
he says, ‘change your clothing and your outward appearance:
reject everything which from the outside suggests a woman.’
[18] James H. Charlesworth, in his impressive monograph on the disciple Jesus
loved, leaves open the possibility that this figure could
be a woman, perhaps Mary, Martha, or Mary Magdalene, in
spite of the masculine grammar. [19]
For him, the final proof that the disciple must be male,
is not the grammar, but the circumstance that the disciple
is called ‘son’. [20]
However, John’s Jesus does not address the disciple as ‘son’, and uses no
other masculine address, which would have completed the
parallelism: He said to his mother: ‘Woman, behold your son.’ Then he said to the disciple ‘behold your mother.’ By leaving out any masculine address, and by only saying ‘Behold your
mother’, he instead
declares the disciple to represent
him as a son. This kind of representation does not necessarily mean
that the disciple has to be male. That a woman may fulfill
the function of a son to a mother is clear from the story
of Ruth and Naomi. The female neighbors praise the way
Ruth cared for her mother-in-law, by mentioning her to
Naomi as: ‘she, who has been more to you than seven sons’
(Ruth 4,15). Moreover, in my view the word ‘son’ in John 19,26 does not in any way
primarily refer to the disciple Jesus loved, but rather
refers to Jesus himself. For the reader who does not know
the flow of the story beforehand, the word ‘son’ directed
to the mother of Jesus designates her own son: the dying
crucified Jesus. The reader thoroughly relates with Mary
when hearing Jesus’ words towards her: ‘Woman, behold
your son.’ It is only after Jesus’ words to the disciple
‘behold your mother’ that the reader suddenly turns to
this second person and begins to grasp that Jesus is inviting
his mother to understand the meaning of his death and
to join his followers. Turning to the disciple Jesus loved,
and hearing those words ‘behold your mother’
the reader is reminded of earlier farewell words
of Jesus: I will not leave you desolate; I will come to
you. Yet a little while, and the world will see me no
more, but you will see me. Because I live, you will live
also. In that day you will know that I am in my Father,
and you in me, and I in you. He who has heard my commandments
and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves
me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and
manifest myself to him. (14,18-21) Obviously, after Jesus died, he can be found in those who keep his words
and as a consequence are loved by him. His father and
he himself will come to them and live in them (14,23).
The ultimate importance of the scene in 19,26-27 lies in Jesus’ invitation
to his mother to look away from her dying son to find
him, alive, in the disciple he loved. At the same time
Jesus’ words are a solemn declaration to this disciple:
he or she may act on Jesus’ behalf, as if he or she were
Jesus himself. To the reader, who remembers Jesus’ prayer
to his Father for all those who followed him, and who
in their turn will attract new followers - ‘... that the
love with which thou has loved me, may be in them, and
I in them…’ (17,26) -, the disciple Jesus loved is the
first of a vast number of those disciples yet to come. Both Jesus’ mother and the disciple react to Jesus’ words. The disciple
by taking Jesus’ mother to him (or her) and the mother
by accepting this. Jesus’ words to his mother and the
disciple he loved, together with their reaction to them,
constitute the beginning of the growing ‘koinonia’ of
those who follow Jesus. In this interpretation of 19,26-27 the word ‘son’ in
19,26 does not say anything about the gender of the disciple
Jesus loved. The ‘son’ is the dying Jesus, who, alive,
can be found in the disciple he loved as the one who may
represent him. [21] 2. The disciple Jesus loved and John 20,1-18 One can distinguish
either five passages about the disciple Jesus loved (13,23-26;
19,26-27; 20,2-10; 21,7.20-24), or six (plus 18,15-16)
or seven (plus 1,37-42). The last two passages are about
‘another disciple’ who, on the basis of 20,2 (interpreted
in an explanatory way: ‘the other disciple, the one whom
Jesus loved’), is identified as the disciple Jesus loved.
[22] It is important to note, that in John not only one anonymous disciple is mentioned
as being loved by Jesus. Jesus also loved, for instance,
Lazarus, Martha and Mary (11,5). He loved all his disciples,
calling them ‘his own’ (15,9-17; 13,1.34; cf. 17,6-12),
even loving those disciples who are yet to come (10,16;
14,21; 17,20-26). Jesus compares ‘his own’ with sheep
who recognize his voice, when he calls them by name, and
who are guided by him to seek good pastures (10,1-10).
That Mary Magdalene is one of ‘his own’ emerges from John’s
story about her in which she recognizes Jesus’ voice when he calls her by name, and listens to his
words (20,16-18). [23]
In addition, she calls him ‘Rabbouni’, which means ‘my
teacher’(20,16). Moreover, in 20,2 she does not fetch
Peter and ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’, but John very
precisely describes the disciple being with Peter as ‘the
other disciple
Jesus loved’. [24] This suggests that either Mary Magdalene or
Peter could be the disciple Jesus loved, who is mentioned
earlier in 19,25-27. However, in most of the pericopes
where John uses the expression, ‘the disciple Jesus loved’
is in the company of Peter. [25]
This means that Peter cannot be the one and leaves Mary
Magdalene as a serious option. When Mary Magdalene
discovers that Jesus’ tomb is empty and she fetches Peter
and the ‘other disciple Jesus loved’, these two run together,
the other disciple outrunning Peter. Then Peter looks
into the tomb and sees the linen cloth, but the other
disciple not only sees, but also believes. After that,
they each return to their own home (20,2-10). After the
resurrection the disciples join Simon Peter who went fishing.
They are Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in
Galilee, those of Zebedee and ‘two others of his disciples’
(21,2). The disciple Jesus loved recognizes Jesus on the
shore and tells Peter about it (21,7). When Jesus later
asks Peter to follow him, Peter, turning, sees that the
disciple Jesus loved indeed follows (21,20-23). John emphasises
that this disciple is the same one who was at Jesus’ chest
at the last Supper (21,20). In my view, John here clarifies
the expression ‘the disciple Jesus loved’ as the one who
was at Jesus’ chest, because the
reference to the other disciple Jesus loved in
20,2 is about another person. Continuing this line of
argument it would be highly probable that ‘the disciple
Jesus loved’ in 21,7.20-23 together with the ‘other disciple
Jesus loved’ in 20,2 are the two unnamed ‘others’ of his
disciples in 21,2. [26] 3. Why this veil of anonymity? Still, there are other anonymous disciples in John. In 1,37-42 two disciples
of John the Baptist decide to follow Jesus: Andrew and
another who is left unnamed. In 18,15-16 not only Peter
(as in Mark, Matthew and Luke) but also ‘another disciple’
follows Jesus after he has been arrested. This disciple,
who is known to the high priest, enters the court, and,
after speaking to the maid who keeps the door, the same
anonymous disciple brings Peter in. It seems strange that,
thereupon, only Peter is asked if he belongs to Jesus’
disciples (18,17.25.26). Why do those present not attack
the other disciple as well? Does this mean that the other
disciple is not easily to be recognized as disciple? [27]
Why does John insist on anonymity ? Why this veil of mystery? John does
not explain this, but at the end of the Gospel it is suggested
that there is a ‘we’- an inside group who understands
and who knows of the disciple Jesus loved, the one who
was at Jesus’ chest, since the author says: This is the disciple who is bearing witness
to these things, and who has written these things; and
we know that his testimony is true. (21,24) Why is the truthfulness
of the testimony emphasized? Why would there be any doubt
about the validity of the witness, if he is the person
whom scholars up until now have suggested is the disciple
Jesus loved? Why would the Gospel not simply mention Andrew,
Lazarus, or Thomas, or John Mark, John son of Zebedee
or any of the others? We will never know. No reasons are
given. [28] However, there could have been one very good
reason, at least at the time, to question the validity
of the witness of the disciple Jesus loved and to hide
the disciple’s identity: if this disciple was a woman.
I would even suggest that the other anonymous disciples
are perhaps left anonymous for the same reason: because
they are women. 4. The legitimacy of a woman’s authority The disciple Jesus loved apparently was very important to those who wrote
the Gospel. But, if indeed this disciple was a woman,
her authority as the person behind the writing of John
could have been seen as unacceptable, since it was a point
of debate if women were allowed to have authority over
men. In several canonical first century letters wives are encouraged to be
submissive
to their husbands, while the husbands are told to love their wives (Ephesians
5,21-33; Colossians 3,18-19; 1 Peter 3,1-7). Paul, when
demanding that women wear veils when praying or prophesying
(1 Corinthians 11,1-16), argues that the reason for this
is that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a
woman is her husband and the head of Christ is God. However,
later in the argument he changes from wives to woman in
general, referring to the creation: »For man was not made
from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created
for woman, but woman for man.” (1 Corinthians 11,8-9)
In addition, while 1 Peter 3,1-7 refers to the submissiveness
of Sarah to Abraham, in 1 Timothy 2,1-11 the creation
analogy is used again: »For Adam was formed first, then
Eve,” continuing thus »and Adam was not deceived, but
the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” The
author concludes that a woman has to learn with all submissiveness:
»I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over
men: she is to keep silent.” This text and the perhaps
non-Pauline text in 1 Corinthians 14,34-36 about women
who are to keep silent in the assemblies [29]
were quoted again and again in the centuries that followed
to emphasize that women are not allowed to have authority
over men. Schüssler Fiorenza refers to the fourth century Dialogue Between a Montanist and an Orthodox
which, through means of a discussion between a montanist
and an orthodox Christian, shows their respective viewpoints.
[30]
The orthodox viewpoint may reflect a very early stand,
since it corresponds to the arguments in the first century
letters, which claim that woman is to be submissive to
man. The following quotation from the Dialogue comments on women’s authority,
concentrating on those women who wrote books, like the
second century Montanist prophetesses Prisca and Maximilla: Orthodox:
We do not reject the prophecies of women. Blessed Mary
prophesied when she said: »Henceforth all generations
shall call me blessed.” And as you yourself say, Philip
had daughters who prophesied and Mary, the sister of Aaron,
prophesied. But we do not permit women to speak in the
assemblies, nor to have authority over men, to the point
of writing books in their own name: since, such is, indeed,
the implication for them of praying with uncovered head
(…) Wasn’t Mary, the Mother of God, able to write books
in her own name? To avoid dishonoring her head by placing
herself above men, she did not do so. Montanist:
Did you say that to pray or to prophesy with uncovered
head implies not to write books? Orthodox:
Perfectly. Montanist:
When Blessed Mary says: »Henceforth all generations shall
call me blessed,” does she or doesn’t she speak freely
and openly? Orthodox:
Since the Gospel is not written in her name, she has a
veil in the Evangelist. Would a Gospel then, primarily based on the authority of Mary Magdalene
be acceptable? Later
in the discussion the Montanist asks the following crucial
question: Montanist: Is it because they have written
books that you do not receive Prisca and Maximilla? Orthodox:
It is not only
(italics EAB) for this reason, but also because
they were false prophetesses, following their guide Montanus. Schüssler Fiorenza also refers to the fourth century Didymus the Blind
who propounds a similar argument, likewise drawing heavily
on the first century letters: [31] Scripture recognizes as prophetesses the four
daughters of Philip, Deborah, Mary, the sister of Aaron,
and Mary, the mother of God, who said, as recorded in
the Gospel: »Henceforth all women and all generations
shall call me blessed.” But in Scripture there are no
books written in their name. On the contrary, the Apostle
says in First Timothy: » I do not permit women to teach,”
and again in First Corinthians: »Every woman who prays
or prophesies with uncovered head dishonors her head.”
He means that he does not permit a woman to write books
impudently, on her own authority, nor to teach in the
assemblies, because, by doing so, she offends her head,
man: for »the head of woman is man, and the head of man
is Christ.” The reason for the silence imposed on women
is obvious: woman’s teaching in the beginning caused considerable
havoc to the human race; for the apostle writes: »It is
not the man who was deceived, but the woman.” (On the
Trinity 3.41.3) When Origen at the end of the second century comments on the verse ‘for
it is shameful for a woman to speak in the community’
from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he draws
on the same canonical examples of prophesying women, which
the disciples of Prisca and Maximilla, he states, use
as their argument. Origen argues that, when these biblical
figures ( the daughters of Philip, Deborah, Mary the sister
of Aaron, Hulda, Anne daughter of Phanuel) prophesied,
they did not do so in public, since their prophesies are
not recorded in Scripture. He refers to 1 Timothy 2,12
and Titus 2,3-5 concluding that a woman is to keep silent,
‘even if she says admirable or holy things’ and he continues
‘however, it comes out of the mouth of a woman.’ [32] Tertullian, even after he became inclined to Montanism himself, quoted
Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians as fervently as
he did before. Although in two cases he cites the prophesies
of Prisca and Maximilla he still argues that women are
not allowed to speak in the assemblies, to teach, to baptize,
to serve the eucharist, or to do any task that belong
to males. This, he adds, not only applies to married women,
but to all women, including the unmarried. [33] Thus, the second century Prisca and Maximilla are not only discussed because
of the content
of their prophesies, but also because they as women prophesy
in public and write books, and as such claim authority
over men. Their authority is attacked with quotations
from the first century letters. It is striking that Clemens
of Alexandria, who clearly defends the equality of men
and women, nevertheless, actually does the same. According
to him, although men and women have the same nature and
are both capable of attaining self control and virtue,
their physical differences lead to inequality. Quoting
Corinthians, Ephesians and Collosians he argues that woman
must submit to man. [34]
Apparently there
were Christians and Christian communities who would reject
a Gospel written by a woman or relying on the authority
of a woman. Such a repressive environment might be the
reason why, if the theologian behind the Gospel of John
was a woman, the author of John choose to give her more
than the ‘veil’ that Luke, according to the orthodox (see
the Dialogue), gave Mary the mother of Jesus. The author
went to the extent of leaving her anonymous. 5. Repressive elements in John Jusino declares this to be a later development. A later orthodox redactor
would have left out Mary Magdalene’s name and would, by
his redaction of John 19,25-27 and 20,1-11, purposefully
have made it difficult for the readers to identify Mary
Magdalene as the beloved one. The repressive environment from outside the
Johannine community would have made this necessary. In
my view, however, apart from the fact that precisely my
interpretation of 19,25-27 and 20,1-18 (based on the text as a meaningful unity) led
me to the conjecture that Mary Magdalene could be the
disciple Jesus loved, there are also repressive elements
in the Gospel of John that reveal a debate about women
within the Johannine community itself. There are circumstances
related within the Gospel which disclose a caution, a
hesitancy, not to be too straightforward about female
discipleship. [35] In John there are hints of a female awareness
of being seen and spoken to primarily as ‘woman’, or as
‘other’ [36]
and being in a suspect situation when acting as a person,
without regard for maleness and femaleness (4,27; cf.4,9).
The story of the adulteress (8,1-11), although it does
not originally belong to the Gospel, reflects the awareness
of being vulnerable as a woman at the mercy of male power.
[37]
In addition, it is noteworthy, that the women in John
whom Jesus addresses are either his relatives, his mother
and Mary Magdalene, or are already acquainted with him,
being in the company of a male relative of their own who
is Jesus’ friend (Martha and Mary as sisters of Lazarus).
Only the Samaritan woman is strange to Jesus. [38]
Moreover, it is striking that the women Jesus relates
to in John are in their domestic situations. The Samaritan
woman is drawing water near her own town (4,4-42) and
Martha and Mary are in their own Bethany, caring for their
brother (11,1-44; 12,1-8). In view of this, Mary of Magdala
seems to be the exception, appearing rather unexpectedly
in Jerusalem. However, since Jesus’ mother is the only
woman clearly mentioned to be travelling with Jesus (2,12),
Mary Magdalene as a relative could have joined her. [39]
This is all
very different from the synoptic Gospels, in which Jesus
addresses women freely. The synoptic Gospels do not portray
them as his relatives or as relatives of male friends.
Moreover Mark, Matthew and Luke all speak of ‘many women’
who followed Jesus, travelling with him and learning from
him. According to John, Jesus apparently moves within
the boundaries of more conservative attitudes towards
women than he does in the synoptic Gospels. With regard
to this it is important to note, that in John there is
a certain ambiguity towards women on the part of the disciples
and Jesus. In the story about Jesus and the Samaritan
woman there is a hesitancy on the part of Jesus. Jesus,
weary from his journey, sitting down beside the well,
asks only for water, with as few words as possible, and
even omits gu&nai from his address.
[40] The woman thereupon starts
the dialogue. [41] However, when she asks
to be given the living water, Jesus wants her to fetch
her husband (4,16), but she appears to be a woman on her
own. The disciples, returning from their shopping, marvel
in turn that Jesus is talking with a woman (4,27). In
a way the story builds up like the story of the Syrophoenician
woman in Mark and Matthew: not only the Samaritan woman,
but also Jesus is learning, and so are the disciples and
the readers. The story as a whole illustrates that, although
it may seem strange, women appear to be able to be partners
in theological discourse, capable of ‘leaving everything
behind’, and of having their share in mission (quite successfully
too), even on their own initiative as their response to
Jesus’ self revelation that he is the Messiah. The story
as a whole also shows that Jesus himself becomes aware
that women may be sowers of the seed like he, and that
the disciples need not be afraid, or need not stop them,
but may rejoice with them, reaping the harvest (4,27-38). 6. John’s careful approach Apparently there is a repressive environment, not only from outside the
Johannine community, but also from within, from John’s
Jesus and his disciples who approach women carefully.
Within these conservative boundaries, however, portraying
women in their domestic situations, or as belonging to
Jesus’ relatives, there is at the same time in John a
clear display of female self consciousness: not only in
general, but also with regard to female discipleship.
John portrays women as speaking far more than Mark, Matthew
and Luke. In Mark only five instances of women speaking
are recorded, [42]
in Matthew women speak nine times [43]
and in Luke eleven times, [44]
only four of which occur in stories about Jesus as a grown
man. [45]
In contrast to the Synoptics, John records 22 instances
of women speaking. [46]
When one considers the words of women spoken in dialogue with Jesus the
difference is even more obvious. In Mark and Matthew only
the Syrophoenician woman speaks with Jesus (one time in
Mark; three times in Matthew),
and in Luke only his mother, Martha and the woman from
the crowd (each one time). [48]
In John, however, all the women, except the doorkeeper
of the court of the high Priest, are portrayed in a self
conscious dialogue with Jesus: his mother speaks one time,
the Samaritan woman six times, Martha and Mary together
one time, Martha alone four times, her sister Mary one
time, and Mary Magdalene two times. [49]
The other seven times women speak are in a self conscious context too.
The mother of Jesus, at the wedding of Cana, tells the
servants to do whatever Jesus asks them to do (2.5). The
Samaritan woman leaves everything behind to evangelize
the citizens of her hometown Sychar (4,29.39). Martha
calls her sister Mary unto Jesus, as Andrew called his
brother Simon Peter and Philip called Nathanael. It is
strikingly different, however, that her call is said to
be in secret. After she confessed Jesus to be the Christ,
the Son of God, who should come into the world (the confession
which Mark, Matthew and Luke reserve for Peter), John
relates: When she had said this, she went and called
Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Teacher is here
and is calling for you. (11,28) [50] In response to Martha’s call, Mary rises quickly to come unto him. The
woman doorkeeper at the court of the high Priest takes
the initiative of identifying Peter to be one of Jesus’
disciples (18,17). Last but not least, Mary Magdalene
summons Peter and the other disciple Jesus loved to come
to the empty tomb (20,2), where she, after they have gone,
addresses the angels to find out where Jesus’ body has
been taken (20,13). Women are clearly portrayed in discipleship roles, learning from Jesus,
seeking to understand, confessing him, summoning others
and evangelizing, but they are indeed never called disciples. Although the marks of Johannine
discipleship, – ‘if you continue in my word’(8,31), ‘if
you have love for one another’(13,35), and if ‘you bear
much fruit’(15,8) – are clearly not exclusive, the word
‘disciple’, when used, is connected with male names or
male figures only. [51] Even though
the Samaritan woman bears much fruit, even though Mary
shows her love, and even though Jesus’ mother, Martha
and Mary Magdalene continue in Jesus’ word. The repressive
environment with regard to women, not only from outside,
but also from within the Johannine community, could be
the reason why, if the disciple Jesus loved is a woman,
the Gospel could have chosen to leave her anonymous, making
her male, and to refrain from actually calling women disciples.
This could perhaps also be the reason why John does not
mention the ‘many women’ who, according to the Synoptics,
followed Jesus. Or should we assume that this feature
of tradition was unknown to John? If the author wants the close readers to discover that the anonymous
disciples are female, then Mary Magdalene being the anonymous
beloved disciple is one of the hints that women are included
in the grammatically masculine group of John’s disciples.
The other hint is the fact that the disciples in 20,17-18
are to understand that, from that moment on, Jesus’ Father
is their Father. In 1,12 John proclaims that this applies
to all who received Jesus, who believed in his name, Jesus
giving them the power to become children of God. Here
indeed John uses the inclusive word te&kna. However, on the surface
of the story no mention is made of women disciples
having actually traveled with Jesus. John thus presents
women in a very careful manner: portraying them in discipleship
roles in domestic situations, or, outside domestic situations,
as belonging to Jesus’ relatives. Within these boundaries,
however, John allows them self-conscious and theologically
relevant dialogue with Jesus. The Gospel apparently chose
not to confuse or to offend its readers, to arouse suspicions
or to strengthen prejudices, by explicitly identifying
the witness behind the Gospel as female and by unreservedly
presenting female disciples. Instead, it chose to leave
both anonymous, making them male, in order to be able
to present the thoughts and stories of Mary Magdalene,
as the one behind the Gospel, in an acceptable manner. 7. Charlesworth‘s eight criteria Charlesworth, on the basis of a detailed exegesis of the passages in which
the disciple Jesus loved occurs, developed eight criteria
to judge the various attempts to identify this person:
[52] 1.
the love Jesus felt for the
disciple must be demonstrable,
2.
a clear reason for the anonymity
must be given, 3.
the closeness of exactly this
disciple to Jesus, and his or her authority over the others,
should be adequately explained, 4.
an explanation is needed for
the fact that the disciple occurs relatively late in the
Gospel, 5.
an explanation must be given
for the scene at the cross, 6.
the emphasis of the validity
of the testimony should be explained, 7.
the fear, that is caused by
the prospect of the death of the disciple, must be explained, 8.
and the almost polemic rivalry between the disciple and Peter should
be clarified. We will test all these criteria on Mary Magdalene. As we have seen Jesus loved all his disciples, calling them ‘his own’,
being those who recognize his voice when he calls them
by name, and who listen to his words. In John’s story
about Mary Magdalene she indeed recognizes his voice,
when Jesus calls her by name, and she listens to his words,
going to the disciples, saying what he asked her to say
(20,16.18). This would suggest that Mary Magdalene is
one of Jesus’ own and that she thus, implicitly, is a
disciple, loved by him. Also the three criteria of Johannine
discipleship apply to her. She continues in Jesus’ words
(20, cf. 8,31), she shows love to the mother of Jesus
(19,27; cf.13,35), and as witness to the significance
of the resurrection (20,17; cf. 1,12), she bears much
fruit (15,8). The anonymity of Mary Magdalene as the disciple Jesus loved, the second
criterion, as we argued earlier, may be explained by the
fact that she is a female disciple. Testimony from a female
disciple would have been difficult to accept, not only
for those outside the Johannine community, but, as we
have shown, also for the Johannine community itself. Mary Magdalene’s special authority (the third criterion) is evident from
the fact that she is the only witness to the precise meaning
of Jesus’ resurrection, which Jesus reveals only to her.
Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene alone before ascending
to his Father. She alone is the witness and proclaimer
of the new bond Jesus initiates at that very moment: ‘my
Father – your Father, my God – your God ‘(20,17). Jesus
urges her to go and tell this to his brothers and sisters.
Mary Magdalene interprets this request in her own way
and does not go to Jesus’ relatives, but to the disciples.
Already at the Last Supper Jesus said to his disciples,
his ‘own’(13,1), as such also Mary Magdalene, Martha and
Mary and perhaps other women too, that he would no longer
call them slaves, but friends, since he had revealed everything
to them (15,15), but now they have become his brothers
and sisters, he and they are all children of the one Father.
The reader understands that Mary Magdalene’s interpretation
has become authoritative to the Johannine community, since
it is the crucial message of the Gospel, formulated in
the prologue, which says that Jesus indeed has come, so
that all those who accept him, who believe in his name,
will receive from him the strength to become children
of God, by being born anew (1,12-13). [53]
This will be done through the Spirit (3,5), Jesus’ ascension
to the Father making the gift of the Spirit finally possible
(16,5-7). [54]
But how should we explain Mary Magdalene’s closeness to Jesus at the Last
Supper (the second clause of the third criterion), where
she is ‘reclining on Jesus’ bosom’, which means sitting
/ lying next to him, Peter motioning to her to ask of
Jesus who will betray him? Why this special position?
On the one hand this could be explained by the circumstance
that she, according to John, is close family, the niece
or the sister in law of his mother (19,25-26). In contrast
to the Synoptics, Jesus’ relatives do have a role in John.
His mother urges him to interfere at the wedding in Cana
and his brothers and sisters, when he is in Galilee losing
many disciples (6,66), rather cynically urge him to go
to his disciples in Judea (7,1-9). When in 2,12 the train
of his followers is described, his mother is mentioned
first, then his brothers and sisters and, finally, his
disciples (2,12). The ‘reclining on Jesus bosom’ also
has a metaphorical meaning. The metaphor of the bosom
in Judaism symbolizes the handing over of authoritative
tradition. [55]
The disciple Jesus loved being at Jesus’
bosom represents the receiving of tradition and
authority especially now, when Jesus’ end is near. If
indeed there are two women under the cross and the disciple
Jesus loved is one of them, Mary Magdalene is this disciple
to whom Jesus refers his mother, as the one in whom he
himself can be found, declaring this disciple to be the
one who may represent him (19,25-27). Why does the disciple Jesus loved, if she is to be identified as Mary
Magdalene, occur so late in the Gospel? That is the fourth
question that according to Charlesworth is to be answered.
Indeed, John introduces the expression ‘the disciple Jesus
loved’ relatively late in 13,23. This might be because
chapter 13 forms
the beginning of the farewell discourse which ends in
chapter 17. Jesus as the one loved by God, now passes
his authoritative knowledge on to the one loved by him.
The anonymous disciple may already have been present right
from the start as Jesus’ first disciple in 1,35, a former
disciple of John the Baptist. [56]
According to Brown the anonymous disciple is distinguished
as the loved one at the Last Supper and not earlier, since
only in this christological context of ‘the hour’, the
identity as the loved one, close to Jesus, plays a role.
[57]This
coincides with the fact that in Mark and Matthew Mary
Magdalene is also anonymously present from Galilee onwards,
being specifically mentioned only late in the Gospel story,
at the time of the suffering, death and resurrection of
Jesus. Even in Luke, although her name is mentioned earlier,
she only plays her part at the end of the Gospel. An explanation of the scene at the cross, the fifth criterion of Charlesworth,
has already partly been given. Jesus solemnly declares
Mary Magdalene to represent him and to act on his behalf,
while he invites his mother to find him in her. By reacting
positively to this, together they represent the growing
‘koinonia’ of those who follow
Jesus in the near and distant future. Yet something
else happens after
Jesus has died. His side is pierced by a spear and a testimony
about this is recorded by an eyewitness. This is the second
half of Charlesworth’s fifth criterion. Why could this
witness be Mary Magdalene? Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus to the house of Caiaphas,
where Peter publicly denied being a disciple of Jesus.
After this, Jesus is led to the Praetorium and we hear
nothing of Peter until the day Jesus’ tomb is found empty.
At the crucifixion in John, as in Mark, Matthew and Luke,
no known male disciples are mentioned as being present
(cf.16,32; 18,8; 20,19). In John the anonymous ‘other
disciple’ from 18,15-16 seems the one who remains, appearing again as the disciple
Jesus loved beneath the cross: Mary Magdalene. This person
‘whose testimony should not be doubted’ is the same as
the one who witnesses the side of Jesus being pierced
with a spear: ‘and at once there came out blood and water’.
John adds: He who saw it has borne witness - his testimony is true, and he knows and tells
the truth – that you also may believe.(19,36) Thus Mary Magdalene, as the disciple Jesus loved and the only mentioned
disciple still present is the one who bore witness to
this. First to the fact that Jesus really died and secondly
to the insight that Jesus’ death indeed procured not only
blood, as a symbol
of his gift of love (cf. 10,11-15) but also water, as
a symbol of the holy Ghost (cf. 1 John 5,6-8). [58]
Where Mary Magdalene in the synoptic Gospels is witness
to the fact that Jesus is really buried, here she is witness
to the meaning of his death. In the same way John presents
her as the key witness to the precise meaning of Jesus’
resurrection. Testing Mary Magdalene against Charlesworth’s sixth criterion we are to
explain why the validity of her testimony should be emphasized.
As we already suggested, this emphasis is due to the fact
that at least the we-group knows that the disciple Jesus
loved is a woman. The repressive attitude towards women
claiming authority, not only from outside, but also from
within the Johannine community, shows that especially
the testimony of a woman could have been easily doubted
or rejected. Charlesworth’s seventh criterion is based on his interpretation of 21,21-23.
He suggests that the community feared the death of the
disciple Jesus loved. Apparently there circulated a rumor,
which had its origin in what Jesus himself said, that
the disciple he loved would not die (21,21-23). The community,
who found its identity in the testimony of the disciple
Jesus loved, could have feared the death of Mary Magdalene
(or could have been traumatized by the death of Mary Magdalene),
since she is the only one to whom Jesus revealed the precise
meaning of his resurrection. She is the only witness of
the new bond Jesus proclaimed at that very moment. As
appears from the prologue her testimony to this bond and
her interpretation of it became vital to the creed of
the community (1,12).
Concerning the
eighth criterion we have to remember that we choose to
interpret the other disciple that outruns Peter as another
(female) disciple (perhaps to symbolize the gender-difficulties
in the community?), rather than the disciple Jesus loved
who stood beneath the cross. Charlesworth’s idea that
any rivalry between Peter and the disciple Jesus loved
exists derives for the most part from the disciple outrunning
Peter. Nevertheless, it is obvious that Peter recognizes
the fact that the disciple Jesus loved is closer to Jesus
than he himself (13,23-24 and 21,7.20-23). In the Synoptics
there is no disciple closer to Jesus than Peter. In the
later non-canonical sources, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary and Pistis Sophia, Peter
and Mary Magdalene appear together, Peter denying rather
than recognizing Mary Magdalene’s closeness to Jesus.
[59] In these writings Mary
Magdalene indeed has a special position. In the Gospel
of Philip and the Gospel of Mary she is the only person
to whom the other disciples refer to as the one loved
by Jesus more than the others and as the one who has a
greater insight. [60] In the Gospel of John the
two are held in balance, Peter receiving the authority
to care for Jesus’ followers in a pastoral way (21,15-19),
[61] whereas Mary Magdalene
receives and understands the crucial message of the Gospel
(20,17; cf. 1,12). 8. Conclusion Primarily on the basis of John 19,25-17 and 20,1-18 , but also on the
basis of John’s caution concerning female discipleship,
on the basis of the repressive elements within and without
the Johannine community when the authority of women is
at stake, and on the basis of Charlesworth’s eight criteria, I conclude that Mary Magdalene should
be seen as a serious candidate for the identification
of the anonymous disciple Jesus loved in the Gospel of
John. If we indeed look upon her as an important candidate, this has consequences for our general perspective
on Mary Magdalene. She would have had disciples, her testimony
would have formed a community, her accounts not only of
the death and resurrection of Jesus, but also of his life
and teachings, would have been preserved. But not only
that, her words would have been canonized and taught through
the ages, and spread over the world.
© Esther A. De Boer, 2000 Bibliography Beck, D.R. The Discipleship Paradigm: Readers and Anonymous Characters
in the Fourth Gospel. Leiden, New York, Köln:
E.J. Brill, 1997. Berger, K. Im Anfang war Johannes. Datierung und Theologie des
vierten Evangeliums. Stuttgart: Quell Verlag,
1997. Bovon, F. ‘Le privilège Pascal de Marie Madeleine.’ New Testament Studies 30
(1984), p.50-62. Brown, R.E. The Gospel according to John. Introduction, Translation
and Notes. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, New
York: Doubleday & Company. Part One (John I-XII) 1966,
Part Two (John XIII-XXI) 1970. Brown, R.E. ‘Roles of Women in the Fourth Gospel’.
Theological
Studies 36 (1975), p.688-699. Reprinted in
his Community of the Beloved Disciple. Brown, R.E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple.
The Life, Loves and Hates of an Individual Church in New
Testament Times. New York: Doubleday &
Company, 1979. Brown, R.E. The Death of the Messiah. From Gethsemane
to the Grave: a Commentary on the Passion Narratives in
the Four Gospels. Two Vols. New York: Doubleday,
1993. Charlesworth, J.H. The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel
of John? Valley Forge: Trinity Press International,
1995. De Boer, E.A. Mary Magdalene. Beyond the Myth. Trs. John Bowden. Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1997. Fee, G.D. God’s Empowering Presence. The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul.
Peabody (Mass.): Hendrickson, 1994. Ficker, G. ‘Widerlegung eines Montanisten’. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte,
t.XXVI 1905, p.447-463. Gryson, R. Le ministère des femmes dans l’Église ancienne. Recherches
et synthèses, section d’histoire IV. Gembloux: Éditions
J. Duculot, S.A., 1972. Hengel, M. The Johannine Question. Trs. By John Bowden.
London: SCM Press, 1989. Hoskyns, E.C. The Fourth Gospel. Ed. F.N. Davey. London:
Faber and Faber Limited, 1947. Ilan, T. Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine. An Inquiry into Image and Status.
Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 44. Tübingen: J.C.B.
Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1995. Jantzen. G.M. Power, Gender and Christian Mysticism. Cambridge
Studies in Ideology and Religion 8.Cambridge: University
Press, 1997. Jusino, R.K. ‘Mary Magdalene, author of the Fourth Gospel?’, 1998. http://www.BelovedDisciple.org Klauck, H.-J. ‘Die dreifache Maria. Zur Rezeption von Joh 19,25 in EvPhil
32. In: Van Segbroeck, F. e.a. (eds.) The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift Frans
Neirynck III. Leuven, 1992, p.2343-2357. Meyer, M.W. ‘ »Male” and »Female” in the Gospel of Thomas.’ New Testament
Studies 31, 1985, p.554-570. Morris, L. The Gospel according to John. Revised Edition.
The New International Commentary on the New Testament.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1995. O’Day, G. R. ‘John’. In: Newsom, C.A., Ringe, S.H. The Women’s Bible Commentary.
Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster / John Knox Press, 1992,
p.293-304. Reinhartz, A. ‘The Gospel of John’. In: Schüssler Fiorenza, E. (ed.).
Searching the
Scriptures II. A Feminist Commentary. London:
SCM Press, 1994. Roukema, R. De uitleg van Paulus’ eerste brief aan de Corinthiërs
in de tweede en derde eeuw. Kampen: Kok, 1996. Schenke, M. ‘The Function and Background of the Beloved Disciple in the
Gospel of John.’ In: Hedrick, C.W., Hodgson, R.Jr. (eds.).
Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity.
Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers,
1986, p.111-125. Schnackenburg, R. Das Johannesevangelium. Herders Theologischer
Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 4. Freiburg, Basel, Wien:
Herder Verlag, 1975. Schneiders, S. ‘Women in the Fourth Gospel and
the Role of Women in the Contemporary Church.’ Biblical Theology Bulletin
12 (1982), 35-45. Schüssler Fiorenza, E. In Memory of Her. A Feminist Theological Reconstruction
of Christian Origins. London: SCM Press, 1983. Seim, T.K. ‘Roles of Women in the Gospel of John’. In: Hartman, L. &
Olsson, B. (eds.). Aspects on the Johannine Literature. Papers presented
at a Conference of Scandinavian New Testament Exegetes
at Uppsala, June 16-19, 1986. Coniectana Biblica.
New Testament Series 18. Van Tilborg, J. Imaginative Love in John. Biblical Interpretation
Series 2. Leiden, New York, Köln, 1993. Watty, W.W. ‘The Significance of Anonymity in the Fourth Gospel.’ The Expository
Times 90, 1979, p.209-212. Westcott, B.F. The Gospel according to St. John. With Introduction
and Notes. London: John Murray, 1902. © Esther A. De Boer, 2000 [1]This article has been written as part of my dissertation project ‘Reconsidering the Gnostic Mary. Mary Magdalene in the Canonical Gospels and the Gospel of Mary’ under the supervision of prof. Dr. C. den Heyer, dr. R. Roukema and dr. C. Vander Stichele. I wish to thank them for their useful commentary and at the same time express my special gratitude to Paula Pumplin for her comments on the English text. [2] For various authors and their arguments see Brown 1966, p.xcii-xcviii and especially Charlesworth 1995, p.127-218. The option for Andrew was offered quite recently by Berger 1997, p. 96-109. The name John comes from Church tradition, the raised Lazarus is proposed because of Jesus’ love for him (11,5) and because of the rumour that the disciple Jesus loved would not die (21,23). It has also been suggested that the Beloved Disciple is a redactional fiction which allows the Gospel to be presented as being based on the testimony of an eyewitness. See the survey of Schenke 1986, p.114-119. There are also exegetes who interpret the concept of the Beloved Disciple on a literary level as a character for the reader to identify with. So for instance Watty 1979, p.212: ‘As long as the disciple remains unnamed, any disciple, however recent, however late, may be the disciple whom Jesus loved, who reclined on his breast at the Supper and who may be still alive when he comes.’ See also Beck 1997, according to whom all John’s anonymous characters together form ‘an established paradigm of appropriate response to Jesus’ (p.144). Schenke 1986, p.120-125, studied Mary Magdalene, James and Judas Thomas in the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, suggesting Judas Thomas to be the Beloved Disciple in John, which Charlesworth in his monograph investigated further. [3] Gospel of Philip 64,1-5; Gospel of Mary 18,14-15. [4] Jusino 1998, p.9-18, refers to the inconsistencies most exegetes see in John 19,25-27 and 20,1-11: the sudden presence of the male disciple in 19,26 and the seemingly later inserted text about Peter and the disciple Jesus loved in 20,2-10. [5] Brown 1979. [6] See Jusino 1998, p.5, where he distinguishes three stages in the process, namely 50-80 A.D.: The community is led by Mary Magdalene; 80-90 A.D.: After the death of Mary Magdalene the community is divided by a christological schism (like Brown distinguishing Secessionists and Apostolic Christians); 90-100 A.D.: one group of the community, fearful of persecution, seeks amalgamation with the emerging institutional Church, the other holds on to the community’s tradition and cites Mary Magdalene as the Beloved disciple of Jesus, which is reflected in the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Philip. [7] Jusino 1998, p.5. [8] See note 4. [10] Hengel 1989, p.83-96, gives a survey of the various scholarly opinions on the unity of the Gospel as a whole, ranging from the view that the unity ‘is lost beyond saving’ (E. Schwartz) to the view that the Gospel is like the ‘seamless robe of Christ’ (D.F. Strauss). Hengel himself argues for a ‘relative unity’ (p. 96-108), since the recently found three Johannine papyri dating from the second century give no evidence of alleged primal forms of the Gospel. A second important argument is the unity in language and style and the coherence of the narrative (he refers to studies of E. Schweizer, E. Ruckstuhl, R. Kieffer, B. Olsson, R.A. Culpepper, G. van Belle). In Hengel’s view the Gospel is a ‘relative’ unity due to the fact that is has been written over a long period of time, based on oral teaching, and that the Gospel was published after the author’s death by his pupils. However, behind the Gospel is one dominant creative and theological authority. [11] Exegetes have noted two problems: the difference in the women named in the Gospel of John and those named in the Synoptics, and, compared to 19,25, the sudden presence of the male disciple. Various solutions have been offered, which all presuppose the redaction of the text, and the copying of the list of women from tradition. Brown 1970, p.922 suggests that verse 25 indeed came to the evangelist from tradition, ‘but that the reference to the Beloved Disciple, here as elsewhere, is a supplement to the tradition.’ In my opinion, if John knew of such a tradition, the view that John felt compelled to copy the list of women is not very convincing, since John did not show the same urge with respect to the tradition of mentioning the names of the Twelve, which the authors of the Synoptics apparently did feel (Mark 3,13-19; Matthew 10,1-4; Luke 6,12-16). John rather shows that the Gospel holds its own views, for instance favouring other disciples than Peter, John and James, which were important according to the Synoptics and Paul. In John Peter clearly plays a less important role, and James and John do not occur at all until perhaps in 21,2 (only very vaguely as ‘those of Zebedee’). Instead Andrew, Philip, Nathanael, Thomas and Judas (not Iskarioth), play a prominent role (e.g. 1,35-52 and 13,1-14,24). [12] In this case, Jesus’ mother and his mother’s sister are understood to be Mary of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. Exegetes today usually opt for four women. Earlier the interpretation which presupposed three women under the cross was popular. For this, see Klauck 1992, p. 2347-2351. Most exegetes mention the option of two women, but do not really discuss the possibility. Klauck 1992, p. 2343-2357 finds that the possibility should be taken more seriously. In his view: ‘Die nahezu reflexhafte Ablehnung der Zweierlösung ist konditioniert durch das fest umrissene Bild von den Familienverhältnissen Jesu, das wir durch Harmonisierung und Kombination verschiedener Daten gewonnen haben. Auch wenn das Johannesevangelium die einschlägigen synoptischen Stoffe kennen sollte, steht damit immer noch nicht fest, wie es sie selbst verstanden hat und aus seiner Sicht verstanden wissen wollte.’(p.2346) [13] Watty 1979, p.209-210 gives numerous examples, e.g. Simon, also named Peter, is the son of John (1,14; 21, 15-17), Philip is of Bethsaida in Galilee, the birthplace also of Andrew and Peter (1,44; 12,21). However, Watty does not mention 19,25. In his view Jesus’ mother remains anonymous. [14] De Boer 1997, p.53. [15] Jantzen 1995, p.43-58. [16] Jantzen 1995, p.51. [17] Gospel of Thomas 114; see Meyer 1985, p.554-570, who comments on this logion and shows, that to castigate femaleness and to recommend the transformation to maleness is by no means rare in the ancient world. [18] Acts of Philip 77; see Bovon 1984, p.57-58. [19] Charlesworth 1995, p. xiv gives no arguments why the grammatically male disciple may be female. In about two pages Charlesworth refers to the anonymous disciple as ‘he or she’. However, from page xvi onwards, without any comment, the disciple becomes ‘he’ again. [20] Charlesworth 1995, p.5-6. This is after about fifteen pages of silence about the beloved disciple possibly being female. [21] As far as I could find, no interpretation of 19,25-27 emphasizes that ‘son’ in 19,26 may refer to Jesus himself. For a survey of several interpretations of 19,25-27 see Brown 1994, p.1019-1026. They range from the filial duty of Jesus, caring for his mother even at his own crucifixion, to various symbolic interpretations of the Church being born. [22] Brown 1966, p.xciv and Brown 1979, p.31-34, like many exegetes, argues for the latter interpretation. See also Charlesworth 1995, p.326-359. But Charlesworth leaves out 18,15-16. Jusino follows Brown. For most exegetes, including Brown, Charlesworth and Jusino, the expression ‘the disciple Jesus loved’ has become a title: the Beloved Disciple. I keep to the original expression, since the title does not do enough justice to the narrated anonymity (see also Beck 1997, p.110-111) and since the title, more than the expression, suggests a sense of being loved most. [23] See also Brown 1970, p.1009-1010. [24] The Greek wording is different too: instead of o4n hga&pa it reads here o4n efi&lei This difference is not necessarily of great importance, but it is striking that it occurs exactly here. As far as I know no other author interprets the Greek expression in 20,2 as ’the other disciple Jesus loved’. They all translate: ‘the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved,..’ [25] John 19,25-27 being the one exception. [26] According to Westcott 1902, p.300, the two are disciples in a wider sense than the Twelve. Brown 1970, p.1068, suggests as possible candidates for the two Philip and Andrew (6,7-8; 12,22) or Andrew and Levi (referring to the Gospel of Peter). Schnackenburg 1975, p.419-420, argues that the seven disciples together represent the future Church. The two anonymous disciples allow the inclusion of the disciple Jesus loved. Morris 1995, p.760, concludes that the author has ‘reasons of his own’ not to identify the two. [27] Most authors assume that both cases refer to the Beloved Disciple. Charlesworth 1995, p.326-359, thinks that 1,37-42 does refer to him, but that 18,15-16 might refer to Judas. [28] Beck 1997, p.111-112, gives a survey of some reasons that authors have suggested: the disciple was unknown, or had not enough authority, or the anonymity served as a heightening of the contrast to others, or as a concern for the readers and a possibility to identify. [29] Verses 33b-36 would have been added around the turn of the century. For extended text critical and literary arguments see Fee 1994, p.272-281. [30] Schüssler Fiorenza 1983, p.307-309. She uses the English translation of Gryson 1972, p.129-131. The Greek text was first published by Ficker 1905, p.447-463. [31] Schüssler Fiorenza 1983, p.309. See also Gryson 1972, p.130-131. [32] Gryson 1972, p.56-57. See Jenkins 1909, p.42. [33] Gryson 1972, p.44. De virginibus velandis 9,1 [34] Roukema 1996, p.163. Stromateis IV,58,2-60,3. Origen quotes Corinthians 11,3.8.11; Ephesians 5,21-25.28-29; Colossians 3,18-4,1 [35] This is in contrast to Brown 1975, p. 688-699 (reprinted in Brown 1979, p.183-198); Schneiders 1982, p.35-45; Schüssler Fiorenza 1983, p. 323-334; O’Day 1992, p.293-304; Reinhartz 1994, p.561- 600 esp. 594-595; who all emphasise John’s positive attitude towards women and women’s experience and who refer to the theological importance of the women portrayed in the Gospel. Seim 1987, p.56-73 and van Tilborg 1993, p.169-208, for instance, show a more reserved point of view. [36] Seim 1987, p.56-73, rightly draws attention to the instances where John’s Jesus addresses women as gu&nai: 2,4; 4,21; 19,26; 20,13-15 thus emphasising their womanhood and otherness. [37] See Hoskyns 1947, p.563-566, for a detailed text critical and linguistic analysis of this rather early story. In various manuscripts it has been omitted. In others it is found at different places: after Luke 21,38, after John 7,36 or 7,44, or directly after the Gospel of John as a whole. Most commonly, the story is understood to belong in or near John. [38] In the remaining encounter with an unknown woman in 8,1-11, the woman is presented to Jesus by the Pharisees. The contact with Jesus is not her or his initiative. [39] We may visualize her among the oi( a)delfoi_ , when we do not interpret the word as brothers and sisters, but in the wider sense as relatives (2,12). [40] Jesus only says three short words: do&v moi pei=n. Ilan 1995, p.126-127 refers to Rabbinic sayings against talking to women. Women outside the circle of family and friends should especially be addressed as briefly as possible. [41] I do not agree with Seim 1987, p.59, who argues that Jesus takes the initiative. Ilan 1995, p.127, in her survey of examples of Rabbinic sayings about refraining from talking to women, refers to a ‘Beruriah’ passage, which is quite interesting with regard to our story: ‘R. Yose the Galilean was once on a journey when he met Beruriah. By what road, he asked her, do we go to Lod? Galilean fool, she replied, did not the sages say this ‘Talk not much with womankind?’You should have asked: By which to Lod? (bErub.53b)’ Ilan comments that R.Yose, ironically, already avoiding all polite formality, is now drawn against his own will into a conversation by a woman exactly about how to address women to avoid conversation with them. In my view quite the same happens to Jesus. He uses only the words he really needs, thus avoiding conversation with the woman, but she finds enough reason to question him about them. The great difference between the Beruriah story and the one about Jesus and the Samaritan woman is, that the Samaritan woman does not linger on the behaviour of males towards females, like Beruriah, but focuses on the behaviour of Jews towards Samaritans. Whereas Jesus by his attitude reveals that he is very conscious of his maleness and her femaleness, the Samaritan woman is more concerned by the fact that he is a Jew and she is a Samaritan. [42] Mark 5,28; 7,28; 14,67.69; 16,3. [43] Matthew 14,8; 15,22.26.27; 25,8.9.11; 26,69.71. [44] Luke 1,25.34.38.42-45.46-55.60; 2,48;10,40; 11,27;18,3; 22,56. [45] Luke 10,40; 11,27;18,3; 22,56 [46] John 2,3.5; 4,9.11-12.15.17.19-20.25.29.39; 11,3.21-22.24.27.28.32.39; 18,17; 20,2.13.15.16 [47] Mark 7,28; Matthew 15,22.26.27. While she is rather bold, Jesus praises her faith in both Mark and Matthew. [48] Jesus rebukes all three of them (Luke 2,48-49;10,40-42; 11,27-28). [49] 2.3; 4,9.11-12.15.17.19-20.25; 11,3.21-22.24.27.32.39; 20,15.16 [50] The Revised Standard Version has: ‘(…) called her sister Mary, saying quietly (…)’ [51] Andrew (6,8); the Twelve (6,67); Thomas (11,16); the blind man and the Pharisees (9,13-29); Judas Iskariot (12,4); Simon Peter, Thomas, Philip, Judas not Iskariot (13,1-17,16); Josef of Arimathea (19,35); Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanaël, the sons of Zebedee (21,1-2) . Whereas Thomas in 11,16 talks to his ‘co-disciples’ and in 20,24-25 is compared to the ‘other disciples’, Mary Magdalene in 20,18 goes to ‘the disciples’. The ‘other disciple’ in 20,2.4 may be interpreted as co-disciple of Mary Magdalene, but John gives the readers ample opportunity to overlook this and to interpret the ‘other disciple’ as co-disciple of Peter. [52] Charlesworth 1995, p.xiv-xviii and p.428-431. [53] Here indeed the inclusive word te&kna has been used and not the more masculine word ui(oi_ Matthew used in Matthew 5,9.45. [54] See also Brown 1970, 1014-1017. [55] Berger 1997, p.99.109. See also van Tilborg 1993, p.77-91, who refers to the use of the word in the Septuaginth, where it denotes marital sexual relations between man and woman and the protective love for a child in the womb of its mother. The latter would be the case here. In Hellenism a ‘favourite pupil’ was quite common. Van Tilborg gives examples of favourites who indeed succeeded their teachers. According to him the love of Jesus for the anonymous disciple reflects the love of the Father for Jesus. [56] Brown 1979, p.33 argues that the disciple Jesus loved is a former disciple of John the Baptist. In his view the disciple in 1,35-40 is not called the disciple Jesus loved, since in the beginning of the Gospel story he has not yet achieved this closeness to Jesus. [57] Brown 1979, p.33, states: ‘During his lifetime (…) the Beloved Disciple lived through the same growth in christological perception that the Johannine community went through, and it was this growth that made it possible for the community to identify him as the one whom Jesus particularly loved.’ [58] For a survey of several interpretations see Brown 1970, p.946-956. [59] Gospel of Thomas log 114; Gospel of Mary 17,16-23; Pistis Sophia 36.72 [60] Gospel of Philip 64,1-5; Gospel of Mary 18,14-15 [61] This is very different from Matthew’s view on Peter, who is, according to this Gospel, the rock on which the Church is to be built and the one who receives the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16,18-20).
© Esther A. De Boer, 2000 |
||
© Theol. Fakultät der Universität Bern, lectio@theol.unibe.ch
produced by moka, 2000