Prayer,

In
Other
Words:
New Testament Prayers in Social-Science Perspective
Jerome
University of Notre Dame

H.

Neyrey

1.0 Introduction: Status Quaestionis and Proposal

What is prayer? How do we interpret individual prayers? Biblical interpreters are
grateful heirs of Gunkel's description of the psalms. (1) His work and that of his
followers provides us with analyses of various types of psalms, identification of
their formal elements and indication of their respective purposes. In addition,
productive attention has been given both in antiquity and in modern criticism to
understanding the premier Christian prayer, the Our Father.(2) Scholars have also
examined topics related to prayer, such as the Israelite roots of Christian prayer,
(3)
the prayers of Jesus,(4) prayer in the Pauline letters, (5) the function of prayer in
Luke's gospel,(6) and the shape of New Testament doxologies. (7) Of course there
are many fine works examining prayer in the Bible, (8) the Greco-Roman world,
(9)
as well as the early church.(10) Recently, a working group in the Society of
Biblical Literature undertook to study "Prayer in the Greco-Roman Period"
(1989-92), the results of which appeared in The Lord's Prayer and Other Prayer
Texts from the Greco-Roman Era.(11) While this volume contains seven articles on
different ancient authors and their prayers, its major contribution lies in the rich
bibliography of the text and history of interpretation of these select prayers. Yet it
is fair to say that in terms of methods of interpreting prayer, even this latest effort
prayer brings little new to the table. Current scholarship on biblical prayer
operates from the perspective of form criticism and history-of-religions
examination of background, but not necessarily from the perspective of
interpretation, since its aim continues to be some form of history, not
interpretation.
Yet there are available to scholars fresh and productive ways of interpreting
prayers, namely the resources of cultural anthropology. Bruce Malina in
particular has digested and made available to biblical scholars many of the basic,
reliable models from the social sciences for understanding the communication
which is prayer and the social exchange which occurs during it. Hence, if
imitation is the sincerest form of praise, then the use of the materials which
1

Bruce Malina has introduced to scholars is the sincerest form of praise I know.
Other scholars have employed social science models for interpretation, whose
suggestions will be considered as well. (12) This article, then, aims systematically
to introduce readers to these cultural ways of interpreting prayers by providing an
appropriate set of social and cultural lenses.
2.0 Prayer as Communication.
Twenty years ago in an article much too large for the journal in which it was
printed,(13) Bruce Malina analyzed prayer as an act of communication. Typical of
Malina, but unlike most commentators, he offered a definition of prayer:
Prayer is a socially meaningful symbolic act of communication, bearing directly
upon persons perceived as somehow supporting, maintaining, and controlling the
order of existence of the one praying, and performed with the purpose of getting
results from or in the interaction of communication. (14)
This definition identifies the nature of the activity, its object and its purpose.
Prayer may take the form of petition, adoration, contrition or thanksgiving, but it
is always a communication. Since prayer always addresses the person perceived
as supporting, maintaining and controlling the order of existence of the one
praying, it presupposes a superior/subordinate relationship. Finally prayer aims to
have some effect on the person with whom the pray-er communicates, that is, it
seeks results.
Malina next classified prayers in terms of their purposes, identifying seven
results or aims the pray-er desires through the communication which is prayer:
1. Instrumental ("I want..."): petitionary prayers to obtain goods and services for
individual and social needs.
2. Regulatory ("Do as I tell you..."): prayers to control the activity of God, to
command God to order people and things about on behalf of the one praying. (15)
3. Interactional ("me and you..."): prayer to maintain emotional ties with God;
prayer of simple presence.
4. Self-focused ("Here I come. . .; here I am..."): prayers that identify the self -individual and social -- to God; prayers of contrition and humility, as well as
boasting and superiority.

5. Heuristic ("Tell me why...?"): prayer that explores the world of God and God's
workings within us individually and collectively; meditative prayers, perceptions
of the spirit in prayer.
6. Imaginative ("Let's pretend..."): prayer to create an environment of one's own
with God; prayers in tongues and those recited in languages unknown to the
pray-er.
7. Informative ("I have something to tell you"): prayers that communicate new
information: prayers of acknowledgment, praise and thanksgiving. (16)
This taxonomy differs in many ways from the standard classification of psalms,
and the differences are worthy of note. On the one hand, psalms are said to be
either lament (complaint + petition) or praise and thanksgiving. But "prayer" is a
more complex phenomenon than psalms, and needs a more discriminating
classification. The lament and praise categories are further broken down by form
critics of the psalms into six or seven types of psalms: 1) praise, 2) petition, 3)
royal psalms, 4) songs of Zion, 5) didactic poetry, 6) festival psalms and liturgies.
(17)
This classification is based on several criteria: 1) instructions to the pray-er
("Praise the Lord!"), 2) repetitive formal characteristics, 3) differing sitze-imleben (royal wedding, coronation of the king, festivals), 4) wisdom instructions,
and the like. While such criteria are useful in classifying psalms, they prove less
reliable in sorting out the communication which is prayer. Malina's taxonomy,
however, builds on previous form-critical insights and provides a more
discriminating classificatory system which focuses on the desired results of the
communication and the social relationship between pray-er and deity.
Whereas psalm critics speak of psalms of lament, Malina's taxonomy more
critically distinguishes the "lament" as interactive prayer and the petition
as instrumental prayer. Psalms of "praise," "thanksgiving" and "trust"
are informative prayers, a category which includes acknowledgment, blessing,
honor, glory and the like. Communication classification aids greatly in
appreciating prayers such as Ps 84 ("How lovely is your dwelling place, Lord,
God of hosts!) as both heuristic meditation which explores the world of God
and imaginative construction of a personal environment with God.
In regard to prayers which are not psalms, the taxonomy based on
communication theory allows those who read biblical prayers to analyze and
classify them in more accurate and informative ways. For
example, instrumental prayer describes the petitions in the Our Father for bread,
debt remission and deliverance (Matt 6:13), as well as the charge of Jesus to his
disciples in Mark 14:36 that they "pray" to escape the coming crisis. But the first
3

part of the Our Father contains interactional prayer of praise and

benediction. Interactional prayer captures Mary's sentiments of blessedness, as
well as her informativethanksgiving to God (Luke 1:46-55). Self-focused prayer
describes both the Pharisee and the publican in Luke 18:10-13.
(18)
Heuristic prayer identifies well Job's many requests to God to know the reason
for his suffering. Speaking in tongues provides an example of imaginative prayer
(1 Cor 14:6-26); and informative communication describes thanksgivings offered
to God,(19) doxologies proclaimed,(20) and praise extended to Him.
(21)
Communication taxonomy also aids in interpreting prayers such as Simeon's
address to God in Luke 2:29-32 (informative and interactional), Jesus '
"acknowledgment" of God in Matt 11:25-26 (informative), and Zechariah's
canticle extolling God's faithfulness in Luke 1:68-79 (informational).
3.0 The Value System of Addresser and Addressee.
In his work on the anthropology of illness and wellness in antiquity, John Pilch
introduced to biblical scholarship a cross-cultural model which aids in the
discovery of different configurations of values which characterize social groups.
(22)
Anthropologists originally developed this model to differentiate and
understand the four different cultures found in New Mexico (Native American,
Spanish, Mexican-American, and Anglo). Health-care deliverers then
successfully utilized it for understanding the cultural variations among a host of
immigrant groups in America in regard to illness and health care. (23)Recently John
Pilch and Bruce Malina edited a volume entitled Biblical Social Values, to whose
introduction we turn for a mature elaboration of a model of differing cultural
values applicable to biblical literature. They define "value" as: ". . . some general
quality and direction of life that human beings are expected to embody in their
behavior. A value is a general, normative orientation of action in a social
system."(24) Just as Americans consider money or wealth a "value," so early
Christians held kinship and honor to be paramount values. (25) What, then, is value
comparison all about?
The following diagram provides a productive way of discovering the value
preferences of a group. In a given context and faced with a specific task,
individuals prefer to act in certain predictable ways which would be recognized
and approved by their peers; all three options are theoretically available, but
generally one or two are more prevalent. (26)
PROBLEM
Principal Mode of

RANGE OF SOLUTIONS
Being

Being-in-Becoming

Doing

Human Activity
Interpersonal

Collateral

Hierarchical

Individual

Time Orientation

Present

Past

Future

Relationship of

Be subject to it

Live in harmony with it

Master it

Mixture of good and evil

Evil

Good

Relationships

humans to Nature
View of Human Nature

In applying this to prayers in antiquity, one must distinguish the values of those
praying from those attributed to the Deity, the object of prayer.
1. Activity Whereas the ancients themselves may be described as valuing
"being," God is almost always described as "doing," whether creating and
maintaining the universe or rising up to fight Israel's enemies (Acts 4:24-30).
(27)
All prayers of petition, then, ask God to "do something," that is, "be active" on
behalf of the pray-er. 2. Relationships among mortals are both collateral and
hierarchical; for, in addition to the vertical relationships people find themselves
in (father/son; landlord/peasant; sovereign/subject), they also enjoy collateral
relationships with friends and relatives. God, however, is generally addressed in
terms of some hierarchical relationship, "Father," (28) "Lord," "God of Israel,"
"Sovereign," and the like. The sense of social distance separating a pray-er and
God is never made clearer than in prayers of petition, where the pray-ers confess
that God alone controls the universe or at least their enemies, or the rain in their
valley. Therefore God will be addressed and treated like the various patrons or
sovereigns in the life of the pray-er. 3. In regards to time, ancient Judeans both
appealed to the past (Israel's legal and wisdom traditions embodied in Scripture)
and focused on the present. In contrast, the God of Israel enjoys an eternity which
temporally reaches back and forward without limit: It is God alone "who is, who
was, and who will be."(29) Unlike mortals who come into being and inevitably die,
God -- the immortal one -- has no beginning and no end. Yet pray-ers ask God to
act in the present; or, they call upon God to remember his actions "as of old" and
to perform them now again. The future, however, belongs to God alone and it is
sacrilegious to try and discover it; God alone knows the future, and those to
whom it pleases God to disclosed it. (30) 4. Nature Native Americans are reputed to
live in harmony with nature, whereas mainstream Americans consider themselves
superior to it. Hence they dam rivers, tunnel under the seas, and make deserts
5

bloom. But the ancients thought of themselves as subject to nature: storms wreck
their vessels,(31) droughts cause terrible famines,(32) and the like. Yet God the all
powerful rules sky, sea and earth; God can send rain as well as rescue people
from shipwreck. God, who is both pantocrator and sovereign of the universe, can
providentially aid pray-ers on land or at sea. (33) 5. Human nature. Whereas EuroAmericans are socialized to view their children as innocent and good, Sirach
advises the wise of ancient Israel in regard to their sons, "Beat his ribs." (34) Yet
certain strains of Christianity likewise believe that children are born in sin, and so
must be treated accordingly. Ancient Israel in general seemed to consider human
nature as a mixture of good and evil. In petitionary prayer, pray-ers regularly
describe their oppressors as evil; yet pray-ers themselves on occasion seek
forgiveness and reconciliation and so confess their own sinfulness, error or
failure. Human nature for the ancients was, at best, a mixture of good and evil.
From this value map, we draw the following conclusions. (1) In both prayers of
thanksgiving and petition God is always thought of as "doing" something, either
in the past, present or future. Many prayers refer to past actions of God as
warrants and proof of what God should presently do. (2) The vertical relationship
between God and Israel or the disciples of Jesus expresses the transcendent
distance between the Immortal One and His mortal subjects. In contrast, humans
characteristically look laterally to their friends and relatives for aid, as well as
hierarchically to their covenant Lord and Patron. (3) In terms of time, pray-ers in
the Bible regularly looked to the past to clarify the present: i.e., reflection on
God's faithfulness in the covenants with Abraham and David, the endurance of
their ancestral law and the ancient system of worship as evidence of what God
has done and should continue doing.(35) Yet if the roots of hope exist back in
God's past actions, pray-ers expect God's assistance today ( "Give us this day our
today bread," Matt 6:11; Luke 11:3 ) or stand under God's judgment
today( "Today if you hear his voice. . ." Ps 95:7-11/Heb 3:7-4:13). They might
also rejoice today that ancient prophecies or promises are now fulfilled (Luke
2:28; 4:21).(36) (4) All prayers of praise and petition celebrate God's omnipotence
over nature, that is, divine power to make the rains fall (or not fall), to multiply
food and to still storms. (5) With the story of Adam's sin, Israelites and early
Christians thought of human nature as evil or a mixture of good and evil. In
Romans Paul declared that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"
(Rom 3:22-23).(37) But God of course is holy beyond measure, who forgives
humans their sins and sends Jesus as their savior. God will also transform
corruptible humankind and make them incorruptible, and have their mortality
changed to immortality so that they may worthily enter the presence of God (1
Cor 15:53-54).
4.0 Honor and Shame and Prayer
6

To my knowledge, Bruce Malina pioneered New Testament research on the

importance of honor and shame for biblical interpretation. (38) His synthesis of
various field studies from countries bordering on the Mediterranean led him to
develop a model of this "pivotal value." Honor refers to the claim of worth, value
and respect which must be publicly acknowledged.(39) The claim may be made
either by the person demanding respect or by others on his behalf, usually family
or
fictive-kin
(co-citizens,
co-members
of
the
army);
and
the acknowledgment must always be public approval of this claim. The ancients
used many different verbs to express this acknowledgment, such as to glorify,
praise, acclaim, exalt, magnify, celebrate, make famous, declare the name of the
Lord,
know
the
Lord,
and
the
like. (40)
4.1 Sources of Honor. A person acquires honor in two basic ways: ascription by
another or achievement by the claimant. Most people in antiquity have honor
ascribed to them first and foremost by the parents, family and clan into which
they were born.(41) If the family belongs to the elite strata and ruling class, the
offspring -- primarily the male ones -- are born with high honor manifested in the
family's power, wealth, reputation and worth. Conversely offspring born of
peasants share in their relative honor, symbolized by modest land holdings or
modest flocks. We observe constantly that most people are introduced as the "son
of so-and-so" or the "wife of so-and-so." Thus children inherit the social worth or
honor of their parents. Adoption into a family provides a comparable process, as
would commissioning as ambassador or assignment as procurator. On the other
hand, individuals may acquire fame, glory and renown through military, athletic
or aesthetic prowess. A city's benefactor may earn the its praise for gift of an
aqueduct or theater. Or individuals may engage in the ubiquitous game of
challenge and riposte.
4.2 Honor and Virtue. Honor in antiquity dealt with "excellence" of some sort,
either the prowesses mentioned above or some socially-sanctioned virtue or
uniqueness. The most common virtues meriting respect and honor are courage
(military and athletic prowess) and justice. Because of its importance for
assessing behavior in prayer, we take a closer look at what the ancients
understood by "justice." Since discourse on virtue was taught by ancient
rhetoricians, we take the remarks of a Roman writer close in time to the New
Testament to illustrate the traditional understanding of justice. This author
represents the utterly conventional, ancient discourse stretching back to Aristotle
and forward into Byzantine times.
We will be using the topics of justice if we say that we ought to pity innocent
persons and suppliants; if we show that it is proper to repay the well-deserving
7

with gratitude; if we explain that we ought topunish the guilty; if we urge

that faith ought zealously to be kept; if we say that the laws and customs of the
state ought especially to be preserved; if we contend that alliances and
friendships should scrupulously be honored; if we make it clear that
the duty imposed by nature towards parents, gods, and fatherland must be
religiously observed; if we maintain that ties of hospitality, clientage, kinship,
andrelationship by marriage must inviolably be cherished (Herennium. 3.3.4,
italics added).(42)
This rhetorician flags as marks of justice: (1) gratitude, (2) fair judgment, (3)
fidelity, (4) duty to gods, parents, and fatherland, and (5) maintenance of
important social ties. Thus pray-ers are just when they offer thanks for
benefaction, keep covenant fidelity with God, fulfil their duty to God by obeying
His commandments, and maintain their ties of clientage with their heavenly
Patron. Similarly, God will be shown in prayer to be just and worthy of praise
when God judges the wicked and rewards the faithful, when God's faithfulness is
acknowledged, when God's patronage is seen as reliable and everlasting. Thus the
psalmist praises God: "The Lord is faithful in all his words, and gracious in all
his deeds" (Ps 145:13).
4.3 Honor and Benefaction. Benefaction may be one of the most productive
concepts in assessing God's honor in the social structure of prayers. The custom
whereby powerful and wealthy people in the ancient world provided important
public services is well known. (43) Wealthy aristocrats and monarchs were
expected to provide public festivals, fund war ships, and build aqueducts and
theaters and the like for their cities or kingdoms. (44) Josephus provides the
following record of how Athens honored the Judean king, Hyrcanus for his
benefaction. In it we note the balance between Hyrcanus' benefaction and
Athenian public acknowledgment of his noble deed. The acknowledgment took
the form of a golden crown, a statue, and heralding of the Judean king's worth at
the most important public events in the city's calendar -- both its dramatic and
athletic festivals. Finally, Athens's leaders make their continued praise and honor
contingent upon future benefaction from the king. But in general this
proclamation registers their "reward of merit," the acknowledgment of Hyrcanus
as a worthy benefactor.
Inasmuch as Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, the high priest and ethnarch of the
Jews, has continued to show his goodwill to our people as a whole and to every
individual citizen, and to manifest the greatest zeal on their behalf. . .it has
therefore now been decreed to honor this man with a golden crown as the reward
of merit fixed by law, and to set up his statue in bronze in the precincts of the
temple of Demos and the Graces, and to announce the award of the crown in the
8

theater at the Dionysian festival when the new tragedies are performed, and at the
Panathenaean and Eleusinian festivals and at the gymnastic games; and that the
magistrates shall take care that so long as he continues to maintain his good will
toward us, everything which we can devise shall be done to show honor and
gratitude to this man for his zeal and generosity (Josephus, Ant. 14.149-55).
This proclamation describes the gifts of a Judean monarch to a Greek city, a
relationship in which no "duty" was involved. The same would not be true of
elites and populations of the same city-state or region. For them the virtue of
justice would indicate a duty to benefit one's own and a corresponding duty by
those benefitted to acknowledge the gift. (45) In this convention the worthy person
might well be addressed as "Benefactor" (), "Father," "Friend," or "Savior,"
names which evoke a kinship relationship even as they mask its harsher aspects.
4.4 Honor from Conflict. Another way of acquiring honor and respect deserves
closer attention, namely, the game of challenge and riposte. It is regularly
observed in Greco-Roman as well as early Christian literature that social games
are played in public in which challenges are made to another, the purpose of
which is to diminish the one challenged and so garner the esteem in which the
challenged person basks.(46) These challenges are easily recognized in the
rhetorical chreiai in which a philosopher or sage is asked a question intended to
stump him.(47) A witty riposte dismisses the challenger and confirms the
reputation of the wise man.
This ubiquitous social game of push-and-shove also serves as background for
appreciating many prayers. A petitioner might complain to God that he, the
petitioner, has been faithful and loyal to God, but is now hard pressed. He does
not now experience God's beneficent generosity,(48) and his complaint puts God
on the spot, so to speak. The pray-er has transformed the challenge from his
enemy into a challenge to God. One thinks immediately of Jesus' dying words,
which are formally a prayer, i.e., Ps 22:1, "My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?"(49) God, then, is challenged to honor his loyal benefaction to Jesus.
Similarly, if the Davidic monarch, the Temple, or Jerusalem were threatened, the
pray-er might remind God of God's ancient promises and thus petition the Deity
to defend His own interests. God, then, is put on the spot; and the pray-er
petitions God to deliver the fitting riposte to the foreign monarch and the
threatening army, thus fulfilling the divine promise to Israel. God, therefore, is
perceived as engaged in a challenge/riposte situation. Divine failure to respond to
such challenges might be considered a loss of divine honor as well as a lack of
virtue (faithfulness) on God's part.

What do we know if we know all this? First, we recognize that many prayers
acknowledge God's worth as the pray-er exclaims "praise to," "glory be to. . .,"
"honor be to. . ." and "alleluia!." Mortals give God nothing which God lacks,
rather they acknowledge the deity's claims. Second, God's honor is never
ascribed; for no one in the universe can be found higher than God to bestow it
(see Heb 7:7).(50)Third, one finds in prayers a sense that there is a "more" and
"less" to God's honor. For example, the Bible states that God acts so as to win
Himself glory,(51) which suggests that pray-ers thought that God could increase in
majesty in some way.(52) Similarly, pray-ers state that should the nation be
destroyed or should the pious come to ruin, who then would praise God?
(53)
Fourth, the virtue of "justice" in its many aspects frequently appears in prayer,
and praise is regularly awarded for virtue. God is acclaimed as "faithful" or
"faithful and true"(54) and God's steadfast loyalty to the nation often serves as the
reason for or basis of relationship in petitioning God. God's just judgment,
especially of foreigners and sinners, redounds to God's honor, for it belongs to
justice to judge justly. Fifth, God is frequently understood in prayers as the
benefactor par excellence. Hence a rehearsal of God's deeds often precedes
acknowledgment of God's honor in statements of praise and glory. Sixth, the
psalmist occasionally challenges God by calling into question God's loyalty and
faithfulness; such challenging questions beginning with "How long, O
Lord. . .?"(55) or "Why have you. . ?"(56) or "Where is our God?"(57) Thus in terms
of this human logic, God is expected to act vigorously to defend God's honor or
be shamed as unfaithful or powerless.
5.0 Prayer and Exchange.
We saw earlier how Malina brought to our understanding of prayer a model of
communication, consisting of sender - channel - receiver. Later he digested and
adapted another model of communication from Talcott Parsons, this time paying
attention to the "channel" by means of which a source presents a receiver "with
goods, services, actions or a range of words."(58)
5.1 Power, Commitment, Inducement and Influence. Talcott Parsons identifies
four basic media of communication, which result from his efforts to find
meaningful ways to gather and classify diverse social phenomena. (59) He
identified four basic media: power, commitment, inducement and influence,
abstract categories which distinguish the means by which senders seek to have an
impact on receivers. 1. Power refers to collective effectiveness systems such as
government (king, president, ruler, judge); power means the ability to make
others act in certain ways. 2. Commitment refers to the belonging system -family, extended family, and groups of friends. 3. Inducement touches on the
economic system, that is, the exchange of things of value (agricultural produce,
10

clothing, money and the like). 4. Finally influence refers to the meaning system,
the reasons for something or the learning amassed in a culture. In his
characteristic way, Malina explains how even Euro-American audiences can
quickly grasp these four categories:
Consider the following sentence and insert the roles of the persons who asked or
told you to do or not to do something that in fact you did or did not do: "I did it
because he or she was: my mother, father, sister, brother, friend, relative (=
commitment); a doctor, lawyer, clergy person, teacher (=influence); the police,
mayor, president of the U.S. (= power); my boss at work, employer, foreman,
customer, client (=inducement)."(60)
Broadly speaking, the Deity addressed in ancient prayers possesses all four of the
media of communication, but not the pray-ers. It is unthinkable that mere mortals
would offer God power, especially as many prayers acclaim God as
"omnipotent," "creator," and "mighty warrior." Pray-ers on the contrary pray to
God to defeat their enemy, stop a drought, or deliver them from war: all petitions
for God's unique power. Similarly, mortals have no influence, that is, knowledge,
wisdom or secret, that they can bring to the "omniscient" (61) Deity. They may,
however, inform God of sorrow for sin (Ps 51) or like Job petition to know the
cause misfortune. God alone knows all things, especially the secrets of the human
heart. Concerning inducement, although people have on occasion promised God
wealth or vowed offerings to temples if their prayers are heard, this attempt at
plying God with inducement received mixed reactions in antiquity.(62) On the one
hand, Israel's temple system offered inducement to God in its vast array of
sacrifices (holocausts and thanksgiving sacrifices; grain and wine offerings).
(63)
We also read of many prophetic denunciations of the temple system as a form
of bribery.(64) No, God is the source of inducement, hence pray-ers petition that
God send them food in due season, rain in time of drought or wealth to deliver
them from debt. It is God from whom all goods flow. Finally, commitmentseems
to be the premier expectation of God by pray-ers as well as their unique manner
of communicating with God. Commitment may express any or all of the
following sentiments: obedience, faithfulness, thanksgiving, blessing, praise,
acknowledgment, honor, glory, respect, and the like. When we read of
relationships expressed as "God and the people He has chosen," "as a Father
carries his infant. . ." and similar expressions, we recognize that commitment is
being appealed to. Similarly, when pray-ers appeal to God's covenantal
faithfulness and beg God to act once more as loyal Patron, they express their
own commitment and seek to activate God's commitment. Moreover, many
prayers consist of blessing and thanksgiving to God for benefaction received,
thanksgiving being another example of commitment; other prayers may pledge
faithfulness and loyalty. Therefore, biblical pray-ers primarily use commitment as
11

their medium of communication with God, along with sacrificial inducement, but
never power andinfluence. God, on the other hand, is perceived as having all four
of the media at His disposal and in great supply.
5.2 Reciprocity. Discussion of the media of communication leads to an inquiry
about the kind of exchange in which the participants engage. Malina has digested
the
relevant
theory
of
exchange
which
identifies
three
(65)
kinds: generalized, balanced or negative reciprocity. 1. Generalized reciprocity
refers to the altruistic, asymmetrical attention payed to the wants and needs of
another. Characteristic of kinship, it includes hospitality, gifts, and assistance to
kin. 2. Balanced reciprocity focuses on the mutual interests of both parties in a
symmetrical way. This type of reciprocity characterizes the communication
between neighbors, not kin; and its typical forms are trade agreements, fees
payed for services and exchange or barter. 3. Finally negative reciprocity
describes the attempt in an exchange to get as much as possible for oneself, while
giving as little as possible in return. Examples of negative reciprocity include use
of fraudulent weights in commerce, as well as devaluation of coinage and theft.
Obviously one does not treat either kin or neighbors in this way, but rather
strangers or enemies.
What forms of reciprocity do the pray-ers use in communicating with God and
what forms do pray-ers think characterize God's dealing with them? Most
frequently in prayers of petition and praise/thanksgiving, God's creatures, whose
being, life and happiness are in God's hands, acknowledge the Deity as Creator,
Father, Savior and Benefactor to whom they turn "to give them their food in due
season." As clients in a patron-client relationship with the deity, they depend on
God's election of them (generalized reciprocity) and faithful maintenance of the
covenant bond. They appreciate the gratuity of God's benefaction of all four
symbolic media (power, commitment, inducement and influence), but indicate
that their commitment (loyalty, obedience, praise, thanks and honor) in no way
balances the scales of reciprocity. Pray-ers do not engage God in terms
of generalized reciprocity; on the contrary they are recipients of God's altruism.
When pray-ers communicate with God or the gods, even the ancients agree
that negative reciprocity is blasphemous, for mortals are shameful who attempt to
despoil God by lying, deceiving, cheating or stealing from Him. (66) Yet their
criticism of superstition acknowledges that indeed some pray-ers do just this,
even though such prayers are recognized as shallow and self-serving. (67)
Although some ancients described the petitionary relationship between Deity and
pray-er as a balanced exchange (do ut des or "give so as to get"). Lucian's famous
12

satire of ancient sacrifice

as negative reciprocity.

describes

sacrifice

and

prayer

by

some

So nothing, it seems, that they [the gods] do is done without compensation. They
sell men their blessings, and one can buy from them health, it may be, for a calf,
wealth for four oxen, a royal throne for a hundred, a safe return from Troy to
Pylos for nine bulls, and a fair voyage from Aulis to Troy for a king's daughter!
Hecuba, you know, purchased temporary immunity for Troy from Athena for
twelve oxen and a frock. One may imagine, too, that they have many things on
sale for the price of a cock or a wreath or nothing more than incense (Lucian, On
Sacrifices 2).
At first glance Lucian seems to mock the exchange of sacrificial petitions from
mortals with benefactions provided by the gods. This is by no means
a balanced exchange, but tends rather toward negativereciprocity. Mortals give as
little as possible for indescribable results: health, wealth and royal rule can be
had for a mere calf or four oxen or a hundred oxen. Although bad enough to
imagine that one could engage in a balanced exchange of the general symbolic
media with God, it is shameful to think that one could trick a deity into
bestowing superior goods for a meager offering.
Yet, some pray-ers on occasion imply that their communication with God has an
element of balanced reciprocity. In some cases we read of complaints against the
deity, which express the pray-ers' commitment and even sacrificial inducement to
God which is not now being reciprocated.(68) At least for the moment, such
complaints testify both to the pray-er's commitment to God (faithfulness,
constant prayer; sacrifice), but also to the experience of shame, mockery and
humiliation. An imbalance is perceived and so God is faulted for failing to
respond with divine benefaction to the pray-er's commitment to God. Moreover,
although in some situations pray-ers seem to engage in a sort
of balanced reciprocity when they make promises and vows to God (69) to be
fulfilled upon receipt of God's grant of deliverance or health, the psalmist
declares that nothing that could be offered would be a sufficient repayment:
"What shall I render to the Lord for all of his bounty to me?" (Ps 116:12). The
best that can be done is "to pay my vows to the Lord," a remark which I suggest
is but acknowledging God's honorable benefaction, not balancing it with
anything. In the main, pray-ers receive God's generalized reciprocity, and their
public praise only acknowledges God's claims of honor. Balanced reciprocity, at
best, is but an occasional and illusory suggestion. Negative reciprocity, such as
Lucian described, is shameful.

13

According to the definition of justice noted earlier, we often read of virtuous

people who fulfil their duties to God, country and family. Does God have duties
and obligations to the world He created and the people God has made His own?
Does justice contain an element of balanced reciprocity? Just worshipers owe
God the fulfilment of their vows, even as justice dictates that benefactions
received are to be acknowledged. Commitment, as we saw, is what pray-ers owe
the Deity, whether this be hymns of thanksgiving and praise or sacrifices, which
acknowledge God's benefaction. Yet this relationship is hardlybalanced, nor were
ancient pray-ers bold enough to say that they had satisfied for all time the debt of
benefaction from the Creator-Parent, which is implied in balanced reciprocity.
Mortals can never repay the Lord or balance the scales, but live forever with the
duty to praise and thank God. Josephus describes just this sort of piety:
Twice every day, at the dawn thereof, and when the hour comes for turning to
repose, let all acknowledge before God the bounties which he has bestowed on
them through their deliverance from the land of Egypt: thanksgiving is a natural
duty, and is rendered alike in gratitude for past mercies and to incline the giver to
others yet to come (Ant. 14.212, italics added).
"Duty," the emic term describing what mortals express in prayer of thanksgiving,
encodes a sense of obligation to acknowledge God's benefaction. While it may be
viewed by some as reciprocity (see Athens' honoring of Hyrcanus earlier), it
looks more to the protocols of honor claims which are acknowledged, than to
balanced reciprocity which seeks to equalize the scales of the exchange and thus
terminate a particular act of barter. To render God His due, then, is not to engage
in balanced reciprocity, but to send a response of commitment in view of
altruistic benefactions received.
What do we know if we know this? First, we become aware of the four media of
exchange (power, commitment, inducement and influence), which aid us in
appreciating what a sender might communicate to a receiver. In general, mortal
pray-ers communicate with God in terms of commitment, but also inducementas-sacrifice; God may respond with all four forms of symbolic media. Second, if
exchange appropriately describes the communication between pray-er and Deity,
it seems best to describe God as exercising generalized reciprocity or altruism in
bestowing divine benefaction in the form of power, commitment, inducement or
influence. The pray-er's petition for or praise of divine benefaction does not seem
to be a form of reciprocity of any kind. Pray-ers, we saw, approach God either as
needy or grateful; but they are not exercising any power over God, nor bribing
Him, nor bringing God anything God lacks. Unless by magical prayers they bind
God (superstition) or think to extract resources from God through sacrifice
(negative reciprocity). They engage in no reciprocity with God; pray-ers are the
14

recipients of divine benefaction, that is, of divine favoritism or election. As

recipients they are thereby indebted to God and have an obligation in justice to
offer praise and thanksgiving. But this is hardly what was meant
by balanced reciprocity, for there is no commensurability between gift and
thanksgiving. The commitment of pray-ers is balanced by God's commitment, so
to speak, but the Deity's eternal faithfulness and loyalty greatly surpass that of the
pray-ers; hence there is no balance here. (70)
6.0 Patron-Client Relationships
Classicists have long appreciated the importance of the patron-client relationship
in antiquity.(71) Frederick Danker brought to the attention of New Testament
interpreters the grand tradition of honoring benefactors, a form of patron-client
relations characteristic of the eastern Mediterranean. (72) Bruce Malina, however,
pioneered the formal use of the anthropology of patron-client relations for
interpreting early Christian literature.(73) His adapted model(74) of patron-client
relations describes those that arise among peoples of unequal status and
resources: landlord/ vassal, aristocrat/peasant, king/subject, father/son, and
God/Israel. Thus patron-client relationships describe the vertical dimension of
exchange between higher-status and lower-status persons. A full inventory of the
standard features of patron-client relationships is found in the following note,
(75)
but we highlight those pertinent to this discussion.
First, patron-client relations all contain an element of exchange/benefit in them;
otherwise, it would be difficult to know why patron and client engaged in a
relationship at all. Malina noted: "Patron-client relations are based on strong
inequality and difference between patrons and clients. Patrons monopolize
certain positions of crucial importance to clients, especially access to means of
production, major markets, and centers of society." (76) What, then, do patrons
bestow on clients and what do clients render in return? Patrons are usually
wealthy and powerful people, who have first-order goods, that is: (1)power to
stop agonistic behavior threatening the life and livelihood of a client;
(2) commitment to support clients by giving them a sense of kinship, albeit
fictive, with the patron; (3) inducement, such as a dowry for the client's daughter,
seed for his fields, or a daily ration of bread or money (77); and
(4) influence, passing on a favorable word to the client's creditor or putting the
client in touch with the right person to solve the client's problems. As Malina has
shown, God is regularly understood as the patron-benefactor who bestows
"grace" or favor,(78) that is altruistic benefaction. God's patronage, similar to that
of earthly patrons, consists of first-order goods: (1) power: ability to create, to
defeat Egyptian, Assyrian, and Seleucid armies, and to subdue the heavenly
spirits who attack God's clients; (2)commitment: pledges of eternal loyalty and
15

fidelity in a covenant of steadfast love with Abraham, David and their

descendants; (3) inducement: bestowal of rain and sunshine for crops, increase of
herds, and many children; (4) influence: knowledge of God's law and prophetic
information of God's plans. Clients, as we saw above, cannot give power to this
Patron, for God is omnipotent, or provide God with information, for God is
omniscient. But clients can bring inducement, a material gift, such as a sacrifice,
and offer commitment, public praise of and loyalty to Him.
Second, although we identified earlier four distinct symbolic media of exchange,
the patron-client relationship does not seem to function in a one-for-one
exchange: i.e., clients petition for inducement to pay taxes, in return for which
they offer commitment. Rather, the symbolic media are exchanged as a package.
With commitment from God the Patron comes power and/or inducement. In
prayer, however, it becomes clear that the pray-er best brings God
only commitment; for, as many biblical instances note, sacrifices and holocausts
do not move the Deity, but rather faithfulness, obedience and loyalty, i.e.,
commitment.(79)
Third, anthropologists describe the relation between patron and client as
particularistic, in that the patron does not treat all real or potential clients the
same. Some individuals or groups are "chosen" favorites, singled out from the
rest, and most favored.(80) Thus favoritism, so offensive to modern democratic
ears and their notions of egalitarianism, thrives in a patron-client world. The
Bible knows of many favorites of God (81): Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 15:13-16),
David (2 Sam 7:8-16), and Israel: "The Lord your God has chosen you to be a
people for his own possession, out of all the people that are on the face of the
earth. It is not because you were more in number than any other people that the
Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all
peoples"(Deut 7:6-7).
Fourth, patron-client relations purport to endure for a long time, either the
lifetime of the patron and client or, in the case of God's covenant with Israel,
forever. An important corollary of this suggests that the virtues of loyalty and
faithfulness, which are parts of the virtue of justice, will then become important
in prayer relationships with the Deity.(82) As Deuteronomy said above about God's
covenant with Israel, the Deity "keeps covenant and steadfast love. . .to a
thousand generations." Similarly, the promise to David came to be interpreted as
the patron's pledge of an eternal dynasty: "Your house and your kingdom shall be
made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever" (2 Sam
7:13). Mortal clients, on the other hand, may pledge the same undying loyalty,
but be unable to maintain the commitment. Nevertheless mutual pledges are
frequent characteristics of patron-client relations, especially in prayers. In this
16

context we recall the Athenian benefaction proclamation to Hyrcanus, in which

they made it painfully clear that the client's duty to acknowledge the patron's
worth entirely depends on Hyrcanus' continued patronage to them. Ideally, then,
faithfulness and loyalty are core elements of a patron-client relationship.
What do we know as a result of this? The ubiquitous and ancient pattern of
benefactor and patron-client relations greatly aids our interpretation of prayer.
First, in prayer God and the pray-er are hierarchically or vertically positioned.
God, who is Sovereign, Father, Lord and Savior, is also the Most High and vastly
removed in status from mortals; nevertheless, there is a personal relationship
expressed in these patron- client relationships. Second, in terms of the commerce
of this relationship, God possesses and bestows all four media of exchange; but
mortals, always the recipients of patronage, have only their commitment with
which to acknowledge divine benefaction, and frail commitment at that. Prayer,
then, is not an exchange of heavenly patronage for clients' earthly gifts. Rather,
divine patronage is honorably acknowledged (i.e., commitment) with the sense
that nothing else is suitable to bring to God. Finally, favoritism emerges as a
significant element in patron-client relationships. Only some individuals or some
peoples enjoy the patron's attention.
7.0 Prayer and Ritual
Bruce Malina conveniently summarized for us the anthropological understanding
of ritual, an essential element for appreciating the social dynamics called prayer.
Gathering the insights of those who study ritual, Malina articulated a basic
distinction between status-transformation ritual and ceremony.(83) By statustransformation ritual, he means the process where persons assume a new role or
status, hence a transformation of their status. For example, two people who marry
move from single to exclusive status; and should the female in this marriage bear
a child, she assumes a new role, namely, mother. Similarly, in the transformation
which is baptism, people enter a Christian church, changing status from outsider
to insider and from unclean to washed clean in the blood of the Lamb. Other
status-transformation rituals include: birth and death (entering and leaving the
land of the living), trial and imprisonment (unfit for society); graduation (from
unskilled or ignorant status to that of a skilled and trained professional), and the
like. Conversely, ceremonies serve to confirm institutions as well as roles and
statuses within them. For example, a school or business or municipality may at a
picnic or dinner host people employed by it or who are benefactors of it. The
institution experiences confirmation of loyalty and support from those who attend
the fete. Ceremonies include all memorials, anniversaries and birthdays at which
the roles and statuses of those honored are re-burnished and thus confirmed. The
17

entire liturgical calendar of the Christian church consists of a series of

ceremonies.
The following diagram aims at sharpening the differences between statustransformation rituals and ceremonies so to make salient the social functioning of
each.
Elements of a Ritual

Category

Elements of a Ceremony

1. irregular pauses

Frequency

1. regular pauses

2. unpredictable, when needed

Schedule/Calendar 2. predictable, planned

3. present-to-future

Temporal Focus

3. past-to-present

4. professionals

Presided Over By

4. officials

5. status reversal

Purpose/Function

5.confirmation of roles and statuses in institutions

status transformation

1. It is evident that transformation rituals are irregular, since no one plans to be ill
or unclean or guilty or dead. Ceremonies such as meals, anniversaries or
festivals, on the other hand, occur regularly, either daily, weekly, monthly or
annually. 2. Thus transformation rituals, which focus on the change from sickness
to health, sinfulness to holiness or life to death, do not fit into a calendar or
schedule, since they occur unpredictably. Yet ceremonies are anticipated and
planned for: the civic calendar marks the founding of the city, the birthday of the
emperor and the feasts of the city's patron deities. 3. Transformation rituals all
begin with the present, current situation (illness, sinfulness) and look to the future
when that status will be changed. On the contrary, ceremonies look to some past
event, historical or mythical, and affirm its significance in the present, as do
national holidays such as July 4th or Memorial Day. 4. Transformation rituals are
presided over by people deemed competent to deal with the situation; police deal
with criminals, doctors treat the sick, firemen control blazes, ministers and priests
counsel and forgive, and sanitation engineers dispose of our waste. On the other
hand, the officials in our various national, state or local political institutions
conduct ceremonies such as anniversaries and memorials (politics); priests and
ministers officiate at liturgies (church), and parents prepare daily as well as
birthday festivities for their children (kinship). 5. Finally, rituals of
transformation do just that, ritualize either elevation or demotion in role and
status. The person undergoing a transformation ritual experiences social change
which is noted by a public: in marriage two people "become one flesh," a new
social entity; in criminal proceedings the accused may be convicted and thus
incarcerated or acquitted and set free; in illness the sick may either recover and
18

return to family or worsen, die and be buried. Ceremonies, however, function to

confirm role and status in a given institution. Anniversaries and birthdays bring
to mind the king's birthday (Mark 6:21 ) or deliverance from bondage (Exod 12)
or the Temple's purification (2 Macc 10:7-8; John 10:22). In the realm of
sacrifice, those who participate in the consumption of the meat of the offering
indicate their status as members of a clan or family or fictive-family. (84) Thus
Antipas' powerful status is acknowledged both by the feast he prepares and by
the attendance of his courtiers.(85) Participation with Jesus at the Passover meal on
the night before he died confirms for all time the identity and status of Jesus'
select disciples (Luke 22:14-34 ).
When we interface this information on prayer as either status transformation or
confirmation with the earlier classification of prayer as communication, we
further appreciate the character of those seven types of prayer.
Type of Communication

Status Transformation or
Ceremony

Distinguishing Aim

1. instrumental

status transformation

petition for what is lacking

2. regulatory

status transformation

petition to change self or other

3. interactional

ceremony

contentment with current

relationships

4. self-focused

ceremony

contentment with current status

5. heuristic

status transformation

seeking information which is

currently lacking

6. imaginative

ceremony

status transformation when

newcomer participates; ceremony
in repeated performances

7. informational

ceremony

confirmation of relationship

Instrumental or petitionary prayer, then, implies status transformation situation.

Sinners beg for mercy so as to be changed into a state of blamelessness and
holiness once more (Pss 38, 51); those overwhelmed by trials or attacked by
enemies ask to be elevated from the current negative status to one of peace and
harmony (Pss 56, 59). Regulatory prayers look to changes in status, either the rise
in the pray-er's status or the lowering of some one else's. Interactional prayer
ceremonially confirms roles and statuses in the institution of the House of Israel.
The pray-er who prays Ps 84 ("How lovely is your dwelling place") is a member
of the House of Israel who finds contentment and fulfilment in the temple of
Israel's God; and the Deity addressed in this way is confirmed as the Patron of
the people. Far from asking for change, the pray-er expresses satisfaction in his
current status and wishes it to continue. Self-focused prayer confirms the status
of the prayer, who may even boast in his present situation. Heuristic prayer seeks
19

a status transformation from not knowing to knowing the mind and plans of God.
Imaginative prayer, such as speaking in tongues, seems to have functioned at
Corinth initially as status transformation but subsequently as ceremony. Those
speaking in tongues initially experienced a transformation from non-elite to elite
status, but every subsequent prayer in tongues confirmed them as special elite
members of the Corinthian church. The informational type of prayer would seem
to reflect what was said about ceremonies; namely, it serves to confirm roles and
statuses in a given institution. Hence prayers of praise, thanks, honor and glory to
God do not change the status of the pray-er or the Deity so honored; on the
contrary, such prayers confirm God's role and status as Creator or Patron, while
at the same time confirming the status of the pray-er as client of this heavenly
Patron and worshiper of this particular Deity, all within the House of Israel. For
example, the rubrics for Passover specify that Israel pray the Hillel psalms, Pss
113-114 after the third cup and Pss 115-116 at the very end of the meal (Mark
14:26). Those who pray these psalms confirm their membership in the people
whom God rescued from slavery in Egypt. God, moreover, is confirmed as the
Deity who works mighty works for his chosen people. Finally, prayers and
psalms which became attached to certain festivals serve to confirm the roles and
statuses of the pray-ers and the Deity addressed; they commemorate and thus
bring a past event to present consciousness, thus renewing and strengthening the
relationship of the clients with their Patron.(86)
8.0 Summary, Conclusions and Further Questions
8.1 Summary and Conclusions. This article aimed to introduce into the
scholarly conversation about biblical prayer other ways of interpreting prayer
texts, one that should take its place alongside of and in conversation with more
conventional form-critical and history-of-religion studies. We do not find this
approach in conflict with other methods of interpretation, rather it is a new player
drafted into the team. This article has presented a systematic approach to
understanding prayer in terms of cultural patterns which make up the social and
political lives of the pray-ers. It began with a taxonomy of prayer based on a
communications model, followed by a model for uncovering the complex value
systems of both pray-er and God. Then it brought into conversation cultural and
rhetorical notions of honor and shame, highlighting how honor is acquired
[virtue, prowess, benefaction, conflict] and how this material relates to God as
described in Israelite and Christian prayers. The system of exchange and modes
of reciprocity served to clarify what pray-ers think they are offering and
receiving from God. Most importantly, this material sharpened the ancient
criticism of ritual and sacrifice, offering a coherent way of appreciating the
frequent critique of formal religion by ancient reformers. Finally, the theory of
ritual allowed us to examine more closely the process (transformation or
20

confirmation) and players (prophet or priest) involved in the various types of

prayer classified by the communications taxonomy. Thus we see that the various
models used in this study overlap and often replicate one another.
The scope of this paper allowed no space for a lengthy interpretation of this or
that prayer to test the model so as to draw any conclusions about its suitability for
ancient prayers and pray-ers or the worth of a cultural analysis of ancient prayers.
And this is unfortunate, because the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Hence,
what is needed now is detailed analysis of certain prayers in Luke-Acts, the
Letters of Paul, and Revelation to see what is gained or lost by using such
modeling. Moreover, the use of the exchange and reciprocity models raises
sensitive questions about the understanding of one's relationship to God, whether
one can be said to add to God's honor or in any way obligate God. It may be that
the answers in the biblical literature are many, not uniform; and further study is
warranted which may involve philosophical and theological discussions of
religion in antiquity. As far as I am concerned, this question remains open and
troublesome.
8.2 Further Questions. What other cultural models for interpreting prayers
might be added to those developed here? The following four perspectives seem
like fresh questions to ask about prayers. 1. The conversation on prayer would
benefit by the use of the model of social stratification articulated by Lenski and
Lenski.(87) This allows a reader to plot the pray-er as well as others mentioned in
the psalm in terms of social location and social status. Thus the pray-er may be
immediately in communication with God, or be employing priests and liturgy as
intermediaries. The pray-er may be asking God to turn the world upside down,
raising the lowly and humbling the mighty. Hence, the presence and performance
of mediating figures is at stake, as well as a petition for reform of the social
order.
2. Many biblical prayers employ language reflecting both the vocabulary of
purity and pollution and the social function of this language. Strong boundary
making and identity confirming is often noticed by scholars, which can be
brought into conversation with the treatment above concerning status
transformation rituals and ceremonies, which move people across social lines or
confirm social lines in and around a group. 3. Models of ancient personality
should be brought into the conversation on prayer.(88) For, if the ancients are
group-oriented persons, not individualists as modern Westerners are, then the ego
of the pray-er must be assessed in terms of that construct, lest we engage in
ethnocentrism. By group-oriented person, we refer to the type of individual
Josephus describes:
21

Our sacrifices are not occasions for drunken self-indulgence-such practices are
abhorrent to God-but for sobriety. At these sacrifices prayers offered for the
welfare of the community take precedence of those for ourselves; for we are born
for fellowship, and he who sets its claims above his private interests is especially
acceptable to God (Against Apion 2.195-96).
4. Finally, since so many psalms and prayers contain references to body parts,
lifting of hands, falling to one's knees, God's right hand, eyes, ears, and heart, it
would be worthwhile to bring the description of the three body zones into the
conversation on prayer.(89) This model might be particularly useful in assessing
the degree of personal involvement in either sin (many zones) and repentance or
praise. Moreover it provides a way of assessing the tension that might arise in
prayer between the external rituals of some (hands and feet) and the internal
processes of reformers (heart).

NOTES
1. Herman Gunkel, The Psalms. A Form-Critical Introduction (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1967; B. W. Anderson, Out of the Depths. The Psalms Speak for
Us Today (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983); Claus Westermann, Praise and
Lament in the Psalms (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981) and HansJoachim.Kraus, Psalms 1-59 : A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub.
House, 1988); see also Patrick Miller, They Cried to the Lord. The Form and
Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994).
2. Patristic materials on the Our father
3. Roger T. Beckwith, "The Daily and Weekly Worship of the Primitive Church
in Relation to its Jewish Antecedents. Pt 1," EvQ 56 (1984) 65-80. James H.
Charlesworth, "A Prolegomenon to the Study of the Jewish Background of the
Hymns and Prayers in the New Testament," Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982)
264-85; "Prayer in the New Testament in Light of Contemporary Jewish
Prayers." SBLSP 1993 773-86, "Jewish Hymns, Odes, and Prayers (ca. 167 b.c.e
- 135 c.e.), " Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters.. R.A. Kraft and G.W.E.
Nicklesburg, eds. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996) 411-36. See also Michael
Wyschogrod, "The 'Shema Israel' in Judaism and the New Testament (Deut 6:4-9;
11:13-21; Num 15: 37-41)." Pp. 23-32 in H. G. Link, ed., The Roots of our
Common Faith (1984) and T. Zahavy, 1989 "Three Stages in the Development of
Early Rabbinic Prayer." Pp. in Jacob Neusner, Ernest Frerichs, and Nahum Sarna,
22

eds., From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox.
Vol. 1 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).
4. For example, Joachim Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1978) and The Lord's Prayer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980).
5. Gordon P. Wiles, Paul's Intercessory Prayers: The Significance of the
Intercessory Prayer Passages in Paul's Letters. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1974).
6. Gerald F. Downing, "The Ambiguity of 'The Pharisee and the Toll-Collector'
(Luke 18:9-14) in the Greco-Roman World of Late Antiquity," CBQ 54 (1992)
80-99; Allison A. Trites, "The Prayer Motif in Luke-Acts." Perspectives on LukeActs. Charles H. Talbert, ed. (Danville, VA: Association of Baptist Professors of
Religion, 1978) 168-86; and Steven F. Plymale, The Prayer Texts of LukeActs (New York: Peter Lang, 1991).
7. Reinhart Deichgrber, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frhen
Christenheit (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1969) 25-40, 97-102;
Matthew Black, "The Doxology to the Pater Nosterwith a Note on Matthew
6:13b, " A Tribute to Geza Vermes (Philip Davies and Richard White, eds.;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 327-38.
8. Samuel E. Balentine, Prayer in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1993) and Patrick Miller, They Cried to the Lord.
9. Pieter van der Horst and Gregory Sterling, Prayers in Antiquity: Greco-Roman,
Jewish and Christian Prayers (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press,
199?); and Simon Pulleyn, Prayer in Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997).
10. See Carl A. Volz, "Prayer in the Early Church., A Primer on Prayer. Paul R.
Sponheim, ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 36-50.
11. This volume was edited by James H. Charlesworth with Mark Harding and
Mark Kiley (Trinity Press International: Valley Forge, PA, 1994). See also Mark
Kiley, ed., Prayer from Alexander to Constantine. A Critical Anthology (New
York: Routledge, 1997).
12. Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude (AnB 37C; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 94101; Douglas E. Oakman, "The Lord's Prayer in Social Perspective." Pp. in Bruce
Chilton and Craig Evans, ---- (forthcoming, available in manuscript); and John J.
Pilch, "Prayer in Luke." The Bible Today 18 (1980) 221-25.
23

13. Bruce J. Malina, "What Is Prayer?" The Bible Today 18/4 (1980) 214-20.
14. Malina, "What Is Prayer?" 215.
15. Included here are curses, spells, incantations and the like. See Christopher A.
Faraone and Dirk Obgink, eds., Magika Hiera. Ancient Greek Magic and
Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); Hans Dieter Betz, ed., The
Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, 2nd edition (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1986) and Martin Meyer and Richard Smith, eds., Ancient Christian
Magic. Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (San Francisco: Harper, 1994).
16. Malina, "What Is Prayer?" 217-18.
17. Kraus, Psalms 1-59. A Commentary, 38-62. See Claus Westermann, The
Praise of God in the Psalms (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1961) and The Psalms,
Structure, Content, and Message (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980). Patrick D.
Miller, Interpreting the Psalms, passim
18. In a careful study of Luke 18:9-14, F. Gerald Downing carefully analyzed the
prayers of pharisee and tax collector against the background of prayers in the
Israelite and Greco-Roman world ("The Ambiguity of 'The Pharisee and the TollCollector' (Luke 18:9-14) in the Greco-Roman World of Late Antiquity" CBQ 54
[1992] 80-99). One of Downing's conclusions was that both prayers were "selfabsorbed," but he had no broader classification system to sort out the prayers.
19. For example, both Psalms of thanksgivings (Ps 116) and epistolary prayers of
thanksgiving (Rom 1:8-15; 1 Cor 1:4-9; Phil 1:3-11; Col 1:3-8; 1 Thess 1:3-10)
and blessings of God (2 Cor 1:3-7; Eph 1:3-10; 1 Peter 1:3-9).
20. For example, Rom 16:25-27; Phil 4:20; Jude 24-25.
21. Ps 118 is the clearest example of this, but see also Pss 30 and136.
22. John J. Pilch, "Healing in Mark: A Social-Science Analysis," BTB 15 (1985)
142-50; "The Health Care System in Matthew," BTB 16 (1986) 102-106;
"Understanding Biblical Healing: Selecting the Appropriate Model," 18 (1988)
60-66; "Sickness and Healing in Luke-Acts," The Social World of Luke-Acts.
Models for Interpretation (Jerome H. Neyrey, ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1991) 181-210;

24

"Understanding Healing in the Social World of Early Christianity," BTB 22

(1992) 26-33; and "Insights and Models for Understanding the Healing Activity
of the Historical Jesus," SBLSP 1993: 154-77.
23. F. R. Kluckhorn and F. L. Strodbeck, Variations in Value Orientations. (New
York: Harper and Row, 1961); Arthur Kleinman, Patients and Healers in the
Context of Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980); and Monica
McGoldrick John K. Pearce, and Joseph Giordano, eds., Ethnicity and Family
Therapy (New York: The Guilford Press, 1982).
24. John J. Pilch and Bruce J. Malina, Biblical Social Values and Their
Meanings (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1993) xiii.
25. Time and again in their efforts to sensitive Euro-American readers to the
differences between us moderns and them ancients, Bruce Malina in particular
has provided a detailed series of contrasts between modern first-world countries
and the ancient world. See, for example, Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H.
Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names. The Social Value of Labels in Matthew (Sonoma,
CA: Polebridge, 1988) 145-51; Bruce Malina, Windows on the World of Jesus.
Time Travels to Ancient Judea (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993); and
Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey, Portraits of Paul. An Archeology of Ancient
Personality (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1996) 226-31.
26. This adaptation of the value map appeared first in Pilch's Introducing the
Cultural Context of the New Testament (New York/Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1991)
244; the version in our text is that of Pilch and Malina, Biblical Social Values,
xxiii.
27. Especially in the holy war tradition, Israel is told to "be still" while God
battles on their behalf (Exod 14:4; Ps 37:7 and 46:10).
28. In response to the work of Joachim Jeremias, James Barr ("Abba Isn't
Daddy," JTS 39 [1988] 28-47) examined the linguistic evidence concerning
interpretation of the Abba in Jesus' own prayer; it does not mean "Daddy." For
accessing some of the political meaning of the term, see Mary Rose D'Angelo...
29. See Isa 41:4; Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8; see also Jerome H. Neyrey, "'Without
Beginning of Days or End of Life' (Hebrews 7:3): Topos for a True
Deity," CBQ 53 (1991) 439-55.
30. Bruce Malina ("Christ and Time: Swiss or Mediterranean?" CBQ 51 [1989]
1-31) provided the biblical guild with an excellent anthropological study on the
25

meaning of time as it applies to the Bible. Of the future he writes: "The past and
the future as the possible cannot belong and never will belong to human beings.
To glimpse the world of the distant past, or of the future, the world of the
possible, is to assume divine prerogatives. In Israel such insolence was idolatry,
while for Greeks it was hubris. The possible past and the possible future are
simply closed to human beings" (p. ??).
31. Jonah 1:4-16, Mark 4:35-41, Acts 27:13-44; storms themselves were thought
to be caused by some heavenly being, either the God of Israel or a hostile spirit.
Nevertheless, those caught in storms were powerless against them. See Vernon
Robbins, "'By Land and by Sea': The We-Passages and Ancient Sea
Voyages," Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Charles H. Talbert, ed.; Macon, GA:
Mercer University Press, 1978) 215-42.
32. In addition to the seven-year famine at the end of Genesis, see 1 Kings 17:116; Acts 11:27-30.
33. See Wilhelm Michaelis, "," TDNT 3.914-15.
34. Particularly helpful here is the study by John Pilch, "'Beat His Ribs While He
Is Still Young' (Sirach 30:12): A Window on the Mediterranean
World," BTB 1993: 101-13.
35. In Phil 1:6 Paul states his hope in God relative to past and present: "And I am
sure that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day
of Jesus Christ."
36. On the motif of prophecy-fulfilment, see R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old
Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel (NovTSupp 18; Leiden: Brill, 1967); G. M.
Soares-Prabhu, The Formula Quotations in the Infancy of Matthew (Analecta
Biblica 63; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976); on Luke's gospel, see
David L. Tiede, Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1980) and Charles H. Talbert, "Prophecy and Fulfillment in Lucan
Theology," Luke-Acts. New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature
Seminar (Charles H. Talbert, ed.; New York: Crossroads, 1984) 91-103.
37. On Romans 5:12-21, see the sage remarks of
Fitzmyer, Romans (AnB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 405-28.

Joseph

A.

38. Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural
Anthropology (Rev. ed.; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993) 28-62. See
also Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, "Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts:
26

Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World," The Social World of Luke-Acts.

Models for Interpretation (Jerome H. Neyrey, ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1991) 97-124. See also Johannes Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, vol 1
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 213-44.
39. Julian Pitt-Rivers, "Honour and Social Status," Honour and Shame: The
Values of Mediterranean Society (J. G. Peristiany, ed.; London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1965) 19-78;
"Honor." IESS 6.503-11 ( 1968); The Fate of Shechem or The Politics of Sex:
Essays in the Anthropology of the Mediterranean (Cambridge Studies in Social
Anthropology 19; Cambridge University Press, 1977) 1.
40. Malina, New Testament World, 59. The study of "honor" by Johannes
Schneider ("," TDNT 8.169-80) presents the various meanings of ; but "honor"
is expressed by other terms, hence semantic word field studies are needed, such
as A. Klose,"Altrmische Wertbegriffe (honos und dignitas)," Neue Jahrbcher
fr Antike und deutsche Bildung 1 (1938) 268-78 and Emile Benveniste, IndoEuropean Language and Society (Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press,
1969) 334-45.
41. See Malina, New Testament World, 33-34; see also Bruce J. Malina and
Jerome H. Neyrey; Portraits of Paul, 16-17, 92-93, 202-205.
42. The definition given by Ps. Aristotle goes as follows: "To righteousness (di)
it belongs to be ready to distribute according to desert, and to preserve ancestral
customs and institutions and the established laws, and to tell the truth when
interest is at stake, and to keep agreements. First among the claims of
righteousness are our duties to the gods, then our duties to the spirits, then those
to country and parents, then those to the departed; among these claims is piety (),
which is either a part of righteousness or a concomitant of it. Righteousness is
also accompanied by holiness () and truth and loyalty () and hatred of
wickedness" (Virtues and Vices, V.2-3, italics added). See also Cicero, Inv.
2.160-161; Menander Rhetor I.361.17-25.
43. The premier collection of benefaction inscriptions for biblical study is that of
Frederick C. Danker, Benefactor. Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New
Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1982); see also
A. R. Hands, Charities and Social Aid in Greece and Rome (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1968) 175-209. See also S. R. Llewellyn, "The Development of
Systems of Liturgies," NDIEC 7 (1994) 93-111; Stephen C. Mott, "The Power of
Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in Hellenistic Benevolence," Current Issues in
27

Biblical and Patristic Interpretation(Gerald Hawthorne, ed.; Grand Rapids: W.E.

Eerdmans, 1975) 60-72.
44. Isaeus provides an excellent example of this: "Our forefathers. . .performed
every kind of choregic office, contributed large sums for your expenses in war,
and never ceased acting as trierarchs. As evidence of all these services, they set
up in the temples out of the remainder of their property, as a memorial of their
civic worth, dedications, such as tripods which they had received as prizes for
choregic victories in the temple of Dionysus, or in the shrine of Pythian Apollo.
Furthermore, by dedicating on the Acropolis the first-fruits of their wealth, they
have adorned the shrine with bronze and marble statues, numerous, indeed, to
have been provided out of a private fortune" (On the Estate of Dicaeogenes 5.4142).
45. For a clearer sense of the do ut des character of benefactions, see
Josephus, Ant. 14.212.
46. One is reminded of the practice of victorious kings putting atop their already
crowned head the crown of the monarch just vanquished. Thus the honor taken
from the defeated directly increased that of the victor. The same would be true of
the spoils of war.
47. See Ronald F. Hock and Edward N. O'Neil, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric.
Volume I. The Progymnasmata
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) and Jerome H. Neyrey, "Questions, Chreiai, and
Challenges to Honor: The Interface of Rhetoric and Culture in Mark's
Gospel," CBQ 60 (1998) 657-81.
48. For an enlightened exposition of these psalms of complaint or lament, see
Patrick Miller, They Cried to the Lord, 68-86.
49. For a fuller exposition of Ps 22 as Jesus' dying prayer, see my Honor and
Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998)
156-60. The aggressive nature of questions such as "Where is. . .? Why have you.
. .?" has been splendidly analyzed by Patrick Miller, They Cried to the Lord, 6879 and 99-100.
50. Yet Harold Attridge (The Epistle to the Hebrews [Philadelphia: Fortress,
1989] 196, where he cites biblical examples of lesser people blessing greater
ones. Yet his discussion seems innocent of social- science concepts such as
ascribed and achieved honor.
28

51. The premier example is the boast God makes before destroying the Egyptian
army at the Exodus: "And I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host" (Exod
14:4; see also vv 17-18; Ezek 28:22).
52. In a henotheistic world, Yahweh competes with the gods of the nations for
glory and honor; therefore God is in conflict with the gods of the nations as these
peoples fight against Israel. In a monotheistic world, Yahweh as the only deity in
the universe does not need to battle other deities. Hence, it would seem that
notions such as God "getting glory" would belong to henotheistic times and
would have little meaning in a monotheistic world.
53. God is regularly reminded that "The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any
that go down into silence" (Ps 115:17; see also Isa 38:18-19). The same sentiment
appears also at Qumran: "Surely a maggot cannot praise thee nor a grave-worm
recount thy lovingkindness, but the living can praise thee" (11QPs-a XIX. 1-2).
Thus pray-ers, at least, see God as gaining more or less honor in proportion to the
number of the living who acknowledge the Lord.
54. See Deut 7:9; Pss 31:5; 69:13; 97:10; 111:7; 145:13; Isa 49:7; 1 Cor 1:9;
10:13; 2 Cor 1:18; 1 Thess 5:24; 2 Thess 3:3; 2 Tim 2:13; Heb 10:23 and 1 John
1:9.
55. Pss 13:1-2; 35:17; 74:10; 79:5; 80:4; 89:46; 90:13; 94:3.
56. Pss 10:1; 22:1; 42:9; 44:23-24; 74:1, 11; 88:14.
57. Pss 79:10; 115:2; as mentioned above, an excellent treatment of this
questioning material can be found in Miller, They Cried to the Lord, 71-74.
58. Bruce J. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology. Practical
Models for Biblical Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986) 75-76; he is
digesting Talcott Parsons, Politics and Social Structure (New York: Free Press,
1969) 352-429.
59. Talcott Parsons, Politics and Social Structure (New York: Free Press, 1969)
352-437; see also his earlier article, "On the Concept of Influence," Public
Opinion Quarterly 27 (1963) 37-62.
60. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 77.
61. Earlier we described one of the types of prayer as "informative," in which
senders make known sentiments such as sorrow for sins as well as thanksgiving.
29

The pray-er may consider this secret information, yet some Psalms indicate that
God knows the hearts of all (Ps 139 "O Lord, you have searched me and know
me").
62. In the case of Saul, "to obey (commitment) is better than sacrifice
(inducement)" (1 Sam 15:10-23); see Ps 40:6-8 LXX.
63. On sacrifice as a form of inducement, Bruce J. Malina ( "Mediterranean
Sacrifice: Dimensions of Domestic and Political Religion," BTB 26 [1996] 37)
defined sacrifice as, "Sacrifice is a ritual in which a deity or deities is/are offered
some form of inducement, rendered humanly irretrievable, with a view to some
life-effect for the offerer(s)."
64. See Isa 1:11-16; Jer 6:20; 7:3-29; Hos 6:6; 8:11-13; Amos 5:21-24; Micah
6:6-8; Malachi 1:6-14.
65. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 98-106; he drawing on
the work of Marshall Sahlin, Stone Age Economics (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton,
1972).
66. One might profitably think of "regulatory" prayer as in some way being an
example of negative reciprocity; the pray-er performs perfunctory rites, bringing
as little as is needed to secure a powerful result. God is shamed both by the
assertion of the pray-er's power or control and by the desire to reduce contact
with the deity to the most minimal level. God loses all around.
67. See James 1:5-8; on the traditions reflected here, see Luke T. Johnson, The
Letter of James (AnB 37A; New York: Doubleday, 1995) 179-81.
68. See Claus Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms, 176ff; Samuel
Balentine, The Hidden God: The Hiding of the Face of God in the Old
Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983) 116-35; Craig
Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms (JSOTSup 52.;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 80-82; and Patrick Miller, They Cried
to the Lord, 70-76.
69. See Num 21:2; 30:2-3; Deut 23:18, 21; Pss 22:25; 50:14; 56:12; 61:5, 8;
66:13; 116:14, 18.
70. The Sacramentary of the Roman Catholic Church contains a preface prayer
for use on weekdays: "You have no need of our praise, yet our desire to thank

30

you is itself your gift. Our prayer of thanksgiving adds nothing to your greatness,
but makes us grow in your grace" (Weekdays IV P40).
71. For example, Richard P. Saller, Personal Patronage Under the Early
Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); Paul Veyne, Bread and
Circuses. Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism (London: Penguin Press,
1990); and Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, ed., Patronage in Ancient Society (London:
Routledge, 1989).
72. Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor. Epigraphical Study of a Graeco-Roman and
New Testament Semantic Field, mentioned above in note 43. 1982.
73. The initial study is Bruce J. Malina, "Patron and Client: The Analogy Behind
Synoptic Theology," Forum 4,1 (1988) 2-32; this article was made more widely
available in Malina's The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels (London:
Routledge, 1996) 143-75. See also John H. Elliott. . .
74. The important anthropological literature includes Steffen Schmidt, James
Scott, Carl Land, and Laura Guasti, Friends, Followers and Factions: A Reader
in Political Clientalism (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1977);
Jeremy Boissevain, Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and
Coalitions (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1974);and Shlomo Eisenstadt and
Louis Rhoniger,Patrons, Clients, and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the
Structure of Trust in Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).
75. The following features of patron-client relations as described in
anthropological literature include: 1. patron-client relations are particularistic; 2.
patron-client interaction involves the exchange of a whole range of generalized
symbolic media: power, influence, inducement and commitment; 3. the exchange
entails a package deal, so that the generalized symbolic media cannot be given
separately (i.e., concretely useful goods must go along with loyalty, solidarity); 4.
solidarity here entails a strong element of unconditionality and long-range social
credit; 5. hence, patron-client relations involve a strong element of personal
obligation, ranging from high to low salience, even if relations are often
ambivalent; 6. these relations are not fully legal or contractual, but very strongly
binding, i.e., they are informal and often opposed to official laws of the country;
7. in principle, patron-client relations entered into voluntarily can be abandonded
voluntarily, although always proclaimed to be life-long, long-range, forever, etc.
8. patron-client relations are vertical and dyadic (between individuals or networks
of individuals) and, thus, they undermine the horizontal group organization and
solidarity of clients and other patrons. 9. patron-client relations are based on
strong inequality and difference between patrons and clients. Patrons monopolize
31

certain positions of crucial importance to clients, especially access to means of

production, major markets, and centers of society (Malina, "Patron and Client,"
3-4).
76. Malina, "Patron and Client," 4.
77. Duncan Cloud ("The Patron-Client Relationship: Emblem and Reality in
Juvenal's First Book," Patronage in Ancient Society, 210) notes that Pliny,
Martial and Perseus all describe Roman patrons bestowing 25 asses on each
client at the morning salutatio.
78. In a lengthy note, Malina ("Patron and Client," 171-172) describes the
various meanings of , , and which express patronage.
79. The more notable examples are 1 Sam 15:22; Pss 40:6-8; 50:8-15; 51:16, 17;
Isa 1:10-17; Jer 7:21-26; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21-24.
80. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is declared "favored" by God (Luke 1:28, 30), a
favoritism which forms part of her canticle (1:47-49). In ancient Israel, David,
his successors in his dynasty, and also the people Israel are all declared "chosen"
or "elected" by God. The psalmist prays "I know that the Lord has set apart the
godly for himself" (Ps 4:3); and in another place, "Thou art the glory of their
strength; by thy favor is their horn exalted" (Ps 89:17); "He led forth his people
with joy, his chosen ones with singing" (Ps 105:43). In the Christian scriptures,
Jesus himself is "that living stone, rejected by men but in God's sight chosen and
precious" (1 Peter 2:4); and the followers of Jesus are called "a chosen race, a
royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people" (1 Peter 2:9). On this theme
of favoritism, see G. Quell, "," TDNT 4.145-68.
81. For example, it seems to be a pattern that God chooses the younger son over
his older brother, a clear mark of favoritism: Abel over Cain, Isaac or Ishmael,
Jacob over Esau, Joseph over his brothers. The same argument is used by Paul in
his explanation of the choosing of the gentiles (Rom 9:6-29).
82. Paul's "thanksgiving" prayer which opens 1 Corinthians contains an inventory
of God's blessings past and future; it concludes appropriately with confession of
God's faithfulness: "God is faithful () by whom you were called into the
fellowship of his Son" (1:9; see 10:13). And the doxology which concludes 1
Thessalonians also expresses the same idea: "He who calls you is faithful () and
he will do it" (5:24; see 2 Thess 3:3).

32

83. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 139-65. Victor Turner
makes this distinction clear: "I consider the term 'ritual' to be more fittingly
applied to forms of religious behavior associated with social transitions, while the
term 'ceremony' has a closer bearing on religious behavior associated with
religious states. . .Ritual is transformative, ceremony confirmative" (The Forest
of Symbols. Aspects of Ndembu Ritual [Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1967] 95). See also Raymond Firth and John Skorupski, Symbol and Theory. A
Philosophical Study of Theories of Religion in Social Anthropology (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1976) 164.
84. Nancy Jay, Throughout Your Generations Forever (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1991) 41-60; see Marcel Detienne, "Culinary Practices and the
Spirit of Sacrifice," The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks (Marcel Detienne
and Jean-Pierre Vernant, eds.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989) 4-14.
85. Matt 22:3-4 and Luke 14:17-20, 24. See Richard L. Rohrbaugh, "The PreIndustrial City in Luke-Acts," The Social World of Luke-Acts (Jerome H.
Neyrey, ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 137-46.
86. The traditional classification of certain types of psalms are best seen as
ceremonies: 1) royal psalms (Pss. 2; 20; 21; 45; 72; 89; 101; 110; 132; 141:1-11);
2) songs of Zion (Pss (46); 48: 76; 84; 87; 122; (132); 3) festival psalms and
liturgies (Pss 50; 81; 95).
87. Gerhard Lenski and Jean Lenski, Human Societies. An Introduction to
Macro-sociology (New York: McGraw Hill, 1987). For excellent use of this
model, see Dennis C. Duling, "Matthew's Plurisignificant 'Son of David' in Social
Science Perspective: Kinship, Kingship, Magic and Miracle," BTB 22: 99-116;
and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, 1993a"The Social Location of the Marcan
Audience,"BTB 23: 114-27.
88. Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey, "First-Century Personality: Dyadic, Not
Individual" (Jerome H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for
Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 67-96; and Portraits of Paul.
An Archaeology of Ancient Personality (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox
Press) 1996.
89. Bernard De Geradon, O.S.B.,L'homme l'image de Dieu," NRT 80 (1958)
683-95.

MIRACLES, IN OTHER WORDS:

33

Social Science Perspectives on Healings

Jerome H. Neyrey
University
Notre

of
Dame,

Notre
IN

May 17, 1995

1.0
Miracles,
In
Other
Words
2.0 Miracles and Ancient Health Care Systems
3.0 Miracles and Ancient Economic Theory: Exchange
and
Reciprocity
4.0 Miracles and Patronage-Benefaction
4.1 Patron-Client Relationships
4.2 Patron-Broker-Client
4.3
Benefaction
5.0 Miracles and Honor
5.1 The Cultural Value of Honor
5.2
Honor
and
Miracle
Stories
6.0 Miracles and Symbolic Anthropology
6.1 Symbolic Universe and Taxonomies of Illness
6.1.1 Taxonomy of Witchcraft and Spirit
Aggression
6.1.2 Taxonomy and Cultural Interpretations of
the Physical Body
6.2 Miracles and "Purity"
6.3 Miracles, Wholeness and the Physical Body
7.0 Miracles and Status Transformation Rituals
7.1 Ritual, Not Ceremony
7.2
Stages
in
the
Ritual
Process
8.0 Cultural and Social Questions: A Checklist
8.1 Ancient Health Care Systesm
8.2 Ancient Economic Systems
8.3 Patronage and Benefaction
8.4 Honor
8.5 Symbolic Approaches
34

Dame
46556

8.5.1 Taxonomy of Illness

8.5.2 Purity and Wholeness
8.6
Rituals
of
Status
9.0 A Systems Approach

Transformation

1.0 Miracles, In Other Words

Recent scholarship has produced many excellent studies which
define a "miracle" more accurately,(1) illumine the typical form of
a miracle narrative,(2) and describe the hymns of praise or
gratitude due the deity through whom the miracle occurred.
(3)
These, of course, correspond to the traditional questions
asked in biblical and classical scholarship and are argued and
evaluated in terms of the prevailing paradigm of biblical
scholarship, namely, the historical-critical method. (4)
Such approaches, however, hardly exhaust our examination of
miracles because they omit certain questions. This inquiry will
ask different sorts of questions about miracles in biblical
miraculous healing accounts from a different paradigm, namely,
the social sciences. Miracles, then, "in other words."
What sorts of different questions might we ask about miracles?
(1) Americans, who structure their world in terms of economics,
would want to know more about the exchange involved in
miracles. Perhaps money is not exchanged between the healer
and the healed, but some sort of exchange or reciprocity is
expected and regularly occurs. What is it? (2) Harold Remus
defines a miracle as having three components: (1) an act which
causes wonder and (2) which is extraordinary and inexplicable in
terms of everyday causation, such that (3) it is ascribed to
superhuman force or agency.(5) Then we must ask if and how it is
perceived as an act of benefaction. Is the healer a patron, and
has the healed person become a client? What duties does each
incur? (3) Although pious minds might imagine that healings are
acts of altruistic generosity, those who wear social science
lenses want to know why a healer heals? Honor is at stake, but
what does this look like? (4) Miracles presume a cultural
symbolic universe: what limb or ailment gets healed? what is the
35

cultural meaning of "wellness" or "uncleanness"? What sorts of

taxonomies do ancients employ to classify and thus
"understand" illness? (5) Finally, what happens to those who are
healed? What ritual process do they undergo? What of their
former stigma? This study, then, focuses on healing miracles
and seeks to examine them in terms of their socio-cultural
context.(6)

2.0 Ancient Health Care Systems

To investigate the relevant social background for a study of
healing miracles, we must first ask about the ancient "health
care system."(7)
Health, illness, and health-care-related aspects of societies are
articulated as cultural systems. . .Such cultural systems, which I
shall call health care systems, are, like other cultural systems
(e.g. kinship and religious systems), symbolic systems built out
of meanings, values, behavioural norms and the like. The health
care system articulates illness as a cultural idiom, linking beliefs
about disease causation, the experience of symptoms, specific
patterns of illness behaviour, decisions concerning treatment
alternatives, actual therapeutic practices and evaluations of
therapeutic
outcomes.
Thus
it
establishes
systematic
(8)
relationships between these components.
When applied to healing miracles in early Christianity,
Kleinman's definition suggests that we take a systems approach
to the phenomenon.(9) Fortunately, John Pilch has digested
Kleinman's work and other cross-cultural materials on healing,
and has articulated the basic shape of the ancient "system" in a
series of articles.(10) Pilch distinguishes between formalized and
non-formalized treatments; "physicians" provide the former, but
examples of the latter would be "healing at shrines, by folkhealers, shamans, by exorcists, and so on."(11) Following the lead
of Kleinman, he identifies three sectors or social arenas within
which illness is experienced and reacted to. These include first
the popular sector,(12) which comprises principally the family
context of sickness and care and thus embraces "the lay, non36

professional,
non-specialist
popular
culture."(13) Cultural
anthropologists argue that between 70 and 90 per cent of
sickness is managed solely within this domain.(14) Next Pilch
presents the folk sector: people credited by their neighbors with
powers to combat illness.(15) They share with their village
neighbors the same world view and health concepts; not being
"scientifically trained," they accept everything presented to
them as a naturally co-occurring syndrome; and they treat their
clients in public.(16) The deviant condition called "illness" is "first
observed, defined and treated" in the web of relations involving
family, social network, village, etc. For example, persons with a
skin blemishes in Jesus' world might interpret these blemishes in
the light of the Levitical code (Leviticus 13-14), labelling them
"uncleanness" which invokes the world of purity concerns. A
village cohen might pronounce "uncleanness," indicate ritual
separation and washings, and then inspect the blemish.
Although not a "scientific" physician, the village cohen interprets
for individuals and their families the presence of "illness" and its
absence.
Finally
Pilch
treats
the professional
sector:
(17)
"professional, trained and credentialed healers."
"Physicians"
(iatroi) such as Hippocrates (469-399 BCE), Herophilus (300-250
BCE), Soranus (98-138 CE) and Galen (129-199 CE) advanced
"scientific" practice based on the then current theory of the
body.(18) Often well educated according to ancient standards of
learning(19) and often well connected,(20)they served the elites of
their world. In this group we should include the cadre of
"physicians" who accompanied the Roman armies and who
practiced sophisticated medicine especially in regards to wounds
received in battle.(21) These appear to be the people praised in
Sirach 38:1-8, which contains elite comments on an exclusive
element of their social location.
For students of early Christianity, it is important to note that
rural peasants and urban artisans, who constitute the bulk of the
population, were unlikely to enjoy the services of "physicians." It
is difficult to imagine them finding them, gaining access to
them,
much
less
affording
them.
Most professionalsector physicians "practiced as itinerants, traveling from one city
to
another,
offering
their
services
as
did
other
craftsmen."(22) Moreover, they tended to be contracted for a
limited time by cities with enough wealth to afford them,
37

(23)

which thus put them out of the reach of the rural masses.
Peasants would operate either in the popular sector, consulting
village priests or visiting nearby shrines,(24) or in the folk sector,
finding a local person with special powers. This might help us
situate more accurately the social location of holy men,
prophets, etc. who were sought after for their healing powers.

3.0 Miracles and Ancient Economic Theory: Exchange and

Reciprocity
Despite the altruism which currently surrounds the "Hippocratic
oath" of contemporary physicians, it would be anachronistic to
imagine that people in the various layers of the health care
system performed their tasks gratis.(25) It is not a cynical, but a
basic social question to ask: What did the healer (mortal or
immortal) get out of the healing?
The answer to this question leads us into issues of peasant
economics and basic modes of exchange and reciprocity in
antiquity. Our path has been amply blazed by several scholars
who offer road maps through a dense and perhaps unfamiliar
landscape. Several cross-cultural concepts emerge in the
literature which have a bearing on the questions: "Why would a
healer heal?" "What does a healer get from this action?" "What
is exchanged?"
First, George Foster, a student of peasant societies, advanced
the thesis of "limited good."(26) Peasants perceive all goods in the
world as essentially limited in quantity, a "zero-sum game."
Unless the gods or God increase it, the supply of goods never
gets larger; hence, if anyone seems to gain, someone must be
losing. Thus if a healer "gives" healing or a teacher "imparts"
teaching, unless he is appropriately remunerated, he would be
perceived to be losing as others gained at his or her expense.
(27)
Or, if someone secretly obtained healing or some other
benefit without the healer's knowledge and remuneration, this
might be considered a form of theft (see Mark 5:28-29). "Charity
begins at home"; generosity belongs in the family. But for
someone to give anything to a non-family member without some
38

form of reciprocity would be negatively perceived (see Mark

7:27).
Second, what can be exchanged? In the Western mercantile
world, we exchange money for goods and services. But money
(and stuff for barter/exchange) is but one of the media of
exchange. Talcott Parsons offers a cross-cultural model for
identifying the "symbolic media of exchange," indicating that
humans tend to exchange four classes of things: (a) money,
(28)
(b) political power,(29) (c) influence(30) and (d) valuecommitment.(31) Teachers, for example, give instruction to
students and may even recommend them for higher studies
(influence), for which they receive money; soldiers risk their
lives for their country (value-commitment) and receive a pension
or lands in a colony (money) and public honoring, such as a
ticker-tape parade (value-commitment). What, then, does a
healer receive for healing? Sometimes "money" (food, lodging,
gifts) and sometimes "value-commitment" (honor and fame; an
aretalogy or acclamation of praise).
Third, what are the expectations of reciprocity? what kinds are
possible? who exchanges what? with whom? and with what
expectation? Because of the scope of this study, we need not
detour through the rich research on the nature of economics in
antiquity.(32) Rather, we focus on an anthropological theory of
exchange.(33) Marshall Sahlins identifies three types of reciprocity
pertinent to our study of the ancient Mediterranean world:
GENERALIZED
BALANCED
NEGATIVE
></br

RECIPROCITY:

the

RECIPROCITY:
RECIPROCITY:

the

solidarity
the
unsocial

extreme
midpoint
extreme. (34)<br

Generalized reciprocity describes the "altruistic" interactions

whereby the interests of "the other are primary"; it is generally
extended to kin-group members (i.e., "charity begins at
home"). Balanced reciprocity looks to mutual interests, that is,
quid-pro-quo or tit-for-tat exchanges; it has one's neighbors and
villagers in view. Negative reciprocity seeks self- interest at the
39

expense of "the other," who probably is a stranger or an enemy.

A schematic view of the model is suggested in the following
diagram:(35)

TYPES
OF
COMPARATIVE ASPECTS
RECIPROCITY
1. characteristic: give without expectation of return
2. forms:
GENERALIZED
RECIPROCITY

child

3. recipients:

rearing,

parents,

hospitality

children,

kin

4. biblical examples: Matt 7:11/Luke 11:11-13;

Luke 10:33-35; Acts 3:6
1. characteristic:
2. forms:
BALANCED
RECIPROCITY

tit-for-tat,

barter,

quid-pro-quo

assistance

3. recipients:

agreements
neighbors

4. biblical examples: 1 Cor 9:3-12; Matt 10:10/Luke

10:7; Ps 116
1. characteristic: exploitation; get & don't give;
reap
where
one
does
not
sow
NEGATIVE
RECIPROCITY

2. forms:

robbery,

3. recipients:

buy-cheap-sell-dear

strangers,

enemies

4. biblical examples: Luke 10:30; 19:22

We can ask, then, what is exchanged in a healing miracle: most

probably healers dispense power and influence. Unless healers
are themselves gods or God, they exchange access to the power
of a patron deity as well as knowledge of what deity to petition
or what technique to employ. The various stele, laudatory
inscriptions, sacrifices and votive offerings at healing shrines
40

indicate that the heavenly healers receive value-commitment or

honor. Thus, some sort of balanced reciprocity seems to be
operative in healing situations. We are invited, then, to consider
the importance of thanksgiving prayers and sacrifices in this
light.

4.0 Miracles and Patronage-Benefaction

4.1 Patronage. Scholars are giving increasing recognition to
the prevalence and importance of the social structure of
patronage in antiquity.(36) From the Greco-Roman world, we
possess a set of ideal "rules" for patron-client relationships,
which spell out both the rights and duties of each partner
(Dionysus Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 2.10.1-4), as well as detailed
historical studies of various types of patron-client relationships.
(37)
Because patron-client relationships are so prevalent
throughout the world at all times, anthropologists have studied
them and synthesized a cross-cultural model for examining
them.(38) What are these relationships?
Patronage is a model or analytical construct which the social
scientist applies in order to understand and explain a range of
apparent different social relationships: father-son, God-man,
saint-devotee, godfather-godchild, lord-vassal, landlord-tenant,
politician-voter, professor-assistant, and so forth. All these
different sets of social relationships can thus be considered from
one particular point of view which may render them
comprehensible.(39)
In other words, the relationship of Roman emperor to Palestinian
Governor (John 19:12), of centurion to synagogue elders (Luke
7:3-5), of God and priests (Heb 7:23-28; 8:2, 6), of master and
disciple (John 13:12-16; 15:14-16), and of healer and healed
would serve as NT examples.
But what is a patron-client relationship? what is a patron? a
client? Patrons are powerful figures who control resources and
who are expected to use and distribute them as favors to
inferiors. Clients, then, are persons dependent upon the largesse
41

of patrons to survive in the social and economic system.

The patron-client relationship may be summarized in the
following points:(40)
1. Patron-client relations are vertical (superior/inferior) and
dyadic; they encode inequality and difference in power and
status. A patron enjoys a monopoly on certain resources that are
of vital importance to the client.
2. Interaction between patron and client is based on
simultaneous exchange of different types of resources. A patron
tends to have economic and political resources and can give
support and protection. In return, clients give promises of
solidarity, protestations of honor, as well as financial assistance
and contributed labor.
3. The relationship encodes a strong element of solidarity and
ideally indicates long-range credit; it is linked to personal honor
and the corresponding sense of obligation.
4. Patron-client relations are treated as binding and long range,
ideally for life and even passing on to one's heirs. While not fully
legal, they are strongly binding. Yet in practice, because the
relationship is entered into voluntarily, it can be abandoned
voluntarily.
4.2
Patron/Broker/Client. In considering patron-client
relationships in regard to healings and miracles, we must
nuance the model appropriately. If ill persons prayed to their
gods or God, they would be identified as clients seeking favors
from a patron. But in a world in which persons vertically higher
on the social ladder were insulated from lower ranking persons
by an array of social and spatial distances, (41) it was frequently
necessary to employ the services of mediators and brokers in
establishing patron-client relations. Thus petitionary prayers and
sacrifices to the gods or God might be made at a temple or
shrine with the assistance of and through the mediation of a
local priest. The mantis at an oracular shrine might employ the
assistance of a "prophet" in conveying the message to a
petitioner. On the village level, the local elders might approach a

42

charismatic figure to petition help for a third party (Luke 7:1-10;

see Matt 20:20-21).(42)
This urges us to consider the position of Jesus the healer in
terms of patron-client relations. It is doubtful that he is perceived
of as patron, that is, the person who possesses first-order goods,
such as wealth, power, land, etc. That role belongs to God, the
giver of all good gifts.(43) Jesus, rather, functions as broker and
mediator.(44) This requires, then, some adjustment in how we
imagine the reciprocity operative in patron-broker-client
relationships. Brokers deserve tariffs; brokers are owed
something for their services. Thus in the raising of the son of the
widow of Nain, God-Patron receives "glory," while Jesus-Broker
acquires the honor of being acclaimed "prophet" as well as an
expanding reputation (Luke 7:16-17). But we might ask what
brokers generally received (money? value-commitment?) and
the social value of that reciprocity, especially if it is something
such as "honor" or fame (Matt 5:24; Mark 1:45; John 11:47 and
12:9-11)? In a limited-goods perspective, are brokers like Jesus
likely to provoke institutional envy from other established
brokers (Mark 6:1-6; John 11:47-48)?
4.3 Benefaction. Although classicists have long studied the
phenomenon of benefaction in antiquity, (45) biblical scholars are
beginning to give attention to this common phenomenon in the
ancient Mediterranean world and its importance for biblical
studies.(46) Benefaction, it would seem, is a particular aspect of
patron-client relationships. When patrons act on a significantly
large scale and bestow any of the general symbolic media to
cities, towns, or groups, such patrons would be hailed as
"Benefactor (and Savior)." Thus a person who builds facilities for
a city, such as an aqueduct, or who negotiates to have it
declared a "metropolis,"(47) or who arranges tax exemptions for
it,(48) would be properly a "benefactor." The title of benefactor
might be extended to physicians who generously and
competently served a city,(49) treasurers of associations,
(50)
renowned musicians, (51) and the like.
Benefaction, of course, must be publicly acknowledged
according to the canons of honor. (52) It is generally announced by
means of a public proclamation, which is often also inscribed in
43

stone on the wall of a public building as a lasting memorial. It

may be accompanied by the gift of a golden crown, special seats
in the theater, statues of the honoree, and the like. (53)Indeed, in
terms of models of reciprocity, acts of benefaction imply rights
and duties. Recipients are honor-bound to acknowledge
benefaction and benefactors are encouraged to maintain loyalty
and support.(54) Benefaction begins a "chain of obligations" and
establishes indebtedness on the part of the recipient. (55) Thus
honor and loyalty are exchanged by clients for wealth or
influence or power made available by the benefactor.

5.0 Miracles and Honor

5.1 The Cultural Value of Honor. Indications from the
sketches of patron-client relations, benefaction, and reciprocity
suggest that "honor" plays an important role. Honor (56) is defined
as: ". . . the value of a person in his own eyes, but also in the
eyes of his society. It is his estimation of his own worth,
his claim to pride, but it is also the acknowledgement of that
claim, his excellence recognized by society, his right to
pride."(57) This means that one's worth is not a matter of
individualistic determination of one's identity and standing (a
very modern concept), but of the public acknowledgment of this
by one's kinship group and neighbors. In Shakespeare's Othello,
Iago states that his total value in life lies in his reputation, his
"good name":
"Good name in man and woman, my dear lord,
is
the
immediate
jewel
of
their
souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, 'tis
nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands.
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs
me
of
that
which
not
enriches
him
And makes me poor indeed" (Oth. III.iii.160-166).
Paul identifies "honor" as the pursuit of a good life (Rom 2:7) and
as God's acknowledgement of a virtuous life (Rom 2:10). NT
doxologies all reciprocate to God "honor" or "glory" for God's
44

excellence and/or benefaction (1 Tim 6:15-16; Jude 24-25; Rom

16:25-27).
5.2 Honor and Miracle Stories. Why do healers heal? The
consideration of honor in the context of miracles and healing
stories may shed light on this question. Certain aspects of honor
are important for an in-depth study of miracles. For examples, in
terms of the source of honor, ancient Mediterranean persons
enjoyed honor either because it was ascribed to them (by birth,
adoption, appointment, and the like) or achieved by them (by
athletic prowess, military exploits, patronage-benefaction, and
the like).(58) Healers such as Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, Peter and Paul
enjoy ascribed honor; they are brokers of God-Patron, who
designates them as prophets mighty in word and deed, which
ascription needs be acknowledged by the people. (59) Yet some
healers might claim to have achieved honor on the basis of their
miracles (2 Corinthians 10-11), and may thus be perceived as
challenging the honor and status of those in a group
with ascribed honor.(60) Honor, moreover, should rightly be
considered as one of the basic goods exchanged by ancient
peoples; in terms of the model of Talcott Parsons, "honor"
belongs in the category of "value-commitment." In terms of
reciprocity, deities who heal receive in exchange praise and
honor, as well as votives to commemorate their benefaction.
(61)
What else can one offer the immortals but honor?(62)
Why then does a healer heal? Does the healer expect something
in return? deserve anything in return? Abstractly, it would seem
that if healers are patron-benefactors with access to first order
goods (wealth, health, etc.), then their acts of benefaction would
create a debt of loyalty, commitment and acknowledgement of
honor in their clients. If healers are brokers between the gods or
God, then they still deserve their tariff, which might be financial
remuneration or more typically honor. It is an observable fact in
the gospel narratives that Jesus' miracles produce honor for him,
at least fame and a growing reputation (e.g., Mark 1:32-33, 37,
45; 3:9; 4:1; 5:20; 6:2-3).(63)
But do healers heal so as to gain honor? Of course, our
documents do not allow us to quiz healers directly, but our
informants on the healings suggest the following range of
45

motives for healings. John's semeia source explicitly states that

the miracles function to gain "honor" (or "glory") for Jesus. The
coda at the ending of the first sign attests to the success of the
enterprise: "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in
Galilee,and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in
him" (2:11). The miracle produces "glory" (i.e., an increase in
Jesus' honorable reputation) and cemented to Jesus a cadre of
loyal disciples who acknowledge his honor. The ending of the
sign source also suggests a motive for the narrative of the
healings, if not the healings themselves: "These are written that
you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (20:31).
Again, "honor" is Jesus' tariff as he is acknowledged as "Christ,
the Son of God."(64) The Q source, which does not narrate any
healings, contains a question-answer exchange between John's
disciples and Jesus, which pertains to honor. When asked if he is
the one who is to come, Jesus points to his healings to identify
him and serve as his credentials (Matt 11:2-5//Luke 7:18-23).
Again, a healing may serve as a riposte in an honor challenge,
as when Jesus silences his challengers by declaring: "But that
you may acknowledge that the Son of man has authority on
earth to forgive sins...rise, take up your pallet and walk" (Mark
2:10). Jesus' ascribed honor as God's agent is defended as his
challengers are forced publicly to "acknowledge" his role and
status. Other passing remarks, although they do not explicitly
indicate that honor is the purpose of the healings, nevertheless
insist that honor results from them (see Luke 7:16; Matt 8:17;
Mark 7:37). Finally, healings provoke institutionalized envy in
Jesus' limited-goods world, and so bring challenges to his honor
which must be defended.(65)

6.0 Miracles and Symbolic Anthropology

It is surely a truism that we post-industrial, urban moderns live
in a social and cultural world enormously different from the preindustrial, peasant world of the ancients. The issues comprise
more than social or economic differences, and indicate entirely
different symbolic worlds.(66) The tasks of early anthropologists
were twofold: to develop (a) a sense of a symbolic world
46

different from that of observers from colonial powers and (b)

methods of describing a symbolic universe. The early works of
Mary T. Douglas proved quite influential in this area. (67) Biblical
scholars were quick to appreciate her enterprise and contributed
to shaping her remarks into descriptive models. Their attention
focussed on several areas: (a) describing a "symbolic
universe,"(68) (b) articulating a theory of purity/pollution, (69) (c)
sketching a model for studying the physical body, (70) and (d)
interpreting witchcraft accusations.(71)
6.1 Symbolic Universe and Taxonomies of Illness. We know
now that all peoples have some cognitive map of how they think
the universe works. They are socialized to perceive patterns in
certain events, to see cause-effect relationships operative, and
to imagine spatial distinctions. (72) Culture varies from culture in
terms of what goes into a given symbolic universe and the
relative articulateness of perspective and interpretation. Of
concern to us would be the degree to which people (1) draw
boundary lines defining themselves and others, (2) interpret
"sin" either as law breaking or as pollution, (3) perceive the
physical body as an organic system which needs control, (4)
evaluate suffering in life as either just or unjust, for which latter
notion (5) there might be a subsequent theory of devils, demons
or witches who attack people. Such questions help to situate a
healing or miracle in the context of the natives' cultural horizon.
Thus we begin to appreciate how they perceive illness as just
punishment (see John 9:2) or unjust attack.
6.1.1 Taxonomy of Witchcraft and Spirit Aggression.
Knowing as much as possible about the symbolic universe of a
given culture affords us access to native taxonomies of illness.
Without adopting an attitude of cultural superiority, it is simply
the case that modern Westerners mostly follow a scientific
taxonomy of illness, which was hardly the case in peasant
societies, especially those of the ancient Mediterranean. Yet we
are assisted in our pursuit of native taxonomies of illness by the
pioneering work of George P. Murdock and George Foster.
Murdock, a major figure in the Human Relations Area Files,
gathered and coded cultural data from ethnographic surveys of
diverse cultures. In one of his works, he examined the
geographical distribution of various theories of illness and looked
47

for statistically significant correlations with other social

phenomena.(73) Of particular interest for early Christianity is
Murdock's survey of illness caused by witchcraft, sorcery and
spirit aggression.(74) His data indicate that witchcraft is a major
cause of illness only in the Circum-Mediterranean area from as
far back as the time of Hammurabi (or as far back as written
records take us),(75) whereas spirit aggression is virtually
universal. Sorcery, according to his technical definition, does not
apply. Nevertheless, spirit aggression as a cause of illness has
special bearing on the agricultural-pastoral world of antiquity:
Without exception, every society in the sample which depends
primarily on animal husbandry for its economic livelihood
regards spirit aggression as either the predominant or an
important secondary cause of illness.(76)
The care of animals, either used for agricultural production or
cultivated as sources of food and clothing, involves the owners
in a precarious world of good and bad fortune, which is
interpreted as the agency of good or bad spirits. Thus Murdock
suggests a form of witchcraft or spirit agression as an
appropriate taxonomy for illness for the world of Jesus and the
early Mediterranean churches.
In a similar vein, George Foster proposed a twofold taxonomy for
illness in non-Western medical systems, such that illness is
perceived either as related to spirits or not. (77) This material has
been gathered and digested for the use of biblical interpreters
by John Pilch.(78) Thus, we ask whether Jesus in his healings deals
with illness caused by spirit-aggression.(79) Are any illnesses
caused by sources other than spirits? Which ones? This question
in turn requires us to be attentive to the symbolic world of Jesus
and the evangelists.
6.1.2 Taxonomy and Cultural Interpretations of the
Physical Body. Spirit-aggression is not the only taxonomy
operative in the synoptic miracle stories. Bernard de Gradon
described biblical understanding of the physical body in terms of
three zones.(80) The following diagram summarizes the model.(81)

48

ZONES

BODILY PARTS

FUNCTIONS

zone one

heart/eyes

emotion-fused thought

zone two

mouth/ears

self-expressive speech

zone three

hands/feet

purposeful actions

Unlike Westerners who think with their brains, ancient Israelites,

Judeans and Christians thought in their heart with information
provided by their eyes. They likewise gathered information
through their ears for digestion and response through the
mouth. Their behavior is basically described in terms of what
they do with their hands and feet. (82) The relevance of this for us
lies in the fact that ancient Judeans and Christians probably did
not relate human activity to bodily organs as modern Westerners
do. Thus it matters if persons are ill in the zone of eyes/heart
(blindness, hardness of heart, etc.) or hands/feet (failure to act
or wrong actions). Moreover, complete healing would probably
involve a certain concept of "wholeness" involving all three
zones. One is reminded of the charge of "holiness" to new
deacons that addresses all three zones; when handed the book
of the gospels, they are exhorted:
Believe what you read (eyes/heart)
Preach what you believe (mouth/ears)
Practice what you preach (hands/feet).
The same can be said of illness and wellness: how complete is
it? Does healing in one zone imply restoration of wholeness to
the entire person in all three zones? Moreover, we are urged to
consider that illness has a decidedly cultural factor; people in
certain cultures tend to become ill in a particular zone.
Another way of developing a taxonomy of illness would be to
study the anatomical ex-votos left at various healing shrines.
(83)
The body parts represented are few in kind, mainly eyes,
ears, hands, feet, genitals, occasionally breasts and rarely
internal organs.(84) Yet
49

these objects can provide important clues as to a native

taxonomy of illness. Certain shrines, moreover, contain a
disproportion of organ-specific anatomical ex-votos, such as eye
votives at the Athenian Asklepieion (85) or chest votives at the
Amphiareion. This might be explained in several ways. Certain
ethnic groups tend to become "ill" in certain areas of the body or
to describe their syndrome of symptoms in culturally specific
ways, a fact well documented by medical anthropologists. (86)
The part of the body commemorated in an anatomical exvoto need not reflect any precise pathology, but rather suggest
the appropriate native way of thinking about the body and about
illness. For example, hands and feet relate directly to labor and
purposeful action, especially in a world of agricultural peasants.
If "many hands make light work," then one might expect the
wellness of a peasant family to encompass members who can
work and share in the farm labors.
6.2 Miracles and "Purity." One of Mary Douglas' major
contributions has been her interpretation of the cross-cultural
idea of pollution.(87) She suggests that pollution and taboo refer
to matter which is "out of place," which presumes a prior cultural
system of order.
Lord Chesterfield defined dirt as matter out of place. This implies
only two conditions, a set of ordered relations and a
contravention of that order. Thus the idea of dirt implies a
structure of idea. For us dirt is a kind of compendium category
for all events which blur, smudge, contradict, or otherwise
confuse accepted classifications. The underlying feeling is that a
system of values which is habitually expressed in a given
arrangement of things has been violated.(88)
Thus peoples in various cultures share a socially constructed
notion of order, both in the macrocosm and in their own
microcosm. It is the task of anthropologists as well as biblical
interpreters to learn the natives' code or system of what is
orderly, that is, to learn their system of classification. The
importance of this model for a study of illness and healing lies
precisely in the clues in documents and inscriptions which
indicate social attitudes toward ill persons. It matters that lepers
50

were "unclean"; and so it is part of the interpreter's task to grasp

how significant was Jesus' touch of the unclean person (Mark
1:4-41); since menstruating women and dead bodies were
unclean, it matters that a healer is in direct physical contact with
these "fathers of uncleanness" (Mark 5:21-43). (89) It matters
greatly that Matthew narrates that Jesus healed the blind and
the lame in the temple (21:14), for this gives salience to
outsiders' interpretation of Jesus as a deviant.
6.3 Miracles, Wholeness and the Physical Body. When the
cultural notion of order is applied to the physical body, as it will
be in the case of healings, it will highlight a sense of wholeness
and sufficiency. People judge a body as "pure" which is whole
and intact. "Too much" (polydactylism, hermaphroditism,
hunchback, dropsy) suggests matter "out of place," that is, more
than is normal. This is at least dangerous and possibly polluting.
"Too little" (eunuchs, blind, withered limbs, etc.) lack wholeness,
and thus are dangerous, if not polluted.
In terms of 2nd-temple Judaism, we find a fully articulated notion
of bodily wholeness vis--vis purity/pollution in Lev 21:16-20,
rules which disqualify a priest because of bodily "pollution."
Bodies that have "too much" are unclean and may not stand
before the Holy God (blemish, hunchback, itching disease,
scabs); likewise with bodies that have "too little" (blind, defect in
sight, lame, mutilated face, injured foot or hand, crushed
testicles). Philo and Josephus both know of this tradition and
comment on it. Philo states the matter abstractly, whereas
Josephus gives specific historical illustrations. For example, Philo
comments:
With regard to the priests there are the following laws. It is
ordained that the priest should be perfectly sound throughout,
without any bodily deformity. No part, that is, must be lacking or
have been mutilated, nor on the other hand redundant, whether
the excrescence be congenital or an aftergrowth due to disease.
Nor must the skin have been changed into a leprous state or into
malignant tatters or warts or any other eruptive growth (Sp.
Leg. 1.80; see also 1.117).
Josephus retells the story of Antigonus' mutilation of Hyrcanus:
51

Hyrcanus threw himself at the feet of Antigonus, who with his

own teeth lacerated his suppliant's ears, in order to disqualify
him for ever, under any change of circumstances, from resuming
the high priesthood; since freedom from physical defect
(holoklerous) is essential to the holder of that office (War 1.26970; see Ant. 14.366 and t. Parah 3:8).
The Qumran community extended these rules to all who would
enter their group and fight their holy war (1 QSa 2:3-10; 1 QM
7:4-7). And, I argue, this concept lies behind the cultural
perception of ill people in Matt 21:14 and Luke 14:13-14, 21. (90)
In addition to the basic notion of bodily wholeness expressing
bodily purity, the physical body must be pure in regard to its
orifices and bodily exuviae. Ideally, all matter should remain "in
place." Whatever leaves the body (spittle, (91) menses, semen,
(92)
urine, vomit (see 2 Peter 2:22), (93) tears, etc.) is "out of place"
and so dangerous, if not downright polluting. Hence great
concern surrounds the bodily orifices, with particular attention to
what goes in (kosher foods) and what comes out (bodily
exuviae). Philo reflects this perspective when he urges strict
bodily control: "...bind up each of the (bodily) openings with
adamantine chains of self-control (egkrateias). For Moses says
(Num 19.15) that 'every open vessel which hath no covering
bound upon it is unclean'" (Det. 103). He then identifies each
bodily orifice and indicates what control is appropriate to it (Det.
101-102).
This material on purity, wholeness and bodily control suggests
the following questions in regard to a cultural reading of
healings. (1) Is the ill person "unclean"? in what way? (2) Are
there social implications as a result of this "illness," such as
quarantine, separation, etc.? (3) Does the healer in any way use
bodily exuviae to heal, such as spittle (Mark 7:33; John 9:6)?
How might this be perceived? (4) What is the social importance
of being made "clean"(94) or "whole"?(95)

7.0 Miracles and Status Transformation Rituals

52

7.1 Ritual, Not Ceremony. We must distinguish from the

beginning a status transformation ritual from a ceremony. Victor
Turner described the difference thus:
I consider the term "ritual" to be more fittingly applied to forms
of religious behavior associated with social transitions, while the
term "ceremony" has a closer bearing on religious behavior
associated with religious states. . . Ritual is transformative,
ceremony confirmatory.(96)
In the following diagram we can schematically distinguish the
elements
of rituals which
transform
status
or
role
(97)
and ceremonies which confirm them.

RITUAL

CEREMONY

1. frequency: irregular pause

1. frequency: regular pause

2. calendar: unpredictable, when

needed

2. calendar: predictable, planned

3. time focus: present-to-future

3. time focus: past-to-present

4. presided over by: professionals,

limit breakers

4. presided over by: officials

5. purpose:
transformation
institution

5. purpose: confirmation of role and

status within an institution

status/role
within
an

(1) Frequency: Both rituals and ceremonies represent pauses in

life's rhythms. Certain pauses occur irregularly (sickness,
uncleanness), which we call rituals, that is, pauses which allow
us to assume new and different roles and statuses. Other pauses
occur routinely in our lives, (meals, birthdays, anniversaries,
festivals); we call these ceremonies, not rituals, for they do not
effect change of role or status, but confirm them. (2) Calendar:
Ritual pauses tend to occur unpredictably; we undergo them
when necessary because of uncleanness, sinfulness or pollution.
53

Some rituals are unrepeatable status changes, such as birth,

coronation, death and the like. Conversely, ceremonial pauses,
which occur on fixed calendar dates, such as Sabbath, Passover,
and Pentecost, we anticipate and plan for. (3) Time Focus:
Transformation rituals take us from present needs to the future,
as we change our current status to assume a new role.
Ceremonies look to the past and celebrate its influence on the
present. Past roles and statuses retain their importance in the
present and influence present social dynamics. (4) Presiding:
Different kinds of people preside over rituals and
ceremonies. Professionals (physicians, prophets) preside over or
direct status transformation rituals; society allows specified
persons to deal with marginal people as they cross fixed social
lines.(98) Officials (fathers at Passover meals, priests in temple
worship) preside over or direct the appropriate ceremonies in
their institutions. (5) Purpose: Ceremonies leave in place the
lines of the maps of society, because they function to confirm
the values and structures of society and to celebrate the orderly
classification of persons, places and things in the cosmos. For
example, birthdays, anniversaries, pilgrimage feasts and the like
confirm the roles and statuses of individuals in the group as well
as the group's collective sense of holy space and holy time
which pertain to its festivals. Ceremonies look to the stability of
the lines of society's maps. Conversely, rituals attend precisely
to those lines, but focus on their crossing. Rituals are stable
ways of dealing with necessary instability in the system: a boy
and a girl cross lines to become husband and wife in a marriage
ritual; sick people cross lines and become healthy (Lev 14; Mark
1:44); sinners become purified (Luke 18:13-14). The status of
those who cross lines is thereby changed, and so these rites are
called "status transformation" rituals.
The issue of who presides over the ritual (professional) deserves
closer attention, for it may happen that the authority or
legitimacy of certain healers or workers of miracles is contested.
One thinks of phrases such as "False Christs and false prophets
will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible,
the elect" (Mark 13:22).(99) At stake, of course, is point of view:
an existing institution may label the activity of a rival as
illegitimate or invalid because of a power conflict. Accepting the
inevitable social tensions between the "great tradition" and the
54

"little tradition," with the resulting conflict between aristocrat

and peasant as well as city and countryside, we might
schematize the issue thus.(100) Whom might we identify as the
typical figures in contests of legitimacy or competence? How will
they shift as the medium of exchange varies?

Legitimacy
Characters

and

GSM

ILLEGITIMATEINCOMPETENT

influence
(knowledge
reputation)

mantis,
diviner

and

Competency:

Cast

of

LEGITIMATECOMPETENT

astrologer, official
priest,
philosopher,
prophet

oracle,
diviner,

power
(force
and
enforcement)

sorcerers, witches

emperor/king,
priests,
bureaucrats,
army,
physician-philosopher

inducement
(social
position,
goods, services)

traders,
rhetors

imperial
aristocracy

commitment
(activator
commitment)

group leaders

pseudo-

household,

heads of empire, city and

family

of

It would be utterly naive to think that the legitimate or official

holders of power, benefaction, knowledge and the like would
look kindly on a village or country person claiming the same first
order goods. This might be because of the clash of interests of
institutions (kinship and politics) (101) or the perception of limited
good. Thus in studying a miracle or healing, we should attend to
the social institution where the healing occurs (family or fictive
family vs political institution). Moreover we should ask whether
our narrative records any rivalry or envy, normally in the form of
an honor challenge. How might the healer be labelled
(illegitimate/legitimate) and by whom? Who benefits from the
labelling process?

55

7.2 Stages in the Ritual Process. The treasure of examples

across times and cultures has allowed anthropologists to
describe the typical stages in ritual process. In general, rites of
passage or status transformation rituals generally contain the
stages of: separation, liminality and re-aggregation. (102) Initiands
begin their transformation by being separated from familiar
persons, places and rhythms of life. They enter a place and
period of seclusion, which is called the "liminal" or threshold
stage, during which time
they shed one role or status and prepare to assume new ones.
(103)
At the appropriate time, they return to their social world
transformed with a new role or status, which is appropriately
acknowledged by their kin group and neighbors.
Considerable interest developed over the characteristics of the
liminal stage. Comparing and contrasting the properties of
liminality with those of the status system, Victor Turner listed the
following: transition (vs state), totality (vs partiality),
homogeneity (vs heterogeneity), communitas (vs structure),
equality
(vs
inequality),
anonymity
(vs
systems
of
nomenclature), absence of property (vs property), absence of
status (vs status), nakedness or uniform clothing (vs distinctions
in clothing), sexual continence (vs sexuality), humility (vs just
pride of position), disregard for personal appearance (vs care for
appearance), no distinctions of wealth (vs distinctions),
unselfishness (vs self-interest), total obedience (vs obedience
only to superior rank), silence (vs speech), sacred instruction (vs
technical knowledge), simplicity (vs complexity), and acceptance
of pain and suffering (vs avoidance of pain). (104) This list may
help to explain the expected and actual behavior of persons
seeking a miraculous healing.
Finally, initiated persons who have experienced a status
transformation return to their familiar homes and villages, but
with a new role or status. A "role" is defined as "the socially
recognized position of a person which entails rights and
duties." (105)

56

Fortunately we are able to reconstruct the outlines of the typical

process of a person seeking healing at the shrine of Asclepius in
Epidaurus.
Epidaurus early developed the regimen of incubation in the
sanctuary that was widely used throughout the history of the
cult. Typically a pilgrim might undergo a 3-day period of
purification with baths and abstinence from sexual intercourse
and certain foods...Afterward, he brought an animal sacrifice to
Apollo and offerings of honey cakes to other divinities. He then
might sacrifice a piglet to Asclepius and give an offering of
money appropriate to his wealth. As he entered the sleeping
chamber (abaton or enkoimeterion), where he hoped and
expected to receive either immediate healing or some helpful
prescription from the god in a dream, he would bring offerings of
cakes to Fortune, Memory, and Law. The person slept wearing a
sacred laurel wreath and left it behind on his bed in the morning.
(106)

Thus we can see that initiands/petitioners were separated (3-day

incubation and purification ritual), during which they entered
into a liminal state (abstinence from sex, foods, etc.). The
process climaxes with a night in the sleeping chamber, during
which their illness status will be changed in some way. In
conclusion, they would be presented in public as people healed
or blessed or gifted by the gods. This new status entails certain
duties, such as rendering thanks to the god.(107)

8.0 Cultural and Social Questions: A Checklist

This study has attempted to outline a formal method for
interpreting miracles in terms of their social and cultural
background. Admittedly the categories for interpretation and
analysis are not those typically found in traditional treatments of
Jesus and his miracles. But in light of modern trends to
investigate the social, economic, political and religious aspects
of behavior and thought, interpreters of New Testament and
early Christian miracle stories can benefit from the analysis
outlined here. In the light of these materials, then, the relevant
57

social-science
summarized.

questions

for

interpreting

miracles

can

be

8.1 Ancient Health Care Systems. What are the

expectations, behaviors and techniques appropriate if an illness
is dealt with by a physician, a temple priest or a folk-healer?
What is the role of the family in soliciting help for the ill?
8.2 Ancient Economic Theory: Exchange and Reciprocity.
Given the perspective of "limited good," where is this new
"wellness" coming from? Will anyone be provoked to envy (Mark
3:1-6; John 11:47-48)? (2) What is exchanged? money or goods
for healing and services (see Mark 5:26)? influence?
commitment and honor? power? Or, to put it crassly, what does
God get out of healing? Jesus? (3) What type of reciprocity is
portrayed in a healing: generalized (Matt 10:8)? balanced (Luke
7:16-17)? Who is my neighbor or who is kin (Luke 10:29)? Given
their status and relationship to the ill person, what do healers
owe them? or those healed owe the healer?
8.3 Patronage and Benefaction. The importance of the
practice and concept of patronage and benefaction for a study of
miracles lies in the following areas and questions. (1) When a
healing benefactor favors a certain city and has a particular
shrine there, what might one expect in terms of obligations on
the part of those so favored? (2) Does the relationship of healer
(gods, God, Jesus, or holy man) (108) to healed person exhibit or
imply any of the social dynamics of a patron-client relationship?
(3) What does the healer provide (economic assistance,
solidarity-loyalty, physical wholeness, social wholeness)? What
does the healed person owe in return to the healer (money,
honor, loyalty)? (4) What names, titles or labels are appropriate
to healers? (5) How long do patrons and clients remain in those
roles? (6) Is there competition among healing patrons for
clients? Might a client seek out many patrons? How would this
affect the relationship? (7) What do brokers receive (money?
value-commitment?) and what is the social value of that
reciprocity, especially if it is something such as "honor" or fame
(Matt 5:24; Mark 1:45; John 11:47 and 12:9-11)? Are brokers
likely in a limited-goods perspective likely to provoke
institutional envy (Mark 6:1-6)? Does it matter that a broker like
58

Jesus might extend his brokerage more widely through the

agency of his apostles (Matt 10:1, 5-8)? Is it significant that
people do not then need to come to a fixed place to seek this
brokerage, but rather the brokerage comes to them?
8.4 Honor. (1) What is the honor which the healer receives?
ascribed? achieved? (2) What might this look like in the
narrative? a title? a gift? etc.? (3) Do healers heal so as to
receive honor? do they expect it? (4) What would be the cultural
perception of bystanders if the healer did not receive honor,
either from the negligence of the person(s) healed or through
the challenge made as a result of the healing or the envy
aroused? What would be the perception of the bystanders if the
healer was not able to heal (Mark 9:17-18)?
8.5 Symbolic Anthropology.
8.5.1 Taxonomy of Illness. (1) What can we know about the
symbolic universe of the healer and those healed? how is illness
rationalized? (2) What taxonomies are operative or implied in
the narrative of the healing? (a) spirit-aggression? (b) three-zone
model of the body?
8.5.2 Purity and Wholeness. This material on purity,
wholeness and bodily control suggests the following questions in
regard to a cultural reading of healings. (1) Is the ill person
perceived of as "unclean"? in what way? (2) Are there social
implications as a result of this "illness," such as quarantine,
separation, etc.? (3) Does the healer in any way use bodily
exuviae to heal, such as spittle? How might this be perceived?
(4) What is the social importance of being made "clean" or
"whole"?
8.6 Rituals of Status Transformation. (1) In the miracle story
described, is there notice of the typical stages of a ritual, such
as separation, liminality and re-aggregation (e.g., Mark 7:3137)? Does the report of the miracle emphasize any particular
stage? why? (2) What is the new status of the healed person? Is
it merely a restoration of previous status (Mark 5:21-43; Luke
7:11-17) or the assumption of an entirely new one? (109) (3) What
duties does the healed person have? sacrifice (Mark 1:44),
59

thanksgiving (Luke 17:15-18), honor (Luke 7:16-17)? (4) Is the

healing just of an individual or does it restore a social network to
wholeness?(110) (5) Do the healed persons retain any of the
stigma(111) of their former condition? For example, is "Simon the
leper" (Mark 14:3) a person who retained the label "leper" after
his healing?(112) Are the healed persons "sacred to the gods"?
(113)
Does the healing become part of the new identity of the
person?

9.0 A Systems Approach

From this survey of thinking of miracles "in other words," we
return to an obvervation made earlier, namely, the importance
of taking a "systems approach" to this topic. (114) While for various
purposes interpreters and historians might isolate or emphasize
one particular way of examining miracles, we all strive for the
fullest and "thickest" description. In short, we should take a
systems approach to the phenomenon.
This means that we should attend to the institution in which the
healing takes place, either kinship or politics. What roles does
the family have in an illness? How are they socially and
economically affected (e.g., Luke 7:12)? What role do they play
in the seeking of a cure (Mark 7:26; Luke 7:1-3; John 11:3)? What
costs do they pay or debts to they incur? What if the healing
occurs in the political realm, even if this is a healing shrine such
as the temple of Asclepius at Epidaurus?(115) Healings, moreover,
might have important political implications, for "prophets" arose,
echoing themes of liberation and freedom. (116) The political
significance of the account of the healing by the Jewish Eleazar
before the emperor Vespasian and his retinue should not be
discounted (Josephus. Ant. 8.45-48).
In line with this, one should ask about the "economics" of a
healing. What is exchanged? what debts or obligations occur as
a result? This may be realized in the light of native models of
patronage and benefaction.

60

In terms of the world of meanings, we should ask about the

symbolic universe of a given group, in particular its view of the
causality of evil and misfortune, its system of classification, and
its taxonomies of illness. Appropriate here is an adequate
description of the "health care system," especially in light of
ethno-medical anthropology.
In terms of social interaction, we should also inquire into the
roles and statuses of the healer and the healed. These, of
course, will necessarily be evaluated more closely in terms of
indigenous hierarchies. Yet in this regard, some attention should
be paid to the titles, names and labels assigned, whether the ill
person is classified as "unclean" or whether the healer is
labelled a "prophet" or a "deceiver" (Mark 3:23). (117) We should
pay further attention to the labelling process itself: (118) who does
the labelling?(119) what labels stick and do damage? how does the
labelling process proceed? This in turn might help us assess the
possibility of conflict or rivalry in the situation, for which notions
of the dynamics of honor and shame or models from conflict
theory(120) are useful lenses.
Finally some attention should be paid to the specific values of a
given culture, in which illness or wellness make sense. "Purity"
and "honor" would certainly be important elements here. (121) One
would ask further about the types of groups and the types of
institutions in which such values function.

NOTES
1. See Howard C. Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World. A
Study in Sociohistorical Method (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1983) 3-41 and Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New
Testament Times (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986)
1-8; see also Harold Remus, Pagan-Christian Conflict over
Miracle in the Second Century (Philadelphia: The Philadelphia
Patristic Foundation, 1983) 3-6, 27-48.

61

2. See Robert W. Funk, "The Form of the New Testament Healing

Miracle Story," Semeia 12 (1978) 57-96 and Antoinette C. Wire,
"The Structure of the Gospel Miracle Stories and Their
Tellers," Semeia 11 (1978) 83-111.
3. See H. S. Versnel, "Religious Mentality in Ancient
Prayer," Faith, Hope and Worship. Aspects of Religious Mentality
in the Ancient World (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981) 42-62; also H. W.
Pleket, "Religious History as the History of Mentality: the
'Believer' as Servant of the Deity in the Greek World," Faith,
Hope and Worship, 183-88. Specific hymns to Asclepius became
standard parts of the healing ritual; see Emma Edelstein and
Ludwig Edelstein, Asclepius. A Collection and Interpretation of
the Testimonies (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1945)
II.199-204.
4. See, for example, Bruce Kaye and John Rogerson, Miracles
and Mysteries in the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 119.
5. Harold Remus, "Miracle (NT)," ABD 4.856-57. Yet we should be
very leery of the category of "supernatural," which Benson Saler
("Supernatural as a Western Category," Ethos5[1977] 31-53) has
shown to be an inappropriate, even anachronistic category for
the ancient world. No one would have thought of Simon Magus
in Acts 9 to be other an a mortal, only a human with special
powers.
6. The essays collected in Jacob Neusner, Ernst Frerichs and Paul
Flesher (Religion, Science and Magic In Concert and in
Conflict [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989]) offer a start in
this direction; they focus only on issues where "miracles" and
"magic" might be confused, but contain little formal
anthropological analysis.
7. For a cross-cultural study of health care systems, see Arthur
Kleinman, Patients
and
Healers
in
the
Context
of
Culture (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989); and
"Concepts and a Model for the Comparison of Medical Systems
as Cultural Systems," Concepts of Health, Illness and Disease: A

62

Comparative Perspective (eds., Caroline Currer and Meg Stacey;

New York: Berg, 1986) 29-47.
8. Arthur Kleinman, "Concepts and a Model for the Comparison
of Medical Systems as Cultural Systems," 31-32.
9. The clearest proponent of a "systems approach" is Ervin
Laszlo, The Systems View of the World. The Natural Philosophy
of the New Developments in the Sciences (New York: George
Braziller, 1972) and Introduction to a Systems Philosophy.
Towards a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought (New York:
Harper and Row, 1972) 55-118.
10. The primary references are John J. Pilch, "Insights and Models
for Understanding the Healing Activity of the Historical
Jesus," SBLSP 1993 154-77; "The Health Care System in
Matthew: A Social Science Analysis," BTB 16 (1986) 102-106 and
"Sickness and Healing in Luke-Acts," The Social World of LukeActs. Models for Interpretation (ed., Jerome H. Neyrey; Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 181-209; see also "Biblical Leprosy and
Body Symbolism," BTB 11 (1981) 119-33; "Healing in Mark: A
Social Science Analysis," BTB15 (1985) 142-50; "Understanding
Biblical Healing; Selecting the Appropriate Model," BTB 18
(1988) 60-66 and "Understanding Healing in the Social World of
Early Christianity,"BTB 22 (1992) 26-33.
11. Pilch, "The Health Care System in Matthew," 102-103; he
cites here Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney, Illness and Culture in
Contemporary Japan: An Anthropological View (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984) 7.
12. Pilch, "Sickness and Healing in Luke-Acts," 194-97.
13. Pilch, "The Health Care System in Matthew," 103.
14. Kleinman, "Concepts and a Model for the Comparison of
Medical Systems as Cultural Systems," 33.
15. Pilch, "Sickness and Healing in Luke-Acts," 197-200.
16. See Bennetta Jules-Rosette, "Faith Healers and Folk Healers:
The Symbolism and Practice of Indigenous Therapy in Urban
63

Africa," Religion 11 (1981) 127-49; and Peter Worsley, "NonWestern Medical Systems," Annual Review of Anthropology 11
(1982) 315-48.
17. Pilch, "Sickness and Healing in Luke-Acts," 192-94. This
sector is generally treated in studies of the history of medicine;
see
John
Scarborough, Roman
Medicine (Ithaca:
Cornell
University Press, 1969); Ralph Jackson, Doctors and Diseases in
the Roman Empire (London: British Museum Press, 1988) 9-31
and Howard Kee, Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament
Times, 27-66. Invaluable in this regard is the Newsletter. Society
for Ancient Medicine and Pharmacy, published by the
Department of Classical Studies of the University of
Pennsylvania.
18. See H. F. J. Horstmanshoff, "The Ancient Physician:
Craftsman or Scientist," The Journal of the History of Medicine
and Allied Sciences 45 (1990) 176-87. It would be quite
anachronistic to think of even "professionals" in antiquity as
being "scientific." Dissection was very rare with consequent
ignorance of anatomy. Even as empirical a "professional" as
Galen still subscribed to the prevailing understanding of illness
as related to the theory of humors: "In reference to the genesis
of the humours, I do not know that anyone could add anything
wiser than what has been said by Hippocrates, Aristotle,
Praxagoras, Philotimus and many others among the Ancients.
These men demonstrated that when the nutriment becomes
altered in the veins by the innate heat, blood is produced when
it is in moderation, and the other humours when it is not in
proper proportion. And all the observed facts agree with this
argument. Thus, those articles of food which are by nature
warmer are more productive of bile, while those which are colder
produce more phlegm. Similarly of the periods of life, those
which are naturally warmer tend more to bile, and the colder
more to phlegm. Of occupations also, localities and seasons, and
above all, of natures themselves, the colder are more
phlegmatic, and the warmer more bilious. Also cold diseases
result from phlegm, and warmer ones from yellow bile. There is
not a single thing to be found which does not bear witness to the
truth of this account" (On the Natural Faculties II.viii.117-118);
see Rudolph E. Siegel, Galen's System of Physiology and
64

Medicine (New York: S. Karger, 1968) 216-31. See also G. E. R.

Lloyd, Science, Folklore and Ideology (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1983).
19. Galen (That the Best Physician Is Also a Philosopher) argued
that the best physician is skilled in the three branches of
philosophy: logic (how to think), physics (the "nature" of things),
and ethics (what to do). The the "rhetorical" nature of the
ancient's physician's training, see Horstmanshoff, "The Ancient
Physician," 181-82, 185, who speaks of the "craftsmanlike demiourgos and the noble amateur" (189). Commenting on
the diversity of ancient medical education, I.E. Drabkin ("On
Medical Education in Greece and Rome,"Bulletin of the History of
Medicine 15 [1944] 333) remarks: "These may range from the
transmission of purely practical secrets of the craft from father
to son, on the one hand, to a completely bookish and academic
approach, on the other. Though it is proper in one sense to
speak of the development of the Greek physician from craftsman
in the Hippocratic period to professional man in the Roman age,
we must remember that this distinction is valid for a relatively
few leading doctors."
20. Ralph Jackson offers a glimpse into the social status of
doctors: "In Rome especially, but also in the Western Empire
generally, the majority of physicians, then and for centuries to
come, were Greek or of Greek descent. In the first century BC
most were slaves, freed slaves or their descendants, who
brought the knowledge and practice of medicine to Roman
households. . .Some were simply practitioners of medicine
ministering to the needs of the family, from the master down to
fellow slaves. Others were men of wide learning, whose worth
was measured as much in their ability to converse
knowledgeably on subjects such as philosophy as in their ability
to treat illness. They were chosen by the wealthy as learned
companions, friends whose influence and knowledge belied their
low official status" (Doctors and Diseases in the Roman Empire,
56).
21. On Roman army medicine, see John Scarborough, Roman
Medicine (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969) 66-75 and

65

Ralph Jackson, Doctors and Diseases in the Roman Empire, 11237.

22. Henry E. Sigerist, A History of Medicine (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1961) II.306.
23. On the "city physician," see Horstmanshoff, "The Ancient
Physician," 189-92. See also L. Cohn-Haft, The Public Physicians
of Ancient Greece (Northampton, MA: Department of History of
Smith College, 1956) 32-75, and Vivian Nutton, "Continuity or
Rediscovery: The City Physician in Classical Antiquity and
Medieval Italy," The Town and State Physician in Europe from the
Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, ed. Andrew W. Russell
(Wolfenbttel: Herzog August, 1981) 9-46.
24. See Sigerist, A History of Medicine, II.44-79 and
Jackson, Doctors and Diseases in the Roman Empire, 138-69.
25. A sensitive treatment of the fees and remuneration can be
found in Horstmanshoff, "The Ancient Physician," 192-95; see
also Owsei Temkin, "Medical Ethics and Honoraria in Late
Antiquity," Healing and History.Essays for George Rosen (Charles
E. Rosenberg, ed.; New York: Science History Publications, 1979)
6-26.
26. George M. Foster, "Peasant Society and the Image of Limited
Good," American Anthropologist 67 (1965) 293-315, reprinted
in Peasant Society. A Reader (eds. Jack Potter, May Diaz, George
Foster; Boston: Little and Brown, 1967) 300-323; see his "A
Second Look at Limited Good," Anthropological Quarterly 45:5859. See the adaptations of this for New Testament studies by
Bruce J. Malina, "Limited Good and the Social World of Early
Christianity," BTB 8 (1978) 162-76); Halvor Moxnes, The
Economy of the Kingdom(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988) 7679; and Douglas Oakman, "The Ancient Economy in the
Bible," BTB 21 (1991) 36.
27. Even though Matt 10:8 says "You received without paying,
give without pay," he quickly balances this in 10:10, "The
laborer deserves his food." See the discussion of the "right to

66

food and drink" in 1 Cor 9:3-13; worthwhile in this connection is

the polemic against those within the churches who love money.
28. Talcott Parsons, Politics and Social Structure (New York: The
Free Press, 1969) 314-315, 342-44, 408-9; see Terence S. Turner,
"Parsons' Concept of 'Generalized Media of Social Interaction'
and its Relevance for Social Anthropology," Sociological
Inquiry 39 (1968) 121-34. This material was adapted for biblical
studies by Bruce J. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural
Anthropology.
Practical
Models
for
Biblical
Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986) 77-87.
29. Parsons, Politics and Social Structure, 352-404, originally
published as "On the Concept of Political Power," Proceedings of
the American Philosophical Society 107 (1963) 232-62.
30. Parsons, Politics and Social Structure, 405-29, originally
published as "On the Concept of Influence," Public Opinion
Quarterly 27 (1963) 37-62.
31. Parsons, Politics and Social Structure, 439-72.
32. Douglas Oakman ("The Ancient Economy and the Bible," 3439) presents a survey of the relevant literature, highlighting for
a beginning reader in this area the major figures and their
contributions.
33. The basic model was presented by Marshall Sahlins, Stone
Age Economics (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, Inc., 1972) 185-230
and adapted for biblical studies by Bruce Malina,Christian
Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 98-106; the model was
subsequently employed in the study of Luke-Acts by John H.
Elliott, "Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts: A Contrast in
Social Institutions," The Social World of Luke-Acts, 232-35;
Douglas Oakman, "The Countryside in Luke-Acts," The Social
World of Luke-Acts, 156, 166, 173-76; and Jerome Neyrey,
"Ceremonies in Luke-Acts: The Case of Meals and TableFellowship," The Social World of Luke-Acts, 371-73 and 385-86.
34. Sahlins, Stone Age Economics, 193-96.

67

35. This diagram is based largely on the exposition in Bruce

Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 101-4.
36. Andrew
Wallace-Hadrill, Patronage
in
Ancient
Society (London: Routledge, 1989). In terms of biblical studies,
see John H. Elliott, "Patronage and Clientism in Early Christian
Society. A Short Reading Guide," Forum 3.4 (1987) 39-48; Bruce
J. Malina, "Patron and Client. The Analogy Behind Synoptic
Theology," Forum 4.1 (1988) 2-32; Halvor Moxnes,The Economy
of the Kingdom, 22-47 and "Patron-Client Relations and the New
Community of Luke-Acts," The Social World of Luke-Acts, 241-68.
37. John Elliott ("Patronage and Clientism," 41) lists the following
sources for the institution of patron-client relations in antiquity:
""...the
hundred commendationes,
or
personal
recommendations, of clients or 'friends' contained in the epistles
of Cicero; the similarly numerous recommendations or requests
contained in the epistles of the younger Pliny or the
correspondence of Cornelius Fronto, the well-connected tutor of
the emperor Marcus Aurelius; the frequent references to patronclient relations in the epigrams of the satirist Martial; the
philosophical discourses (e.g., of Dio of Prusa and Plutarch) on
the obligations of politicians and kings or emperors to advance
the careers and fortunes of their clients and 'friends'; imperial
decrees and letters of appointment and, particularly in the East,
both the body of official and personal correspondence and the
mass of monuments and inscriptions publicly acknowledging and
expressing gratitude for the benefits conferred by municipal and
imperial 'saviors' and 'benefactors.'"
38. See Steffen W. Schmidt, James C. Scott, Carl Land and
Laura Guasti, eds., Friends, Followers, and Factions. A Reader in
Political Clientelism (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,
1977) esp. xiii-xxxvii; S. N. Eisenstadt and L. Roniger, Patrons,
Clients and Friends. Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of
Trust in Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).
39. A. Blok, "Variations in Patronage," Sociologische Gids 16
(1969) 366, as cited in Halvor Moxnes, The Economy of the
Kingdom, 41.

68

40. Based on Eisenstadt and Roniger, Patrons, Clients, and

Friends, 48-49 and Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom, 42;
see the application of this material to Luke 1:46-56 by Peter
Scaer, "The God of the Magnificat: Patron of the Lowly,"
unpublished seminar paper, 1994.
41. E.g., God may be said to live in "unapproachable" light (1
Tim 6:16), a feature of many oriental monarchs.
42. See the discussion of this passage in terms of patron-client
relations by Halvor Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom, 5364, 74.
43. See the Our Father and its expectation that God bestows
food (daily bread), economic relief (debt remission) and political
protection from the Evil One.
44. See Peter Brown, "The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in
Late Antiquity," Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971) 87.
45. Eiliv Skard, Zwei religis-politische Begriffe: EurgetesConcordia (Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1932); Paul Veyne, Bread and
Circuses (London: Penguin Press, 1990); Arthur D. Nock,
"Soter and Euergetes," Essays on Religion and the Ancient
World (ed., Zeph Stewart; Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1972) 2.722-35.
46. Foremost in this development is Frederick W. Danker. He
introduced the material on benefaction as the operative concept
in his commentary Jesus and the New Age. A Commentary on St.
Luke's Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972) and again
in Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976) 6-17; he followed
these with a detailed study of inscriptions of benefaction
in Benefactor. Epigraphic Study of Graeco-Roman and New
Testament Semantic Field (Clayton, MO: Clayton Publishing
House, 1982); see also his articles "Bridging St. Paul and the
Apostolic Fathers: A Study in Reciprocity," CurrTheoMiss 15
(1988) 84-94 and "Benefactor" in ABD 1.669-71.
47. Danker, Benefactor, 75.
48. Danker, Benefactor, 306.
69

49. Danker, Benefactor, 59-64, which includes the honoring of a

veterinarian.
50. Danker, Benefactor, 152-53.
51. Danker, Benefactor, 167-69.
52. Besides Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor, see Stephen C.
Mott, "The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in
Hellenistic Benevolence, Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic
Interpretation (ed., Gerald Hawthorne; Grand Rapids, MI: William
B. Eerdmans, 1975) 60-72; more recently, Frederick W. Danker,
"Bridging St. Paul and the Apostolic Fathers: A Study in
Reciprocity," CurrTM 15
(1988)
84-94;
Holland
Hendrix,
"Benefactor/Patron Networks in the Urban Environment:
Evidence from Thessalonika," Semeia 56 (1992) 39-54.
53. An excellent example of the many aspects of acknowledging
benefaction may be found in Dio Chrysostom's comments on the
continual honoring of his family at Prusa in Disc. 44.1-5.
54. See Josephus, Ant. 14.149-55.
55. See M. Greenberg and S. Shapiro, "Indebtedness: An Adverse
Aspect of Asking for and Receiving Help," Sociometry 34 (1971)
290-301; Stephen C. Mott, "The Power of Giving and Receiving:
Reciprocity in Hellenistic Benevolence," 60-64.
56. Its semantic word field is quite extensive, which suggests its
importance: see nouns such as glory, reputation, fame, name,
respect, worth, value, regard, as well as verbs such as to praise,
magnify, exalt, acclaim, acknowledge, etc. See F. Klose,
"Altrmische
Wertbegriffe
(honos und dignitas)," Neue
Jahrbcher fr Antike und deutsche Bildung 1 (1938) 268-78 and
Johannes Schneider, "Tim," TDNT 8.169-80.
57. Julian Pitt-Rivers, The Fate of Shechem or the Politics of Sex:
Essays in the Anthropology of the Mediterranean (Cambridge
Studies in Social Anthropology 19; Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1977) 1.

70

58. The major exponents of honor in the field of anthropology

are: J.G. Peristiany, Honour and Shame: The Values of
Mediterranean Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1966); Julian Pitt-Rivers, "Honor." IESS 6.503-11; The People of
the Sierra (2nd edition; Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1971); and David Gilmore, ed., Honor and Shame and the Unity
of the Mediterranean (American Anthropological Association 22;
Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1987).
Applications to biblical studies can be found in Bruce J.
Malina, New
Testament
World.
Insights
from
Cultural
Anthropology (2nd edition; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox,
1993) 28-54; Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, "Honor and
Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean
World," The Social World of Luke-Acts, 25-66; Halvor Moxnes,
"Honour And Righteousness in Romans," JSNT 32 (1988) 61-77
and "Honor, Shame, and the Outside World in Paul's Letter to the
Romans," The Social World of Formative Christianity and
Judaism (ed. J. Neusner; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988) 20718. Classics scholars have also studied this phenomenon; see
A.W.H. Adkins, "'Honour' and 'Punishment' in the Homeric
Poems," Classical Studies 7 (1960) 23-32 and Merit and
Responsibility. A Study in Greek Values (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1960); Douglas L., Cairns, Aidos. The Psychology
and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek
Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993); N.R.E. Fisher, "Hybris
and Dishonour," G&R 23 (1976) 60-73 andHybris. A Study in the
Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece (London: Aris &
Phillips, 1979); Paul Friedrich, "Sanity and the Myth of Honor:
The Problem of Achilles,"Ethos: The Journal of Psychological
Anthropology 5 (1977) 281-305.
59. Typical are the remarks of Diodor of Sicily (1.90.2-3), who
indicates that mortal healers are specially gifted by the gods.
60. See Dieter Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second
Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986) 229-46.
61. Ex-votos were left at shrines as acknowledgments of favors
received, thus honoring the healing deity; the stele at the
Asclepium in Epidauros, however, do not serve the same
function, but rather serve as claims to the honor of the healing
71

deity and the shrine; see

Edelstein, Asclepius, I.221-38.

Emma

Edelstein

and

Ludwig

62. The place of aretalogies belongs here, for they are the public
return to deities of what is due them for their benefaction. See
Danker, Benefactor, 176-85, 192-96. The stele from the
Asclepion in Epidaurus probably serve this function as well; see
Emma and Ludwig Edelstein, Asclepius. A Collection and
Interpretation of the Testimonies (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
Press, 1945) II. 221-37.
63. On the propaganda value of miracles,
Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World, 252-86.

see

Howard

64. For other indications of honor vis--vis miracles in the Fourth

Gospel, see John 9:3, 17, 30-33.
65. The classic instance is the rejection at home (see Mark 6:16); but see also Mark 3:1-6; Luke 13:10-17; John 11:45-48; Mark
notes that Jesus' enemies handed him over out of "envy"
(15:10).
66. See Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1967) 3-28.
67. In particular Purity and Pollution. An Analysis of the Concepts
of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1966); "Pollution," International Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences. 12.336-42; and Natural Symbols. Explorations in
Cosmology (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982).
68. Sheldon K. Isenberg and Dennis E. Owen, "Bodies, Natural
and Contrived: The Work of Mary Douglas," Religious Studies
Review 3 (1977) 1-17; Sheldon K. Isenberg, "Mary Douglas and
Hellenistic Religions: the Case of Qumran," SBLASP 1975.179185; Bruce J. Malina, "The Social World Implied in the Letters of
the
Christian
Bishop-Martyr
(named
Ignatius
of
Antioch)". SBLASP 1987.71-119
and Christian
Origins
and
Cultural Anthropology, 13-67, 87-97 and 122-29; Jacob Neusner,
"Map Without Territory: Mishnah's System of Sacrifices and
Sanctuary," HR 19 (1979) 103-27; Jerome H. Neyrey, "The
Symbolic Universe of Luke-Acts: 'They Turn the World Upside
72

Down,'" The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation,

271-304
and Paul,
In
Other
Words (Louisville,
KY:
Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990). See also Ross S.
Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings. Women's Religions among
Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greco-Roman World (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1992) 13-20 and 202-208.
69. Bruce J. Malina, "Clean and Unclean: Understanding Rules of
Purity," The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural
Anthropology (revised ed.) 149-83; Jacob Neusner, The Idea of
Purity in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973); "The Idea of
Purity in Ancient Judaism," JAAR 43 (1975) 15-26; "History and
Purity in First-Century Judaism," HR 18 (1978) 1-17; Jerome H.
Neyrey, "The Idea of Purity in Mark's Gospel," Semeia 35 (1986)
91-128; "Unclean, Common, Polluted and Taboo," Forum 4.4
(1988) 72-82; Paul, In Other Words. A Cultural Reading of His
Letters, 21-101; 2 Peter, Jude (AnB 37C; Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1993) 10-13; and"Readers Guide to Clean/Unclean,
Pure/Polluted, and Holy/Profane. The Idea and System of Purity,"
forthcoming; John H. Elliott, "The Epistle of James in Rhetorical
and Social Scientific Perspective: Holiness-Wholeness and
Patterns of Replication," BTB 23 (1993) 71-81.
70. Jerome H. Neyrey, "Body Language in 1 Corinthians: The Use
of Anthropological Models for Understanding Paul and His
Opponents," Semeia 35 (1986) 129-170, reprinted inPaul, In
Other Words, 102-46; "A Symbolic Approach to Mark
7," Forum 4/3 (1988) 71-79; 2 Peter, Jude, 12-17 and index
"Body, parts of."
71. Peter Brown, "Sorcery, Demons, and the Rise of Christianity
from
Late
Antiquity," Witchcraft
Confessions
and
Accusations (ed., Mary T. Douglas; New York: Tavistock, 1970)
17-45; Jerome H. Neyrey, "Witchcraft Accusations in 2 Cor 10-13:
Paul in Social Science Perspective," Listening 21 (1986) 160-70
and
"Bewitched
in
Galatia:
Paul
and
Cultural
Anthropology," CBQ 50 (1988) 72-100, both of which are
reprinted in Paul, In Other Words, 181-224.

73

72. See, for example, Brian Morris, Anthropological Studies of

Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 182263.
73. George
Murdock, Theories
of
Illness.
A
Survey (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1980).

World

74. Murdock links witchcraft with the phenomenon of envy and

the evil eye, whereas sorcery has to do with shamanistic
technique or the use of the appropriate verbal spell or magical
rite; finally spirit aggression refers to the transference to
heavenly beings of overt human aggression on earth. Each type
as a specifically different geographical distribution, as well as
correlation with other identifiable traits; see Theories of Illness,
57-87.
75. Murdock, Theories of Illness, 57-53.
76. Murdock, Theories of Illness, 82.
77. George M. Foster, "Disease Etiologies in Non-Western
Medical Systems," American Anthropologist 78 (1976) 773-82.
78. John J. Pilch, "Sickness and Healing in Luke-Acts," 200-209;
see also his article, "A Spirit Named 'Fever,'" PACE 21 (May,
1992) 253-56.
79. Luke 13:16 may be the clearest example, but see Mark 1:2326; 9:25, Matt 9:32, and Luke 11:14. Matthew twice calls an ill
person "moonstruck" (selniazomenous, 4:24 and 17:15), which
would seem to be a variant of the motif.
80. Bernard de Gradon, "L'homme a l'image de Dieu," Nouvelle
Revue Thologique 80 (1958) 683-95; this material was
popularized for biblical interpreters by Bruce J. Malina, New
Testament World (2nd edition), 73-82 and developed further by
John. J. Pilch, "Sickness and Healing in Luke-Acts," 203-7.
81. From John J. Pilch, "Sickness and Healing in Luke-Acts," 204.
82. This correlates with the use of the verb "to walk" vis--vis
Jewish halachic ordinances and Christian exhortations about
74

walking in the "way of Jesus" (see Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 24:11 and
24:22; see Wilhelm Michaelis, "Hodos, TDNT 5.48-60, 69-74 and
84-91.
83. See Sara B. Aleshire, The Athenian Asclepeion: Their People,
Their Dedications, and Their Inventories (Amsterdam: J.C.
Gieben, 1989); F.T. van Straten, "Gifts for the Gods,"Faith, Hope
and Worship. Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World,
ed., H.S. Versnel (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981) 97-151; Patrizio
Pensabene, et al., Terracotte Vitive del Tevere (Rome: L'Erma di
Bretschneider, 1980); still valuable is W.H.D. Rouse, Greek Votive
Offerings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902).
84. In light of his exhaustive inventory, the comment by F.T. van
Straten ("Gifts for the Gods," 111) warrants notice: "Ancient
Greek votive offerings depicting internal organs are extremely
rare, and as far as I know heart and bladder do no occur among
the surviving examples." Of importance here might be the
frequency with which people seek healing for a specific bodily
illness, and that at a particular shrine; see T.W. Potter, "A
Republican Healing Sanctuary at Ponte di Nona near
Rome," Journal of the British Archaeological Association 138
(1985) 27-33.
85. See F. T. van Straten, "Gifts for the Gods," 109; W. H. D.
Rouse, Greek
Votive
Offerings (Cambridge,
1903);
see
also IG II.2, 1532-9; see T.W. Potter, "A Republican Healing
Sanctuary at Ponte di Nona near Rome," 31.
86. See Monica McGoldrick, John K. Pearce and Joseph Giordano,
eds., Ethnicity and Family Therapy (New York: The Guilford Press,
1982); Mark Zborowski, "Cultural Components in Responses to
Pain," Journal of Social Issues 8 (1952) 16-30; and Irving K. Zola,
"Culture and Symptoms: An Analysis of Patients' Presenting
Complaints," American Sociological Review 31 (1966) 615-30.
87. In particular, Purity and Danger, 29-57; see note 64 above.
88. Mary T. Douglas , Implicit Meanings (London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1975) 50-51.

75

89. See Jerome H. Neyrey, "The Idea of Purity in

Mark," Semeia 35 (1986) 107-8 and "The Symbolic Universe of
Luke-Acts: 'They Turn the World Upside Down,'" The Social World
of Luke-Acts, 286-88 and 291-92. On the expression of "fathers
of uncleanness," see Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1933) 800-804.
90. It would be a mistake to confine notions of pollution to
ancient Israel or 2nd-temple Judaism. For the importance of this
material in Greek culture, see Robert Parker, Miasma. Pollution
and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1983) and Walter Burkert, Greek Religion (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1985) 75-84.
91. "Fathers of Uncleanness in a man who has a flux are: (i) his
bare flesh; his 'fountains,' viz. his flux, semen, urine, and spittle
(which includes the phlegm of his lungs, throat, and
nose...)" Eliyahu Rabba I.3, cited in Herbert Danby, The Mishnah,
801. On the magical property of spittle, Pliny writes: "The best of
all safeguards against serpents is the saliva of a fasting human
being. But our daily experience may teach us yet other values of
its use. We spit on epileptics (comitiales morbos) in a fait, that
is, we throw back the infection. In a similar way we ward off
witchcraft (fascinationes) and the bad luck that follows meeting
a person lame in the right leg" (H.N. XXVIII.vii.35).
92. For example, see the case of Uriah the Hittite, who does not
have sexual intercourse with Bathsheba because he is in a state
of ritual purity to fight the holy war (2 Sam 11:8-11); more
dramatic, perhaps, is the treatment of the high priest on the eve
of Yom Kippur: "Throughout the seven days they did not withhold
food and drink from him; but on the eve of the Day of
Atonement (Yom Kippur) toward nightfall they did not suffer him
to eat much, since food induces sleep...If he was a Sage he used
to expound [the Scriptures], and if not the disciples of the Sages
used to expound before him. . .And from what did they read
before him? Out of Job and Ezra and Chronicles. Zechariah b.
Kabutal says: Many times I read before him out of Daniel. If he
sought to slumber, young members of the priesthood would
snap their middle finger before him and say to him, 'My lord
High Priest, get up and drive away sleep this once by walking on
76

the cold pavement.' And they used to divert him until the time of
slaughtering drew near" (m. Yoma 1.3-7); see also Josephus, Ant.
17.165-66.
93. See Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 221-22.
94. Note the frequency of katharos/kathariz in Mark 1:40-42.
95. See the importance of hygios in Matt 12:13; 15:31; Mark
5:34; John 5:6, 9 (see Luke 5:31).
96. Victor Turner, The Forest of Symbols. Aspects of Ndembu
Ritual (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967) 95 (emphasis
added); see also Raymond Firth and John Skorupski,Symbol and
Theory: A Philosophical Study of Theories of Religion in Social
Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976)
164. A similar notion of certain rites confirming the bonds
whereby individuals are attached to society can be found in
Emile
Durkheim, The
Elementary
Forms
of
Religious
Life (London: Allen and Unwin, 1964) 387. For the history of this
distinction,
see
Edmund
Leach,
"Ritual," International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 13.521-24.
97. See Bruce J. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural
Anthropology. Practical Models for Biblical Interpretation, 139-43.
See also Jerome Neyrey, Paul in Other Words, 76-80, and Mark
McVann, "Rituals of Status Transformation in Luke-Acts: The Case
of Jesus the Prophet," The Social World of Luke-Acts, 334-36; and
Jerome H. Neyrey, "The Footwashing in John 13:6-11 -Transformation Ritual or Ceremony?" The Social World of the
First Christians (L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough, eds.;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 198-213.
98. Bruce Malina (Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology,
143-54) developed the concept of a person permitted by society
to cross boundaries and deal with the "unclean," such as police
(with criminals), doctors and nurses (with sick), psychiatrists
(with insane), priests and ministers (with sinners) and the like.
99. Besides Christians saying this of others, see the slander
against Jesus in John 7:12, 30-31; 9:24; Mark 3:23 and Matt
12:23-24.
77

100. Based on Bruce J. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural

Anthropology, 145-47.
101. The treatment of John the Baptizer by John Dominic Crossan
(The Historical Jesus. The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish
Peasant [San Francisco: Harper, 1991] 156-67, 230-31) is an apt
illustration of the clash of institutions and so a conflict between
illegitimate and legitimate authority.
102. Arnold Van Gennap produced the seminal work (The Rites
of Passage (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960) which
has set the parameters of the discussion. In his Forest of
Symbols, Victor Turner discusses separation (pp 187-209),
liminality (pp 209-50) and re-aggregation (pp 251-60); see
his The Ritual Process (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company,
1969); this material has been digested and applied to biblical
interpretation by Mark McVann, "Rituals of Status-Transformation
in Luke-Acts," The Social World of Luke-Acts, 333-60.
103. See Victor Turner, The Forest of Symbols, 93-111 and The
Ritual Process, 94-113, 125-30.
104. Victor Turner, The Ritual Process, 106-107.
105. See Paul A. Hare, "Groups: Role Structure," International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 6.283-88.
106. Thomas L. Robinson, "Asclepius, Cult of," ABD 1.475; this
description is based on Walter Burkert, Greek Religion, 267-68,
who utilized the important study of M. Wrrle, "Die Lex Sacra
von der Hallenstrasse," Altertmer von Pergamon. Die
Inschriften des Askelpieons (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter and Co.,
1969) VIII.3.167-90.
107. Walter Burkert, Greek Religion, 268.
108. See Robert F. Stoops, "Christ as Patron in the Acts of
Peter," Semeia 56 (1992) 146-51.
109. This would apply especially if the person was healed of an
illness present from birth, such as paralysis (Acts 3:1) or
blindness (John 9:1).
78

110. The healing of the menstruating woman in Mark 5:24-34 is

likewise the healing of the affliction of her family and network;
menstruation would prohibit sexual intercourse with her
husband and would probably indicate a prolonged period of
separation from wifely duties in the household (see also Mark
1:29-31). The restoration of a cripple, as in Mark 3:1-6, means
that a family has one more productive contributor to its well
being, and so the entire family experiences healing.
111. On the sociology of stigma, see Irving Goffman, Stigma:
Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963).
112. On labelling theory, see Erdwin H. Pfuhl, The Deviance
Process (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., Inc., 1980); Edwin
M. Schur, The Politics of Deviance: Stigma Contests and the Uses
of Power (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980); on the
application of labelling theory to christology, see Bruce J. Malina
and Jerome H. Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names. The Social Value of
Labels in Matthew (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1988), esp.
35-67. On Christians dealing with the stigma of "Christ
Crucified," see 1 Cor 1:23.
113. Although Menander Rhetor was not specifically describing a
person healed of an illness, his remarks touch on the issue of a
person who is both "god-loved" (benefaction received) and who
is "god-loving" (reciprocity of a client): "The parts of justice are
piety, fair dealing, and reverence: piety towards the gods, fair
dealings towards men, reverence towards the departed. Piety to
the gods consists of two elements: being god-loved
(theophilots) and god-loving (philotheots). The former means
being loved by the gods and receiving many blessings from
them, the latter consists of loving the gods and having a
relationship of friendship with them" (I.361.17-25). In this
regard, see the reaction to Paul in Acts 28:6, as well as the
popular evaluation of persons struck by lightning who survived
(Fredrick Brenk....).
114. Carl Kazmierski ("Evangelist and Leper: A Socio-Cultural
Study of Mark 1:40-45," NTS 38 [1992] 37-50) provides a good

79

example of a broad approach to miracle stories; see also the

references to Laszlo's works in note # 9 above.
115. I am persuaded by Bruce J. Malina ("'Religion' in the World
of Paul," BTB [1986] 92-101) that there are but two basic
institutions in antiquity, family and politics. "Religion," then, is
embedded either in the family or in the state. This means that
we should not consider temples to be "religious institutions"
independent of the political control of the elites of the cities
where they are.
116. See Richard A. Horsley and John S. Hanson, Bandits,
Prophets, and Messiahs (New York: Winston Press, 1985) 160-89;
much of this has been repeated in John D. Crossan, The
Historical Jesus, 137-67.
117. See Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Calling Jesus
Names, 34-67.
118. See Edwin M. Schur, Labeling Deviant Behavior: Its
Sociological Implications (New York: Harper and Row, 1971)
and The Politics of Deviance: Stigma Contests and the Uses of
Power; see also Erdwin H. Pfuhl, The Deviance Process and F.T.
Cullen and J.B. Cullen, Toward a Paradigm of Labeling
Theory (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1978).
119. One should carefully assess Josephus' rhetorical and
political strategy in his description of deceptive prophets in Ant.
18:85-87; 20:97-98, 168-71, 188 and B.J. 2.259, 261-62; 6.28385, 286-88; 7.437-40. Hence one should engage in some
"ideology" criticism; see John H. Elliott, A Home for the
Homeless. A Social-Scientific Criticism of I Peter, Its Situation
and Strategy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990) 11-12 and more
recently What
is
Social-Scientific
Criticism? (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1993) 84-86.
120. Lewis A. Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (New York:
Free Press, 1956); in terms of gospel texts, see Bruce J. Malina,
"A Conflict Approach to Mark 7," Forum 4/3 (1988) 3-30.
121. On "values" in antiquity, see "honor," "pain," "power,"
"purity," and "wholeness" in John J. Pilch and Bruce J. Malina,
80

eds., Biblical Social Values and Their Meanings (Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson Publishers, 1993).

READERS
GUIDE
PURE/POLLUTED, AND

TO

CLEAN/UNCLEAN,

HOLY/PROFANE: THE IDEA AND SYSTEM OF

PURITY
Jerome
University
Notre

H.
of
Dame,

Neyrey,
Notre
IN

S.J.
Dame
46556

OUTLINE
1.0
Pervasive
Importance
of
This
2.0
Historical
and
Descriptive
3.0
Anthropological
and
Social
4.0
Miscellaneous
Studies
Worth
5.0
Where
Does
This
Leave
a
6.0 Works Cited

Topic
Approaches
Approaches
Noting
Reader?

1.0 Pervasive Importance of This Topic

In the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures we often read of some thing, person or
place labelled as "unclean," "common" and "polluted." In regard to foods,
Israelites prohibited the eating of certain animals (Lev 11). When Peter saw the
contents of the sheet lowered from heaven and was told to eat of those animals,
he responded "I have never eaten anything common or unclean" (Acts 10:14).
Paul twice wrote to communities in which some members considered certain
foods permissible and others proscribed (1 Cor 8 and 10; Rom 14-15). Someone
who ate food labelled "unclean" could himself be "defiled" (1 Cor 8:7). Paul
himself stated, "I know. . .that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for
any one who thinks it is unclean" (Rom 14:14). Pharisees became mightily upset
that Jesus or his disciples ate with "unclean" hands (Luke 11:38; Mark 7:2-4). For
his part, Jesus criticized as hypocritical the Pharisaic concern with concern for
the cleanness of the "outside" of the cup (Matt 25:25-26). And Jesus himself
shocked the Pharisees when he "declared all foods clean" (Mark 7:19). What is
81

meant when people label foods "clean" or "unclean"? This is clearly not a matter
of hygiene or concern for viral or bacterial contamination. Why are people who
eat unclean foods themselves considered as "defiled"?
In regard to the physical body, moreover, priests in Leviticus are expected to
examine and declare whether certain persons are "clean" and so fit to stand and
worship or whether they are "unclean" and so are to be excluded (Lev 13; see
Mark 1:44). Much attention is given to the skin and surface of the body, but also
to its wholeness as a condition for access to holy space and holy tasks. For
example, according to Lev 21:16-21, priests with certain bodily defects may not
function in the temple. This prescription extended beyond the ranks of priests and
labelled the outsiders to the group (see 1 QSa 2:3-10 and 1 QM 7:4-7). It is
precisely these folk whom Jesus commanded be invited to table (Luke 14:13-14,
21). In several places, Josephus recorded a fight between two high priests, one of
whom mutilated his opponent and so disqualified him from further priestly
service:
Hyrcanus threw himself at the feet of Antigonus, who with his own teeth
lacerated his suppliant's ears, in order to disqualify him for ever, under any
change of circumstances, from resuming the high priesthood; since freedom from
physical defect (holoklerous) is essential to the holder of that office (B.J. 1.269270; see Ant. 14.366; B.J. 5.228).
Philo also explained the law of physical integrity, which, because of its
importance
for
this
study,
we
cite
in
full:
"With regard to the priests there are the following laws. It is ordained that the
priest should be perfectly sound throughout, without any bodily deformity. No
part, that is, must be lacking or have been mutilated, nor on the other hand
redundant, whether the excrescence be congenital or an aftergrowth due to
disease. Nor must the skin have been changed into a leprous state or into
malignant tatters or warts or any other eruptive growth (Sp. Leg. 1.80; see also
1.117).
Why were such people labelled "unclean" and why should this exclude them
from priestly service in the temple? The issue is hardly one of handicapped
inability to perform the tasks.
In regard to Jesus, the mighty deeds of this prophet included the casting out of
"unclean" spirits (Mark 1:23; 3:11; Luke 6:18; 9:42). One might ask why the
evangelist labelled the demon "unclean"? does this add anything to our
perception of it? Moreover, the leper asked Jesus to make him "clean," not simply
to heal him (Mark 1:40-42). Although the menstruating woman in Mark 5:24-35
82

is not labelled "unclean," that would have been the common perception of the
bystanders. Jairus' daughter, who was dead when Jesus came to her (Mark 5:3542) was unclean and all who touched her would become unclean as well, since
death is one of the "Fathers of Uncleanness." Jesus' critics cannot credit him with
the holy role of a prophet when he has bodily contact with a public sinner woman
(Luke 7:39). A wide variety of issues and problems, then, are connected with the
language of "unclean," "common" and "polluted" in the Hebrew and Christian
scriptures.
Furthermore, besides attending to "unclean" and "polluted" and "common," we
should ask what is meant by the label "holy," especially when applied to God
("Be ye holy as I am holy," Lev 11:44-45; 1 Pet 1:16). Paul stated that the will of
God is our "sanctification" (1 Thess 4:3), which he clarified by adding, "God has
not called us for uncleanness but in holiness" (4:7). To be holy as God is holy,
ancient Jews performed extensive washing rites. The water which Jesus turned
into wine was in jars kept there "for purification" (John 2:6). We read of
controversy between disciples of John the Baptizer and other Jews "over
purification" (John 4:25). But why are certain persons and objects declared
"pure"? It is more than their being separated and consecrated for temple use.
Although we mentioned three contrasting pairs of labels, "pure and profane,"
"clean and unclean," and "pure and polluted," the semantic word field for this
topic is very broad and includes the following terms (Neyrey 1990:54-55 and
1991:275-76).
A. Terms for "Purity":
1.
clean,
to
cleanse,
cleanness
(katharos,
kathariz,
katharismos): Luke 2:22; 5:12; 11:41; Acts 10:15; 15:9; Rom 14:20; 2 Cor 7:1
2.
sweep
(saro):
Luke
11:25//Matt
12:44
3. pure, to purify, purity (hagnos, hagniz, hagnotes): Acts 21:24, 26; 24:18; 2
Cor
6:6;
7:11;
11:2,3;
Phil
4:8
4. holy, to make holy, holiness (hagios, hagiaz, hagiots, hagiasmos):
hagiaz: Rom 15:16; 1 Cor 1:2; 6:11; 7:14; 1 Thess 5:23
hagiasmos: Rom 6:19, 22; 1 Cor 1:30; 1 Thess 4:3,4,7
hagios: Rom 1:7; 7:12; 8:27; 11:26; 12:1,13; 15:25; 16:2; 1 Cor 1:2; 3:17; 16:1,
15, 20; 2 Cor 1:1; 8:4; 9:1; 13:12; Phil 1:1; 4:21-22; 1 Thess 3:13; 5:26-27; Phlm
5,7
(references
to
"Holy"
Spirit
not
included)
5.
innocent
(akeraios):
Matt
10:16;
Rom
16:19;
Phil
2:5
6. spotless (amiantos): Heb 7:26; 13:4; Jas 1:27; 1 Pet 1:4
7. unstained (aspilos): Jas 1:27; 1 Pet 1:19; 2 Pet 3:14
83

8. blameless (ammos): Eph 1:4; 5:27; Phil 2:15; Col 1:22; 1 Pet
9. blameless (anegkltos): 1 Cor 1:8; Col 1:22; 1 Tim 3:10; Titus
10.
faultless
(anepilmptos):
1
Tim
3:2;
5:7;
11. innocent (amemts): Phil 2:1; 3:6; 1 Thess 2:10; 3:13;
12.
innocent
(athos):
Matt
27:4,
13. innocent (akakos): Rom 16:18; Heb 7:26

1:19
1:6-7
6:14
5:23
24

B. Terms for "Pollution":

1. defilement, to defile (miasmos, miain, miasma): John 18:28; Titus 1:15; 2 Pet
2:10,
20
2. defilement, to defile (molusmos, molun): 1 Cor 8:7; 2 Cor 7:1; Rev 3:4
3.
unclean
(akathartos,
akartharsia):
akatharsia: Rom 1:24; 6:19; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; 1 Thess 2:3; 4:7
akathartos:
1
Cor
7:14;
2
Cor
6:17;
Eph
5:5
4. spot (spilos, spilo): Eph 5:27; 2 Pet 2:13; Jas 3:6; Jude 23
5.
stain,
(momos):
2
Pet
2:13
6. common, to make common (koinos, koino): Acts 10:14-15, 28; 11:8-9;
21:28;
Rom
14:14
7. defilement (halisgma): Acts 15:20.
Even this should be expanded to include labels such as "whole" or "divided" and
"complete"
or
"incomplete"
(Elliott
1993:71-72).
The positive labels ("holy," "clean," and "pure") and the negative ones
("profane," "unclean," and "polluted") are pervasive through the Christian
scriptures and the literature of second-temple Judaism. They serve, moreover, as
potent weapons which can include or exclude. They pertain to the fundamental
ways in which Jesus, Paul, James and other Jews perceived and classified persons
and things in their world.
Yet what do they really mean? why are they so potent? so pervasive? This readers
guide offers a survey of pertinent literature which aims at equipping a reader of
Hebrew and Christian scriptures to appreciate these labels in terms of the culture
of the ancient writers. Thus when we examine these labels, we will not simply be
conducting a word study, but looking at the broad cultural system which finds
expression in these terms. That broad cultural context, or symbolic universe, will
be called a "purity system."
For those unfamiliar with the topic, there may indeed be some confusion in the
terminology just noted and in the very idea of examining "clean" and "unclean"
together. In the literature, all of the above words and terms tend to be understood
84

and discussed under the general rubric of "the language of purity." This is so
partly because the discussion has been shaped by concentration on the term
"purity" in the Hebrew Scriptures (thr) and partly because "purity" is an abstract
code word for what is culturally acceptable. Although Jews and Christians
regularly used the language of "clean" and "unclean," the umbrella concept for
this
discussion
is
the
abstract
notion
of
"purity."
Students of late Judaism and early Christianity have been quite busy
investigating these matters. And the approaches to issues of "unclean,"
"common" and "polluted" seem to have taken two different but compatible
directions, one descriptive and historical and the other anthropological and social.
2.0 Historical and Descriptive Approaches
Although the material will at first seem strange and difficult to understand, the
Mishnah contains valuable data on "clean" and "unclean." We recommend the
Danby translation for two reasons. It contains (a) an excellent index to trace key
terms such as "Father of Uncleanness" and (b) an appendix on "The Rules of
Uncleanness" from Eliyahu Rabbah (pp. 800-4), which is a most useful summary
of the topic. In particular, one should read the tractate Kelim 1.1-9, which
contains elaborate lists of things clean and unclean, all of which are ranked in
hierarchical order, which is another aspect of "purity systems."
We start our survey with several general dictionary articles. L.E. Toombs
(1962:641-48) began his survey with an attempt to deal with the words "clean"
and "unclean" first in terms of general religious language and then in terms of
what they have in common with Canaanite and Babylonian religion. His main
interest lay in an extensive exposition of their occurrence and use, especially in
the ritual or cultic parts of the Hebrew Scriptures. Toombs' article typifies a
descriptive approach to the concepts of "clean and unclean," namely what objects
or persons comes under the label "clean" and "unclean" in regard to the temple
and cultic ritual.
A much more enlightened article by D. P. Wright (1992:729-41) has just appeared
in the new Anchor Bible Dictionary. After identifying the relevant terminology
for "clean" and "unclean" in the Hebrew scriptures, Wright distinguishes between
permitted and proscribed impurities. Permitted impurities are those which occur
naturally and necessarily, i.e., those related to death, sex, disease and cult;
proscribed impurities are controllable and unnecessary, i.e., idolatry, murder.
Wright then examines each class in detail, noting how each is a "father of
impurities," and what is the appropriate remedy for each (on this key term, see m.
Pes. 1.6; Shek. 8.4; Eduy 2.1; Meil. 4.4; Kel. 1.1; Tor. 1.5; Maksh. 4.2, 8 and Teb
Yom. 1.4, 5; 2.1, 8; 3.1). He then examines bodily excretions, blemishes, foods
85

and mixtures as these are labelled "unclean." What sets Wright's article apart
from other surveys is his attention to the meaning of these labels, which takes
him into the realm of cultural anthropology. In discussing the "rationale" for
impurities, he notes seven traditional reasons which are not entirely satisfactory
for explaining the function of impurities in religious communities. Then he
succinctly presents a model of purity from the works of anthropologist Mary
Douglas, which both he and other OT scholars have profitably adapted for
interpretation of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. He digests Douglas' work into three
key insights: (a) purity is related to wholeness and normality; (b) the definition of
purity derives not from observed reality but from the cultural understanding of
particular societies; purity is a language expressing social concerns; and (c) the
physical body manifests the purity concerns of the social body. He applies this
material to the P tradition and its concerns with space and sacrificial foods. This
article supplies excellent data about the occurrence, classification, and treatment
of impurities in the Old Testament. Moreover, it is very sensitive and informed
about the meaning of the data in terms of a "system" of cultural perceptions. It is
an enlightened and necessary introduction to the topic.
Sooner or later Jacob Neusner was bound to turn his attention to this topic first in
a book, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism (1973) and then in an article
(1975). Ever the careful historian, he distinguished in his book three blocks of
texts in terms of their historical provenance: the biblical legacy, texts from the
second-temple period, and Talmudic materials. As had been frequently noted, the
materials from the Hebrew Scriptures dealing with "clean and unclean" treat
mainly of priestly texts and temple matters. In describing the literature of the
second-temple period, Neusner basically catalogued the various associations of
"unclean," either with idolatry or moral defilement, especially sexual sins;
"clean" was linked to Temple, especially ritual imagery and praxis at Qumran. In
regard to the Talmudic materials, Neusner notes that concern over "clean and
unclean" is still linked with Temple, but that the Rabbis were increasingly
interested in the moral or allegorical meaning of these concepts for home life.
Throughout, Neusner deals with the material descriptively and from an historical
perspective. Yet he did raise a critical social issue: according to his historical and
descriptive analysis, the language of "clean" and "unclean" tended to differentiate
one sect from another. Although Neusner was adapting Douglas' seminal work on
purity, he ignored the model of the body which was central to her presentation of
purity. His book, then, will supply a reader with a careful historical classification
of material pertaining to purity.
More recently, scholars have concentrated either on specific topics or on specific
texts and communities in their examination of "clean and unclean." For example,
Roger P. Booth (1986) focused on the washing of hands incident in Mark 7; his
86

interest lay in historical questions, such as the tradition history behind Mark's
account, as well as the general legal issues involved. Neusner (1976:486-95)
likewise investigated the history of the accusation in Matt 25:25-26 that
Pharisees are concerned with the washing of the outside of cups; he demonstrates
a lively debate on the issue between the followers of Hillel and Shammai.
Michael Newton (1985) took up the investigation of cultic or ritual cleanness.
The first part of his book surveys the terminology of "purity" at Qumran, the
basic understanding of that group as "holy" or separated, and the ritual actions in
which this was embodied, either washing rites or concerns over food and meals.
In regard to Paul, he dealt first with cultic terminology in Paul and its
relationship to his notion of "purity." He then took up the issue of washing and
entrance rites, which are described in terms of "clean" and "pure." Finally moral
issues were discussed, table fellowship and the purity of food, sexual
uncleanness, corpse uncleanness, and separation from evil people. Although
Newton knows of anthropological studies of these concepts, his own work is
basically descriptive and comparative.
Contemporary biblical scholarship, which is becoming increasingly concerned
with the language and concepts of "purity," tends to focus on specific texts or
topics. For obvious reasons, Qumran texts, which contain numerous references to
the language of purity and pollution, have become the object of many recent
studies (e.g., Isenberg, Newton). Comparably, in regard to the Hebrew scriptures,
attention is regularly given to food laws (Milgrom, Soler) and to the priestly
issues
related
to
cult
and
temple
(Neusner,
Newton).
These studies, however, remain basically (a) historical (how ancient were such
customs as the washing of hands or vessels? how widespread was the Jewish
refusal to eat with Gentiles?) or (b) descriptive (what issues came under the
rubric of "clean" and "unclean"?). Such approaches, of course, are the dominant
modes of doing critical biblical scholarship and are acceptable to scholars and
publishers alike. Detailed studies such as those noted above are indeed valuable,
yet they are not the only approach to this topic. Nor do they answer the basic
question of what "clean" and "unclean" mean in Judaism and early Christianity or
why such labelling takes place at all. These questions require different methods
of analysis.
3.0 Anthropological and Social Approaches
Besides historical and descriptive approaches to "clean and unclean," other
scholars have come to the biblical texts asking different sorts of questions. What
basically is meant by "purity" or by "clean" and "unclean"? What is
communicated by labelling some thing or person "unclean"? What is symbolized
by categorizing things as "pure" or "polluted"? What is the social significance of
87

labelling something "pure" or "polluted"? On one level, we can observe that all
peoples declare certain persons or things "unclean" or taboo (for examples of
Greek labelling, Parker 1983:357-65). Rather than merely compile descriptive
lists of these objects, we can inquire about the very process of labelling itself.
Labelling is itself a symbolic action which encodes considerable information
about the way the labellers view the world. What is the rationale for these
categories vis--vis specific persons or objects? The inquiry into "unclean,"
"common," "polluted," and "taboo" takes us into the realm of cultural
anthropology.
The effort to understand the social and cultural meanings of "clean" and
"unclean" leads a reader into considerations of the overarching "system" of a
culture or into a reconstruction of its "symbolic universe." For example, Jacob
Neusner, although he was primarily interested in the history of the material,
urged us to consider historical data such as mishnaic material on sacrifice and
sanctuary in terms of a "complete system" (1979:105). His presentation of this
material is done systematically in terms of a "mapping," that is, the social
"constructing of worlds of meaning." Although the temple lay in ruins, mishnaic
authors still constructed an orderly world, classifying all things in terms of
"clean" and "unclean" in relation to the sanctuary remembered and expected.
Physical geography gave way to ideological geography. Neusner's article is an
important orientation for readers on this topic because it reminds us that "purity"
has two meanings: (a) the general sense of an orderly cosmos and an elaborate
system of classification, and (b) the specific Jewish system of labelling in ancient
times. This is not strictly anthropology yet, but more a matter of social
description; yet it orients a reader to begin asking sociological questions about
the broader meaning of "purity" in terms of cultural systems.
British anthropologist Mary T. Douglas offered an alternate way of investigating
the general language of "clean" and "unclean" and its specific forms in Jewish
and Christian literature. Her writings, especially Purity and Danger (1966), have
greatly influenced biblical scholars, and are of such seminal importance for
analyzing this topic that no scholar dares treat of Lev 11 without engaging her
discussion. Because her new approach offers a productive line of investigation of
the language of purity, we will delay here to familiarize readers with its basic
concepts and models. This material, moreover, figures prominently in studies by
biblical
scholars
whose
works
we
will
shortly
survey.
In Purity and Danger, after surveying the standard anthropological explanations
of defilement, Douglas suggests that we view these items in symbolic terms. Her
key insight lies in an analysis of what people generally perceive as "dirt," which
is her code word for what we are discussing under the terms "polluted,"
"unclean" or "taboo." "Dirt" is itself a relative term which basically means that
88

something is "out of place" in the perception of the labellers. Objects and persons
may be "clean" in one situation but "dirty" in another. The issue lies in the social
situation, namely, in the sense of order or the system of classifications which
people use to organize their world. "Reflections on dirt," she argues, "involve
reflection on the relations of order to disorder, being to non-being, form to
formlessness, life to death" (1966:5).
Lord Chesterfield defined dirt as matter out of place. This implies only two
conditions, a set of ordered relations and a contravention of that order. Thus the
idea of dirt implies a structure of idea. For us dirt is a kind of compendium
category for all events which blur, smudge, contradict, or otherwise confuse
accepted classifications. The underlying feeling is that a system of values which
is habitually expressed in a given arrangement of things has been violated
(Douglas 1975: 50-51).
Dirt, then, in the context of the military would mean insubordination to a
commanding officer; in a hospital it would mean unsterile material in an
operating room. Something is out of place in each particular cosmos.
The analysis of "dirt," then, is a matter of social perception and interpretation. In
Purity and Danger, Douglas takes up several specific considerations of dirt: (a)
the classification of animals in Leviticus as clean and unclean and (b) the
physical body vis--vis clean and unclean. The classification of animals in
Judaism reveals fundamental values encoded in the Genesis 1 or the priestly
account of creation. God made "perfect" creatures in Paradise which were
distributed, some to the air, some to the land, and some to the sea. By "perfect"
Douglas explains, for example, that an "air" creature is expected to stay where it
belongs (in the air, not the sea), move as an air creature should (fly), and eat what
air creatures should eat (seeds, not carrion). A bird which does not meet these
criteria is "unclean." But at stake is a cultural perception of order: proper space,
proper behavior, proper diet, etc. -- "proper" being derived from the culture.
What the creator God did in Gen 1, then, defines the meaning of "holy" or "in
place." What does not perfectly fill those categories, then, is "unholy" or
"unclean." The issue lies in knowing the symbolic categories of the culture so as
to know what does not fit them perfectly. For example, hybrids are "unclean."
What is not "whole" is "unclean," a concept relative to animals which must be
whole and unblemished for sacrificial offering (Lev 22:20-25) or to persons, who
because of bodily defects must stand apart from holy space and rites (Lev 21:1620). Persons with mutilated bodies are unwhole and so in some sense "unclean,"
a concept important for understanding Jesus' miracle stories.
The taxonomy which Douglas developed for defining clean and unclean animals
89

subsequently enjoyed a healthy scholarly conversation. She absorbed the insights

of other anthropologists and published a richer version of her analysis of the diet
of the Israelites (1975:261-73). She now adds to her examination of the
classification of birds, fish and animals that we should have concern for the
multiple dimensions of Hebrew culture. Douglas then states three rules for
classifying meat: (a) rejection of certain animal kinds as unfit for table (Lev 11;
Deut 14), (b) of those admitted as edible, the separation of the meat from blood
before cooking (Lev 17:10; Deut 12:23-27), and (c) the total separation of milk
from meat, which involves the minute specialization of utensils (Exod 23:19;
34:26; Deut 14:21). Analyzing dietary restrictions, Douglas then can identify
what makes an animal an abomination, a classification which now includes
notions of suitability for temple sacrifice and consumption as food.
In regard to a second major aspect of Purity and Danger, since so many taboos
are connected with the physical body (e.g., leprosy, menstruation), further
consideration of this is especially necessary. Douglas' second contribution lies in
her treatment of body symbolism. She urges us to see the grand sense of social
order (macrocosm) mirrored in the very physical body (microcosm).
The body is a model which can stand for any bounded system. Its boundaries can
represent any boundaries which are threatened or precarious (1966:115).
Just as the social body is perceived in some way as an ordered, structured system
which is concerned to affirm and protect its order and its classifications, so the
physical body of individuals in that same society mirrors the social sense of order
and structure. Just as the social body is concerned about its boundaries (frontiers,
city walls, gates), so too the physical body is the object of concern as to its
surface (skin, hair, clothing) and orifices (eyes, mouth, genitals, anus). What
crosses the frontier, the city walls and the door of the house is of great concern:
strangers are always suspect. What flakes off of the body surface and what pours
from its orifices are comparably of great concern. All of these substances are
matter which is "out of place" and so dangerous, even "unclean." This might
suggest why the washing of hands was so important in Jesus' world. Hands feed
the mouth; and if the orifice of the mouth is the object of great concern, either in
regard to what speech may exit or to what foods may enter, then "clean" hands
contribute
to
"cleanness"
of
mouth
and
person.
Douglas' overriding concern is with the meaning of purity and pollution
classification, namely, what is communicated by this type of language? Hence
she asks about the social function of such labels and their relationship to the
social construction of reality by a group. Labelling things or persons "pure" or
"polluted" serves to establish identity and maintain the group, which now has
power to include or exclude. It can also reinforce the moral code of a group
(1966:133). "In so far as they impose order on experience, they support
90

clarification of forms and thus reduce dissonance" (1968:339). Or, conerning the
significance
of
controlling
bodily
orifices,
she
says,
...when rituals express anxiety about the body's orifices the sociological
counterpart of this anxiety is a care to protect the political and cultural unity of a
minority group. The Israelites were always in their history a hard-pressed
minority. In their beliefs all the bodily issues were polluting, blood, pus, excreta,
semen, etc. The threatened boundaries of their body politic would be well
mirrored in their care for the integrity, unity and purity of the physical body
(1966:124).
Douglas' work had an immediate and profound impact on biblical scholarship.
Interpreters were quick to see her observations on purity and pollution as a clue
to investigating the symbolic universe of the ancients. For example, Jean Soler
employed many of Douglas' insights in a penetrating study of Gen 1 (1979:2430). He demonstrated the replication of the Jewish cultural values of "whole" and
"perfect" in the creation story, in the temple system, and in daily life. He clarified
for us how a value such as "clean" = whole/perfect pervaded the Bible. And in a
sense he made explicit what Douglas had occasionally stated but left implicit,
how the basic labelling of something as whole and perfect is replicated
redundantly in a culture, not only in regard to the major religious symbol of the
Temple, but in terms of food and dietary rules observed in homes, and in terms of
the kashrut laws which keep separate the yoking of ox and ass, the interweaving
of wool and flax etc. The same sense of wholeness or perfection of category
occurs redundantly in all areas of life.
Among those who perceived the utility of Douglas' models for biblical
interpretation, Jacob Neusner wrote a history of purity concerns in Israel, secondtemple Judaism and Talmudic times (1973). We earlier discussed his book, The
Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism, as an example of a descriptive, historical
approach. In the last chapter he acknowledges Douglas' anthropological
interpretation, but does not use it, nor did he adequately understand it. Yet
Neusner helped shape the discussion by giving salience to Douglas' approach to
the topic and by the very title of his book (The Idea of Purity), a concept repeated
in subsequent articles ("The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism," 1975; "History
and Purity in First-Century Judaism," 1978). He easily explained that rules for
"clean" and "unclean" pertain to the cult, but he failed to see their replication in
other aspects of cultural life. In part, this resulted from Neusner's failure to
employ the second aspect of Douglas' model, the social perception of the
physical body as a replication of the general norms and values of the culture.
Yet other studies have explicitly taken up Douglas' insights in greater detail and
may for that reason offer a way to examine how pervasive are the concepts of
91

"clean"/"unclean" and how extensively they are replicated in the culture of

second Temple Judaism and early Christianity. As the subtitle of his book
indicates, The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology,
Bruce Malina developed a fulsome anthropological model of clean and unclean,
which is illustrated from first-century Judaism especially in terms of an analysis
both of marriage and physical anomalies. He then applied the material to the
issue of sacrifice, introducing into the consideration ideas about rites of passage
which permit boundary crossings into areas normally "out of place" to "clean"
people. In regard to persons crossing forbidden and dangerous boundaries,
Malina has developed elsewhere the concept of a "limit breaker" who functions
in rites of passage pertaining to clean and unclean boundaries (1986:143-154), an
important element for assessing the apology for Jesus' commerce with the
"taxcollectors and sinners" of his world (see Mark 2:17). Finally he considered
Christian purity arrangements, which would necessarily be in conflict with
Jewish considerations. Malina's work advanced Douglas' discussion of "clean"
and "unclean" by indicating how purity concerns are replicated in a variety of
areas and how one needs a model of ritual to explain why and how people lapse
into unclean states and come out of them. Like her, Malina does not focus on a
specific document, but illustrates the pervasiveness of this labelling in the Bible.
The modeling is rich and productive, and the illustrations indicate the replication
of such concerns throughout a symbolic system. Douglas' own works, while
profound and stimulating, needed to be tamed into a workable model, which is
the paramount value of Malina's discussion. Hence, it is an excellent introduction
to the topic.
Concerning the issue of holy people dealing with the unclean, Douglas' material
was applied by Jerome Neyrey to the perception of Jesus in Mark's gospel
(1986a). Jesus is proclaimed by some as holy and sinless, yet others perceive him
as constantly "out of place" because: (a) he has commerce with unclean people
(lepers, menstruants, sinners, etc.); (b) he does not observe sacred times such as
the Sabbath or sacred places such as the Temple; or (c) he disregards food rules
and washing customs. Douglas' abstract ideas about "pollution" as matter "out of
place," can be fleshed out in terms of the general cultural expectations about what
it means to be "whole," "perfect" or "in place." The Temple constituted the chief
symbol for the order of the universe for first-century Jews, a symbol articulated
by priests and described in priestly writings in the Scriptures. Using the priestly
documents as symbol, one can gain a sense of the basic cultural lines whereby
second-temple Jews classified and located persons, times, places and things.
These classifications can be expressed in a set of "maps" such as a "map of
persons" (t. Meg. 2.7), "map of places" (m. Kelim 1.6-9), "map of times" (m.
Moed) and "map of things" (m. Kelim 1.3). "Maps" come from the endless lists
of things found throughout Jewish, Greek and Christian literature. We include the
92

following four "maps" or lists as characteristic examples of pervasive

classification systems. [Figure One] Such maps redundantly indicate what is
meant by "clean" and "unclean" both in the temple context but also in various
areas of life: food and table fellowship, body emissions, kashrut laws and
agricultural customs.
Neyrey leads readers who are aware of such pervasive cultural maps to see how
pervasively Jesus was "out of place" according to the perceptions of his culture.
So much of the conflict in the gospels has to do with peer censure of Jesus as
"unclean" for his breach of cultic and bodily purity rules. Yet, of course, his
followers perceived him as authorized to cross these lines; they acclaimed him as
"the Holy One of God," innocent, sinless and fully within God's camp. Neyrey's
study of Mark clearly depends on the theory of Mary Douglas and the modelling
of Bruce Malina. It offers a lucid and systematic presentation, not only of the
concept of "purity," but of the specific Jewish articulation of this in the
interpretation of a gospel text. His study itself can serve as a model for reading
other New Testament documents, and so commends itself for its insight,
thoroughness and utility.
In a subsequent analysis of Mark 7, Neyrey developed further his use of the
model of purity for a "symbolic interpretation" of the conflict between Jesus and
the Pharisees (1988b:63-91). This article begins once more with a model of
purity drawn from Douglas and Malina. Neyrey wishes to examine why, on the
one hand, the Pharisees are said to be concerned with washing rites and with
things external, and conversely, Jesus is credited with both abolition of food
concerns and espousal of things internal. This required him to develop a model of
the physical body, especially the notion that control of the individual physical
body replicates issues of social control of the group. This led Neyrey to pay
special attention to the historical statements credited to the pre-70 Pharisees. It
turns out that 67% of the remarks have to do with meals, food, tithing, and the
cleanliness of food vessels:
The Houses' rulings pertaining either immediately or ultimately to tablefellowship involve preparation of food, ritual purity relating directly to food or
indirectly to the need to keep food ritually clean, and agricultural rules
concerning the proper growing, tithing, and preparation of agricultural produce
for table use. The agricultural laws relate to producing or preparing food for
consumption, assuring either that tithes and offerings have been set aside as the
law requires, or that conditions for the nurture of crops have conformed to
biblical taboos. Of the 341 individual Houses' legal pericopae, no fewer than 229,
approximately 67 per cent of the whole, directly or indirectly concern tablefellowship . . . The Houses' laws of ritual cleanness apply in the main to the ritual
93

cleanness of foods, and of people, dishes, and implements involved in its

preparation (Jacob Neusner, From Politics to Piety [Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall,
1973]
86).
The Pharisees' guarding of the mouth in regard to food and the relative unconcern
for it by Jesus symbolizes the relatively closed or open boundaries of each group.
This social strategy embodies and replicates a more complete ideology of each
group:
PHARISEES
Core Value

God's Holiness
(Lev 11:44)
Symbolized in Creation-as-ordering
Structural
Exclusivistic
Implications Strategy
Legitimation
Exodus, Leviticus,
in
Scripture
Numbers, Deuteronomy

JESUS
FOLLOWERS
God's Mercy
(Exod 33:19)
Election and Grace
Inclusivistic
Strategy

&

Genesis and Prophets

Thus using models both of Jewish purity concerns and of the physical body,
Neyrey argues for a thorough correlation between socio-political strategy and
bodily concern:
Strong purity concerns
Weaker purity concerns
(replicated in)
(replicated in)
Strong bodily control
Weaker bodily control
(expressed by)
(expressed by)
Concern for actions, surfaces
Concern for motives, interior
(hands),
and orifices (mouth)
(heart); disregard of orifices

This article takes the reader well past Neyrey's earlier study of "The Idea of
Purity in Mark" (1986b), for it examines a specific controversy story in depth. It
is more than a mere demonstration that purity concerns are operative in the
gospel presentation of Jesus, for it seeks to explore not only the strategy and
behavior of Jesus but also that of his rivals, the Pharisees. Its attempt to link
social ideology and bodily behavior is a critical step forward in interpreting
biblical documents. And since foods, meals, and table etiquette remained
persistent and controversial throughout early Christianity, Neyrey's study offers
readers a cogent analysis of the symbolic significance of this issue.
Several years later Neyrey applied his model of purity to the interpretation of
94

Luke-Acts (1991). Here he offered a first attempt at constructing a semantic word

field for these labels (1991:275-76) as part of an articulation of the specific
cultural meanings of purity in Luke's world. Most of his attention was focussed
on boundaries, either social or physical boundaries, which Jesus is portrayed as
ignoring or transgressing. Again employing "maps" to indicate the classification
system of Luke's world, he summarized the typical social perceptions concerning
purity and pollution as applicable to persons, places, times and things in LukeActs (1991:282):
1. Consecrated Judeans, especially priests, are in place in God's holy land.
Gentiles, especially Romans, are out of place in the holy land of Israel, its sacred
city
and
especially
its
temple
(see
Acts
21:28).
2. The dead do not belong in the realm of the living but in their own realm of
tombs
and
graveyards.
3. The sick do not belong in the realm of the healthy; lepers should dwell apart
and cry "Unclean!" (Luke 5:12-16). To a certain extent, so should paralytics, the
blind, the deaf etc. What a surprise, then, to hear of a paralytic being lowered
through
the
roof
into
Jesus'
"home"
(Luke
5:17-19).
4. Inasmuch as holiness is related to wholeness (one must be completely what
one is), people with defective bodies (e.g. eunuchs) are unclean; a man with
crushed testicles, for example, may not enter the temple area to offer sacrifice
(Lev 21:20); defective animals are not fit offerings for the holy God.
5. Sinners, likewise, do not belong in the same space as observant Jews, which
occasions criticism when Jesus eats at the table of a tax collector (Luke 5:27;
15:1;
19:5).
6. Certain foods do not fit the full definition of what it means to be a sky, earth,
or sea creature (Douglas 1966:51-57), and so they are marginal, unclean, and
polluting. Until a heavenly voice told him otherwise, Peter would never think of
eating
such
(Acts
10:11-14).
7. Since there is a specific time for everything, especially a time for "work" and a
time for "rest," if "work" is done at the wrong time, that is, on the Sabbath, it is
out
of
place
(Luke
6:1-5).
8. Finally, apropos of wholeness, there is a general prohibition against mixing
kinds:
clothing:
wool
and
linen
should
never
be
mixed,
agriculture: plowing should be done by either ox or ass, but never by the two
yolked
together,
crops: only one kind of seed should be sown in a given field at any one time,
husbandry: cattle of one kind should not be bred with that of another kind (Lev
19:19; Deut 22:9-11).

95

Neyrey then demonstrates how Luke portrays Jesus and Paul "perverting our
nation" (Luke 23:2, 14; Acts 21:28) by transgressing the purity expectations of
their society. This is followed by an exposition of the Lukan defense of these
actions, which includes notice of the righteousness of Jesus' family and their
pedigree, their observance of certain rituals, the evaluation of Jesus by God and
John the Baptist, and the proclamation of Jesus' sinlessness. Jesus, moreover, did
not his contract uncleanness from any "father of impurity," but rather extended
wholeness and cleanness to others. Even as he describes Jesus transgressing
Jewish purity rules, Neyrey shows how Jesus established new maps and so new
boundaries and new rules. These new rules are grounded on a new view of the
"holy" God of Israel, one that includes God's loosening of boundaries for a more
inclusive membership in the covenant community. Like his study of purity in
Mark, this interpretation of Luke-Acts presents a cogent model for perceiving the
purity system in a biblical document, which can then be used by students to
analyze other pieces of literature.
Yet "clean" and "unclean" are not labels exclusively pertaining to cult and
temple, although that institution may be the chief symbol of the values and
structures of Israel. The human body is also classified in these terms. John Pilch
(1981:108-13) began a study which first pursued historical issues: what was the
"leprosy" which Jesus healed? Scientific, not biblical, investigation indicates that
biblical leprosy is not the modern disease (mycobacterium leprae). Further
pursuing the issue of disease from a cross-cultural perspective, Pilch was led to
an anthropological understanding of body and hence of bodily surfaces. Using
Douglas' materials as well as other perspectives on purity and body symbolism,
Pilch explained how in certain conflictual social situations there tends to be great
concern over social and also bodily boundaries. Douglas herself suggested that
when "rituals express anxiety about the body's orifices the sociological
counterpart . . . is a care to protect the political and cultural unity" of a group
(1966:124). This kind of intuition was given full scope by Pilch's examination,
where the issue of "leprosy" (bodily surface or boundary) functions in a larger
social world where social boundaries are threatened and needed to be guarded.
The importance of Pilch's article lies in showing how purity concern are not
exclusive to cult and Temple, but are replicated in the symbolic world of a culture
and in particular in the way the physical body is perceived.
Apropos of the physical body, Neyrey applied Douglas' suggestions about "clean"
and "unclean" to body symbolism in Paul's first letter to Corinth (1986b:129-70,
reprinted in 1990:102-46). The same concern for order, wholeness and boundary
defense found in the macro level of society is replicated on the micro level in the
way the physical body is perceived and controlled. Since what crosses boundaries
is dangerous and potentially polluting, it is not surprising that Paul focuses
96

intently on bodily surfaces, in particular hairdo's (1 Cor 11). Men wearing

feminine hair styles and women wearing masculine hairdo's blur the categories of
male and female, and so are considered "unclean" and are proscribed. Again in
regard to the crossing of boundaries, the orifices of the body (eyes, ears, mouth,
genitals) are likewise the object of Paul's concern and control because they are
the gates and portals whence cross foods, speech, semen and menses. Especially
in regard to bodily orifices, Paul strongly regulates (a) the sexual orifice (1 Cor
5-7), (b) the oral orifice for eating (1 Cor 8-11) and (c) the oral orifice for speech
(1 Cor 12-14). His concern is with what goes in or comes out, that is, with what
is "in place" or "out of place." Certain sexual unions are a pollution; certain foods
corrupt the innocent conscience; certain speech offends the "wholeness" of the
body. And so it is perceived as "unclean" and proscribed. Comparably, certain
foods (i.e., the Eucharist), certain sexual unions (i.e., marry in the Lord) and
certain speech (i.e., confession of Jesus as Lord or prophecy) are "clean" and so
prescribed. Paul's strong control of the physical body mirrors his urgent need to
control the chaotic social relations of the Corinthians.
"Holiness," moreover, is related to "wholeness," which helps to explain Paul's
dedication to the unity or wholeness of the social body. For any mutilation or
defection would endanger its wholeness and so its holiness before God. Hence
Paul is greatly concerned over events or behavior which cause division in the
body or which might lead to a divorce, that is a divided body, or which tend to
exclude others. "Clean" and "unclean," then, define what is bodily "out of place"
or what threatens bodily wholeness.
4.0 Miscellaneous Studies Worth Noting
There are other studies which deserve attention. We can only mention them
briefly and hope that we do not slight their value and importance. In regard to
discussions of creation, we recommend first the brief article of Michael Barr
(1981:41-43). He is unconcerned here with issues of purity but focuses on the
sense of "order" pervasive in Jewish Wisdom literature. Most importantly, he
demonstrates the pervasive desire for and articulation of "order" over "chaos" in
the Bible. Without using the jargon of anthropology, he urges that we attend to
the cultural value of order and its systematic replication in various aspects of
Hebrew ideology and praxis:
But from the view of antiquity the "order" of the created world is not merely
physical. The physical aspect is only one manifestation of an all-pervasive
orderliness that lies at the heart of creation. Religious, social, moral order -- these
too are simply facets of the fundamental world-order (p. 41).
97

The task of "wise" persons, then, is to find their proper place in the orderly
scheme of things. Since the study of "purity" is an investigation both of the
macro system of order in a given culture and its micro classification of specific
things as "clean" and "unclean," this article, then, orients a reader to think
abstractly in terms of large cultural patterns, which are the social construction of
the
biblical
writers.
In regard to creation, Howard Eilberg-Schwartz digested and revised Douglas'
analysis of the abominations of Leviticus in a study of the ideological
relationship of priestly materials and accounts of creation (1987:357-81). He
attempts to show the intrabiblical relationship of texts from Gen 1 and Lev 11
and Deut 14, but his analysis is guided constantly by concerns for "classification
systems" and correspondences between ideology and practical issues. He argues
that the biblical and mishnaic taxonomies move progressively away from mere
physical criteria for uncleanness and toward "human activity" in the creation of
elaborate classification systems. The use of anthropological categories, while
present and determinative of the argument, are lightly used, which makes this a
recommended article for readers more inclined to historical and textual
discussion. Nevertheless, Eilberg-Schwartz insists that readers begin
understanding taxonomy and classification systems as the creation of the
community, and so he urges that we be open to the various links between social
structures and symbolic thought.
Dietary issues in both testaments remain a constant focus of discussion. Apropos
of this interest, the article of G. Wenham (1981:6-15) provides an excellent
survey of the food laws, with special attention to their explanation in terms of
Douglas' study their symbolic meaning. More historical studies are also worth
noting, which deal with questions such as eating with "unclean" hands in Mark 7
(Dunn 1985; House 1983), or on the cleanness of vessels used in eating in Matt
23 (Neusner 1976; Maccoby 1982) or on the cleanness of those who could share
a Jewish or Christian table (Dunn 1983).
In regard to issues of marriage and sex, several publications recommend
themselves. Bossmann's brief analysis of Ezra's marriage reforms, although it
does not use the anthropological concepts of purity, calls attention to issues of
endogamy, the stages of the history of prohibited marriages, and the relationship
of this to the values and the larger cultural system of Israel (1979:32-38).
Marriage rules replicate concern for group identity and coherence. Wenham's
brief note on the defilement of sexual intercourse in Lev 15:18 is important for it
adapts Douglas' analysis of purity/pollution more specifically to the Israelite
values of life/death (1983:432-44). Loss of blood, menses or semen involve a
loss of "life fluids." Hence, since God is whole, alive and perfect, only those who
are themselves clean and who enjoy full life (i.e., no loss of "life fluids") may
98

approach this living God. No investigation of the Hebrew bible would be

complete without some reference to the pollution attached to menses and semen.
Eilberg-Schwartz's article (1990:177-94) offers a sophisticated interpretation of
these materials using the works of Mary Douglas.
In discussing sexual ethics, L. W. Countryman spends the first third of his book
on "Dirt" and its counterpart, "Purity" (1988b:11-143). The study begins with
acknowledgement of Douglas' influence on shaping our understanding of clean
and unclean. Countryman then surveys the shifting notions of purity in ancient
Israel, first-century Judaism, the Gospels and then Paul. He argues that although
Christianity retained the dynamic of labelling things clean and unclean, it paid
less attention to physical purity (i.e., bodily integrity or fluid emission) than its
parent, Judaism. He attends, moreover, to the interpretation of sexual issues in the
New Testament in a way which both relativizes their stringency and explains
their plausibility in terms of a specific culture. "Purity of heart" is identified as
the determining factor in consideration of behavior. One need not accept
Countryman's conclusions to appreciate his careful focussing on issues of purity,
especially in relation to the physical body.
The monograph of the late John Gammie examines the concept of "holiness" in
the Hebrew scriptures (1989). This book attempts to show that "holiness" meant
one thing in the context of the Temple and its priests, another to the prophets, and
still another to the individuals in villages and cities. Gammie, then, is sensitive to
the different meanings that "clean" and "unclean" have in terms of the social
location of different groups. The whole study, moreover, is cognizant of the
anthropological contributions of Douglas and others, and so offers a satisfying
historical and cultural examination of the topic.
In regard to New Testament documents, several studies should be noted. Neyrey
turned from investigating the gospels in terms of the idea of purity to the letters
of Paul. In two articles he employed the hybrid model of "witchcraft accusations"
of Mary Douglas to interpret the social conflict first in 2 Cor 10-13 (1986c:16070) and then in Galatians (1988a:72-100). At the heart of a society which makes
accusations of sorcery or witchcraft lies a pervasive sense of purity and pollution.
A witch is someone who externally appears pure, but who internally is polluted.
The witch seeks to corrupt what is clean or to suck the life from what is living.
By identifying someone as a witch, the accuser alerts the listening social group to
a threat to its very life, namely, the unwarranted presence of a corruption which
will destroy it. Neyrey shows how Paul labels both his rivals at Corinth as Satan
or as disguised angels of light and his opponents in Galatia as those who
"bewitch" the orthodox group. By labelling them as sorcerers who threaten the
group's "purity," Paul can then invoke intolerance toward them and demand their
99

expulsion from the group. These two studies articulate the power of labels of
"uncleanness," especially their ability to motivate people to respond intolerantly
in ways they may not wish to in other circumstances. Likewise they indicate how
groups view their cosmos and all reality in dualistic terms, that is, in terms of
purity and pollution or what is permitted or proscribed.
Then, in a study of the symbolic universe or "purity system" of Paul's letters,
Neyrey applied Douglas' model of purity once more (1990). This time he
focussed on patterns of order and disorder in 1 Corinthians (pp. 21-74). Neyrey
shows that Paul tends to perceive the world like any first-century Pharisee in
terms of a highly ordered cosmos, with an appropriate place for every person,
thing or time. His explanation of the macrocosmic sense of order in Paul's
perception of reality illustrates Douglas' contention that "purity" pertains to the
larger system of order found in all societies. His investigation of the microcosmic
patterns of order calls attention to Paul's (a) persistent inclination to list things
and persons in hierarchical order, which is an characteristic sign of purity, (b)
maps of persons, places, times, and things, and (c) his endless comparisons and
rankings. Neyrey argues that the rationale for such labelling and classifying lies
in Paul's attempt to exercise control over his congregations.
In addition, he describes Paul's perception of "sin" and "cosmology." Sin is
understood both as a pollution threatening the pure group (1 Cor 5:6-8) and a
violation of specific rules (1 Cor 6:9-10). As a life-threatening corruption, it
warrants intolerance and so excommunication of the offender (1 Cor 5:3-5, 13).
Paul's world is described as a cosmos of competing cosmic powers of good and
evil, which are pure and polluted respectively. Thus Paul's symbolic universe is
structured around a radically dualistic perception, which is replicated in the order
(or disorder) of the cosmos and the community, the control or non-control of the
body, the understanding of sinful pollution corrupting a pure body, and a cosmic
war between the forces of God and Satan. Purity and pollution, then, are
replicated at every level of Paul's perception. The value of this book lies in its
thorough and sure handling of Paul's letters, in particular 1 Corinthians. Readers
will be schooled in both the general sense of purity-as-order and in the specific
illustration of purity and pollution concepts in regard to social and bodily issues.
Paul, then, is shown to be a typical example of first-century perceptions of purity
common to Jews and Christians alike.
Most recently John Elliott (1993:71-81) has examined the Letter of James in
terms of purity and pollution. Quoting Jas 1:2-4, he notes that James casts his
argument in the formal terminology of wholeness and incompleteness, which is
but a specification of the more general labels of clean and unclean. He quickly
100

explains what is meant by these symbolic terms and indicates their social
function:
Cultures variously use purity and pollution schemes in order to organize
everything in its proper place, to define and demarcate what is complete or
incomplete, who is damaged or whole, sick or sound, what is allowable or
forbidden, who belongs to the society and who does not, what preserves the
society and what endangers it. Accordingly, to call a person or a social unit
impure, unclean, or unholy is to identify and evaluate the object as out-of-order,
damaged, incomplete (1993:73).
This indicates clearly that Elliott is attentive to the social control exercised by the
use of these labels. He then shows how James invokes these labels when he
addresses issues of personal, social and cosmic disorder and order. Noting how
the letter presents an extended series of contrasts, Elliott shows that these contain
both the author's diagnosis of an unclean or unwhole situation and his
prescription for cleanness or wholeness.
Elliott pays acute attention to the way that value classifications of wholeness and
incompleteness are replicated throughout the document in regard to crises
occurring on the personal, social and cosmic level. He indicates how moral
exhortation such as the Letter of James is fundamentally structured around the
notions of purity/wholeness and pollution/incompleteness. In doing so, he give
salience to the notion of "perfection" of holiness both in regard to God and to the
Church.
In his recent commentary on Jude and 2 Peter, Neyrey has applied his highly
developed model of purity and pollution to these unfamiliar documents (1993).
Indeed he interprets both documents specifically in terms of social-science
models, including purity/pollution concepts and a model of the physical body.
Here Neyrey weaves together anthropological models of purity and pollution and
their incarnation and illustration in Greco-Roman literature. Then, he carefully
interprets through this lens the numerous passages in Jude and 2 Peter concerning
"corruption," sexual perversions, self-control, and the like. The same method is
used for presenting the way Jude and 2 Peter urge control of the physical body as
indication of orthodox theology.
Although this survey has focussed thus far exclusively on the use of purity and
pollution in regard to Israelite, Jewish and early Christian literature, readers
should be cognizant of a thorough study of pollution concerns in Greek religion
(1983). Robert Parker's magisterial investigation of taboo, pollution and
purification takes us through studies of birth and death, the shedding of blood,
101

sacrilege, curses, and disease. Besides a fine analysis of each of these items, the
book is distinguished for its appendices and indices, which will serve as guidance
for identifying new vocabulary in regard to "clean" and "unclean, as well as a
keen sense of the wider Mediterranean nature of the idea of purity.
5.0 Where Does This Leave a Reader?
This readers guide has identified studies of certain passages and documents from
the Bible, the interpretation of which has been the focus of authors concerned
with issues of "clean" and "unclean." In the Hebrew scriptures, attention is
regularly given to the creation story in Genesis 1, the "abominations of Leviticus"
in Lev 11, pollution materials in Deut 14, and bodily impurity in Lev 21:17-20.
In the Christian scriptures, Mark 7 has attracted attention for its concern over
washing rites, dietary rules, and concern for externals. Both Mark and Luke have
been interpreted in terms of a model of purity, as well as 1 Corinthians in terms
of a model of bodily control.
What does one know if one knows this? Historical and descriptive studies richly
inform a reader about a specific issue in a specific document. Anthropological
studies contribute by suggesting what were the common cultural perceptions of
the way the world was perceived to be ordered, classified and structured. They
also indicate the redundance of purity concerns, not only in cult and Temple, but
in various other areas of social life: illness, hygiene, sexuality, food, eating,
agriculture, and so forth.
The specific use of the two anthropological models of (a) "clean" and "unclean"
and (2) body symbolism can equip a reader to understand a wide but
interconnected series of issues, such as dietary concerns (Acts 10-11), mission to
"unclean" people (Mark 5; Acts 8), sexual morals (1 Thess 4:1-9), and hand
washings (Mark 7). A reader knowing this material has a firm basis for
sympathetically understanding the conflicts between Jesus and Pharisees which
run through the gospel stories. Learning this code, moreover, one learns not just
particular details of specific conflicts, but one begins to sense the coherence of
different theological and social points of view in the first century. One learns how
the ancient classification system worked because one understands its general
principles and how they are replicated again and again in specific areas.
How readers begin and what they might choose to read will probably depend on
the intellectual aesthetic of the individual reader. If history and description are
paramount concerns, then the works of Jacob Neusner are excellent places to
begin. If cultural concerns loom large, then Douglas's writings are important; we
commend in particular Purity and Danger, chs 3, 6-8. Her writings, while
102

perennially fruitful, are not easy to mould into a workable model for
interpretation of biblical texts. Hence, the materials of Malina and Neyrey
precisely for their digestion and organization of anthropological approaches to
the topic. Neyrey's studies of Mark, Luke, Paul and Jude and 2 Peter consciously
present the issue of "purity" both in its abstract sense of order and system and in
its specific and detailed realization in the world of early Christianity. Precisely
because he focusses on interpretation of texts, Neyrey's writings indicate the
underlying importance of purity language for correct understanding of ancient
documents and offer readers a refined series of models for their own further
reading.
6.0 Works Cited
Barr,
Michael
1981 "'Fear of God' and the World of Wisdom," BTB 11: 41-43
Booth,
Roger
P.
1986 Jesus and the Laws of Purity. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament
Press
Bossman,
David,
1979 "Ezra's Marriage Reform: Israel Redefined," BTB 9: 32-38
Countryman,
L.
William
1988 Dirt, Greed, and Sex. Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their
Implications
for
Today.
Philadelphia:
Fortress
Press
Danby,
Herbert,
trans.
1933
The
Mishnah.
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press
Douglas,
Mary
T.
1966 Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo.
London:
Routledge
and
Kegan
Paul
1968 "Pollution," International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences 12:336-42
1975 "Pollution." Pp. 47-59 in Implicit Meanings. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Dunn,
James
D.G.
1983 "The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11-18)," JSNT 18:3-57
1985 "Jesus and Ritual Purity. A Study of the Tradition History of Mk 7,15." Pp.
251-76 in A Cause de l'Evangile. Etudes sur le Synoptiques et les Actes
offertes
au
P.
Jacques
Dupont.
Paris:
Cerf
Eilberg-Schwartz,
Howard
1987 "Creation and Classification in Judaism: From Priestly to Rabbinic
Concepts,"
HR
26:
357-81
1990 "Menstrual Blood, Semen and Discharge: The Fluid Symbolism of the
Human Body." Pp. 177-94 in his The Savage in Judaism. And Anthropology of
Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press
103

Elliott,
John
H.
1993 "The Epistle of James in Rhetorical and Social Scientific Perspective:
Holiness-Wholeness and Patterns of Replication," BTB 23: 71-81
Gammie,
John
G.
1989
Holiness
in
Israel.
Minneapolis:
Fortress
Press
House,
Colin
1983 "Defilement by Association: Some Insights from the Usage of
koinos/koinoo
in
Acts
10
and
11,"
AUSS
21:
143-53
Isenberg,
Sheldon
K.
1975 "Mary Douglas and Hellenistic Religions: the Case of Qumran," SBLASP
1975.179-185
Maccoby,
Hyam
1982
"The
Washing
of
Cups."
JSNT
14:
3-15
Malina,
Bruce
J.
1981 "Clean and Unclean: Understanding Rules of Purity." Pp. 122-152 in The
New Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox
1986 Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox
Milgrom,
Jacob
1963 "The Biblical Diet Laws as an Ethical System: Food and Faith,"
Interpretation
17:288-301
Neusner,
Jacob
1973 The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism. Leiden: E.J. Brill
1975 "The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism," JAAR 43: 15-26
1976 "'First Cleanse the Inside' The 'Halakhic Background of a Controversy
Saying,"
NTS
22:
486-95
1978 "History and Purity in First-Century Judaism," HR 18: 1-17
1979 "Map Without Territory: Mishnah's System of Sacrifice and Sanctuary," HR
19:
103-27
Newton,
Michael
1985 The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul. Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press
Neyrey,
Jerome
H.
1986a "The Idea of Purity in Mark's Gospel," Semeia 35: 91-128
1986b "Body Language in 1 Corinthians: The Use of Anthropological Models for
Understanding Paul and His Opponents," Semeia 35: 129-170
1986c "Witchcraft Accusations in 2 Cor 10-13: Paul in Social Science
Perspective,"
Listening
21:
160-70
1988a "Bewitched in Galatia: Paul and Cultural Anthropology," CBQ 50: 72-100
1988b "A Symbolic Approach to Mark 7," Forum 4/3: 63-91
1990 Paul, In Other Words. A Cultural Reading of His Letters. Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John
Knox
Press
104

1991 "The Symbolic Universe of Luke-Acts: 'They Turn the World Upside
Down.'" Pp. 271-304 in his The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for
Interpretation.
Peabody,
MA:
Hendrickson
Inc.
1993 2 Peter, Jude. AnB 37C. Garden City, NY: Doubleday
Parker,
Robert
1983 Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion. Oxford:
Clarendon
Press
Pilch,
John
1981 "Biblical Leprosy and Body Symbolism," BTB 11: 108-113
Soler,
Jean
1979 "The Dietary Prohibitions of the Hebrews," New York Review of Books
June 14. pp. 24-30. Reprinted pp. 126-138 in Food and Drink in History. Robert
Forster and Orest Ranum (eds.) Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1979
Toombs,
L.
E.
1962
"Clean
and
Unclean,"
IDB
1.
641-48
Wenham,
G.
1981
"The
Theology
of
Unclean
Food,"
EvQ
53:
6-15
1983 "Why Does Sexual Intercourse Defile (Lev 15.18)?" ZAW 95: 432-34
Wright,
David
P.
1992 "Unclean and Unclean (OT)," ABD 6.729-41

Reader's
Guide
Meals, Food and Table
in the New Testament
Jerome

H.

University
Notre Dame, IN 46556

of

to
Fellowship
Neyrey

Notre

1.0 The Importance of Meals, Food, Fellowship and

Commensality

105

Dame

2.0 Historical Studies of Meals

2.1
Symposium
2.2
Passover
2.3 Funerary Meals
3.0 Foods and Diet
3.1 Foods Available/Cultivated for Consumption
3.2 Dietary Restrictions
4.0 Social and Anthropological Interpretations of Meals
4.1
Social
Aspects
of
Meals
4.2 Anthropological Understanding of Meals
4.3 Practical for Interpreting Meals
4.3.1
Meals
as
Ceremonies
4.3.2 Meals and Purity System/Symbolic
Universe
4.3.3
Meals
and
Body
Symbolism
4.3.4
Meals
and
Reciprocity
4.3.5 Meals and Patron-Client Relations
5.0
Fasting
And
Refusal
to
Fast
6.0 Jesus' Meals and Table Companions: Current New
Testament Issues
6.1 Gospel Accounts of Jesus' Eating
6.2 Jesus' Table Companions
7.0 Conclusions: Specific Issues and Specific Readings
8.0 Works Consulted

Nor do we take our food from the same table as Gentiles, inasmuch as
we cannot eat along with them, because they live impurely. But when
we have persuaded them to have true thoughts, and to follow a right
course of action, and have baptized them with a thrice blessed
invocation, then we dwell with them. For not even if it were our father,
or mother, or wife, or child, or brother, or any other one having a
claim by nature on our affection, can we venture to take our meals
with him; for our religion compels us to make a distinction. Do not,
therefore, regard it as an insult if your son does not take his food along
with you, until you come to have the same opinions and adopt the
same course of conduct as he follows (Clementine Homilies 13.4).

1.0 The Importance of Meals, Food, Fellowship and Commensality

106

Meals, food, table etiquette and commensality remained a constant problem

in the traditions ascribed to Jesus and in the history of the early Church.
The remark above from the Clementine Homilies indicates the potential of
commensality to symbolize group boundaries as well as social conflict. In
regard to foods, one of the three customs which characterize Judeans, a
kosher diet, was abrogated first by Jesus (Mark 7:19) and then by the early
Church (Acts 10:14-16; 1 Cor 10:23-27). In Acts, Peter's vision of unclean
foods descending from heaven (10:9-15) functions as a cipher for a further
discussion of impartial membership in the church (10:28-29, 34). The change
from a restricted to an open diet, then, symbolizes for the disciples of Jesus a
change in membership, from an exclusively Jewish group to one which
included Gentiles as well (Acts 10:28; 15:23-29). The longest piece of
exhortation in Paul's first letter to Corinth deals with diet, namely, the
eating of meat sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 8 & 10); this issue and the foods of
participants at the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:17-34) have major social
repercussions in the community. Diet, or what one eats, can serve as an
identify mark (e.g., pasta, egg rolls, goulash, etc.), and so functions as an
important social clue.
As regards Jesus' own eating customs, his choice of table companions, his
disregard for washing rites preceding meals, and his unconcern for tithed
bread all provoke controversy with alternate religious reformers. According
to Luke 14, Jesus gives instructions for table etiquette and fellowship which
fly in the face of custom. Paul, too, had much to say about the eating habits
of the Corinthian community (1 Cor 8:7-13; 10:14-11:1; 11:17-34). He speaks
to a different kind of problem in Rom 14-15, but one that also has to do with
food, commensality, and group identity and unity. Paul criticized Peter's
eating practices in the celebrated confrontation at Antioch (Gal 2:11-14).
Conflicts between Paul and Judaizers over kosher food play a major role in
the struggles noted in Phil 3:19. The issue of commensality was formally
addressed in the instruction to Gentiles that they observe the Noachic
dietary regulations (Acts 15:20, 29). Thus meals, table etiquette and
commensality were major social concerns for Jesus, Paul, and the early
churches.
How can readers understand the particular ceremony of meals and table
fellowship? Why are meals so important as symbols of broader social
relationships? How can we peer below the surface and grasp the social
dynamics encoded in meals and commensality, what anthropologists call
"the language of meals"? This readers guide will present a survey of
writings on the various ways in which meals, diet, etiquette and
commensality may be profitably understood. Although strictly historical
107

studies of Jewish and Greco-Roman meals are vital to our understanding,

cultural and social analysis of the function and dynamics of meals will be
our focus.

2.0 Historical Studies of Meals: Symposia, Passover, and Funerary Meals

Even if we focus on a cultural understanding of meals, we must also discuss
cultural insights in terms of specific meals eaten at specific times. General
books on the daily life of Greeks and Romans regularly provide a detailed
report of when they ate, what they consumed, and how they partook of it.
Judeans typically ate two meals a day, whereas Greeks and Romans ate
three meals a day. The thesis of Dennis Smith (1980) may be the most
thorough and convenient source of this material in English. It contains,
moreover, a splendid collection of ancient documents pertaining to meals,
which give depth and life to the generalizations made about eating habits.
Unfortunately, this thesis has not been published and so remains inaccessible
to most readers; but Smith has excerpted and digested parts of it in a series
of articles (1981, 1987, 1989).
The main daily meal for Greeks and Romans (deipnon, cena) was eaten in
the evening and was generally more formally structured with rules of
etiquette and tradition. From Roman satire we have the description of a
famous meal presented by a former slave to his nouveau riche
acquaintances, Petronius' Satyricon (see also Philo, On the Contemplative
Life 48-60). This document is a repository of cultural facts which greatly
inform us about Greco-Roman meals and offer a suggestive comparison with
Christian meals. In particular, the article of Richard Pervo (1985:307-28)
presents the reader not only with a clever analysis of Trimalchio's banquet,
but with an incipient social analysis of meals in general. He begins his
analysis with a noteworthy observation:
Food is a social substance and currency. What one is able (and chooses) to
serve expresses one's own position and helps define one's relationship to
others. What you, the guest, are offered is a measure of your standing in the
eyes of society and your host (1985:311).
Although Pervo's title suggests that he will do a social analysis of meals, his
approach is that of history of religions, which is not to denigrate his fine
descriptive eye. He is beginning to ask important social questions about who
108

eats what and with whom, gluttony, decorum, places at table, social status
and the symposium form. But there is no conceptual model to organize his
insights or to lead him to ask questions about the meaning of food and what
commensality communicates.
The literature on meals in antiquity has attended to several specific forms of
eating, which we will briefly describe here: the symposium, the Passover
meal, and funerary meals. As we shall see, all meals tend to have a regular
structure.
2.1 Symposium. This meal was distinguished not so much for its banquet as
for the extended colloquium and drinking which followed. Plutarch
dedicates his Table Talk to Senecio with a plea that he not forget the great
tradition of the symposium in antiquity:
Since you too, Senecio, believe that forgetfulness of folly is in truth "wise,"
yet to consign to utter oblivion all that occurs at a drinking-party is not only
opposed to what we call the friend-making character of the dining-table, but
also has the most famous of the philosophers to bear witness against it,-Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Speusippus, Epicurus, Prytanis, Hieronymus,
and Dio of the Academy, who all considered the recording of conversations
held at table a task worth some effort (1.pref. 612D-E).
As regards the form of a symposium, it was a formal banquet which was
highly structured both in terms of specific roles for the participants (a host,
chief guest, other guests) and specific courses of foods (hors d'oeuvres, main
course and dessert; post-prandial conversation and drinking). The
procedure was punctuated by periodic washing of the hands (see
Plato, Symposium 175A). Its form and function have been defined as:
The symposium is an organization of all-male groups, aristocratic and
egalitarian at the same time, which affirm their identity through
ceremonialized drinking. Prolonged drinking is separate from the meal
proper; there is wine mixed in a krater for equal distribution; the
participants, adorned with wreaths, lie on couches. The symposium has
private, political, and cultural dimensions: it is the place of euphrosyne, of
music, poetry and other forms of entertainment; it is bound up with
sexuality, especially homosexuality; it guarantees the social control of
the polis by the aristocrats. It is a dominating social form in Greek
civilization from Homer onward, and well beyond the Hellenistic period
(Burkert 1991:7).
109

Two recent books, both the results of symposia on the "symposium," contain
highly informative studies of various aspects of the classical meal. Slater's
volume (1991) contains articles on the betrothal symposium, foreigners at
this meal, the age at which persons were allowed to recline, the Roman
triclinium, and other studies dealing with Roman aspects of the symposium.
The second collection by O. Murray (1991) is more systematic in its topics:
space, furniture, social forms, entertainment, and discussion materials in
relationship to the symposium. Both of these books are advanced reading
material on the symposium and presume more basic knowledge of the topic.
The symposium form, it has been argued, influenced the Lukan presentation
of certain meals of Jesus (Luke 14 and 22:14-38; see Smith 1987). It has,
moreover, influenced the shape of the passover meal as well. Stein (1957:1344) has shown that the shape of seder depends as much upon the Hellenistic
symposium as it does on the biblical traditions in Exodus. He notes this in
regard to certain technical terms describing aspects of the ritual, foods
eaten, reclining posture, but especially talk at the meal. In a general article,
which presents many of the insights of his thesis, Smith (1981:319-39)
examines the symposium form under two rubrics: (a) in terms of its history,
its importance for philosophical groups, and the social expectations of
behavior at such gatherings, and (b) in regard to the disputes at the meal
described in 1 Cor 11:17-34. The article informs us quickly of the social
implications of deviant behavior at meals. The importance of the symposium
for us lies in the formal sense that there were prescribed courses of food as
well as of talk. Thus the mouth was regulated as to what and when certain
things were eaten and drunk as well as to what was said. The symposium
communicated "order," not chaos (Plutarch, Table Talk 1.2 616 A-B), and so
involved explicit and implicit rules of decorum.
2.2 Passover. This was most certainly an influential type of meal, which
colored the way Judeans and Christians perceived and structured other
eating and liturgical events. One of the most important studies of the
Passover is the classic work of Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of
Jesus. The title indicates that he examines the rich traditions of Passover
with a specific eye to historical questions concerning whether Jesus' Last
Supper was a passover meal and what was the shape of that meal in the first
century. From a careful reading of the first half of this book, readers gain a
clear sense of the formal shape of that famous ceremony and how various
items in the gospel accounts of the Last Supper parallel the structure of the
passover meal.
1. Preliminary Course:
110

Word of dedication (blessing of the feast day [kiddus]

and of cup) spoken by the paterfamilias over the first
cup (the kiddus cup).
Preliminary dish, consisting among other things of green
herbs, bitter herbs and a sauce made of fruit puree.
The meal proper is served but not yet eaten; the second
cup is mixed, put in its place but not yet drunk.
2. Passover Liturgy:
Passover haggadah by the paterfamilias (in Aramaic).
First part of the passover hallel (in Hebrew).
Drinking of the second cup (haggadah cup).
3. Main Meal:
Grace spoken by the paterfamilias over the unleavened bread.
Meal: passover lamb, unleavened bread, bitter herbs
(Exod 12.8), with fruit puree and wine.
Grace (birkat hammason) over the third cup (cup of blessing).
4. Conclusion:
Second part of the passover hallel (in Hebrew).
Praise over the fourth cup (hallel cup) (1968:85-86)
Indeed the thrust of Jeremias' book is another quest for the historical Jesus
and his original words, but it also supplies the reader with a wealth of
information on specific details about the passover meal.

111

The most complete text describing the sequence of events at the passover is
found in t. Ber. 4:8-9, which we quote here in full.
What is the order of the meal? The guests enter [the house] and sit on
benches, and on chairs until all have entered. They all enter and they
[servants] give them water for their hands. Each one washes one hand. They
[servants] mix for them the cup; each one says the benediction for himself.
They [servants] bring them the appetizers; each one said the benediction for
himself. They [guests] go up [to the dining room] and they recline, for they
[servants] give them [water] for their hands; although they have washed one
hand, they now wash both hands. They [servants] mix for them the cup;
although they have said the benediction over the first cup, they say a
benediction also over the second. They [servants] bring them the dessert;
although they said a benediction over the first one, they now says
benediction over the second, and one says the benediction for all of them
(t. Ber. 4.8; Bahr 1970:182); see also Philo, Spec. Leg. 2.145-75 and Qu.
Exod. 1.1-23).
A text like this is very important for the clear sense we gain of a fixed
sequence of courses and events, a characteristic of most ancient meals.
Although nothing is said here about the prescribed conversation at the
passover (i.e., the passover haggadah), we know that the mouth was
regulated both as to what was eaten and what was said. M. Pes. 10:1-9
indicates that at least three cups were drunk, that the specific foods
consumed were unleavened bread, lamb and bitter herbs, and that the
youngest son asked four specific questions of his father. We may presume
that seating at this meal was also a matter of formal arrangement.
2.3 Funerary Meals. Meals accompanying a funeral and meals
commemorating the dead are another important type that historians and
interpreters of biblical texts should attend to. At the burial rites for
Patroclus, Achilles slaughtered a host of bulls, lambs, goats, and pigs, which
were then roasted and eaten by those participating in the funeral rites
(Iliad 23.111; see b. Ket. 8b). Even in the Hebrew scriptures, we read of
controversy over food offerings left on the tombs of the dead (Isa 65:4). In
Amos 6:1-7 and Jer 16:1-9, as well as Ugaritic and Phoenician texts, we
know of a funeral meal called the marzeah, at which guests reclined to eat a
banquet. We have only fragmentary information about this meal, but two
articles can quickly inform a reader on the state of research. On a popular
level, King (1988:34-44) examines the reference in Amos 6:4-7 and offers a
detailed description of the various elements mentioned there. His
interpretation of the term "banquet" contains a summary of what scholars
112

argue constitutes a marzeah meal: it was a meal at which (a) one reclined,
(b) anointed with oil, (c) and consumed a meat meal; (d) it was accompanied
by singing or other music, (e) and climaxed in excessive drinking of wine.
Pope's study (1981:159-79) leads a reader through Ugaritic texts relative to
this meal, which he deftly interprets in terms of their relationship to
elements of the cult of the dead, which is one of the major occasions for
a marzeah. We gather tid-bits of information about the funerary meal,
rather than a full description, simply because the data are so fragmentary.
But it is important for student to appreciate that from ancient down to
Roman times, Israelites and Judeans engaged in funerary meals.
Of significance to us, however, is the specific study by Charles A. Kennedy of
commemorative meals consumed at funeral sites, "The Cult of the Dead at
Corinth" (1987:227-36). Investigating the term eidlothyton, "food offered
to idols," Kennedy argues that eidlon may be correctly translated as image
or likeness, especially that of a person who has died. And thyton, while it
contains the notion of sacrifice, equally applies to dinner parties (Herodotus
8.99), since all animals cooked and consumed at a meal would have first
been ritually slaughtered and offered to the gods. His translation is then
made plausible by a study of commemorative meals consumed at the site of
burial. Kennedy cites a key text describing these funeral meals, which
because of its importance and its typicality, we record here:
I desire that the memorial chapel (cella) which I have built be completed
precisely according to the pattern which I have given, to wit: there is to be a
parlor (exedra) in that place, in which is to be placed a seated marble statue
[of myself]...or else a bronze one...not less than five feet high. Under the
parlor there is to be a couch and two benches of imported stone at the two
sides. Let there be a coverlet which is to be spread on those days on which
the chapel is opened, and two blankets and pillows, two pairs of dinner
clothes and woolen robes and two tunics...
All my freedmen and freedwomen whom I manumitted either while alive or
by this testament are to get together a donation of a sisterce apiece annually.
And Aquila my grandson and his heir shall appoint annually money from
which each is to prepare food and drink for himself, which is to be
consecrated before the memorial chapel...and there they are to consume it.
And they are to remain there until they consume it all.
After my death these named curators are to perform the sacred rites on the
aforementioned altar on the kalends of April, May, June, July, August and
October (Julius Frontinus, d. 103 C.E.,C.I.L. XIII, 5708; Kennedy: 231).
113

Thus a meal was eaten at a tomb by family and freedpersons at specified

days in the mild months of the year. Even if Kennedy is not correct in
offering this as the appropriate scenario for the prohibition of eating idol
meat in 1 Cor 8 and 10, he has called attention to this type of meal, which
surely played a large part in the funeral rituals of the ancients and so
deserves our attention.

3.0 Foods and Diet

3.1 Foods Available/Cultivated for Consumption. What did people eat? what
did they not eat? and what does this tell us? John Pilch (1993:231) organizes
his study of diet around a citation from Sirach: "The basic necessities of
human life are water, fire, iron, and salt, flour, honey, and milk, the juice of
the grape, oil, and clothing" (Sir 39:26). He then describes what people
drank (water, goat's milk, honey, wine, oil) and what they ate (various types
of grain). His description is crisp, filled with historical and cultural pieces of
information, readable and quite accessible.
Another Jewish text, a certain mishnaic passage (Ket. 5:8-9), has served as
the organizing principle for several studies of the diet in Roman Palestine
(Broshi 1986; Malina and Rohrbaugh 1992:339-40).
He who maintains his wife by a third party may not provide for her less than
two qabs of wheat or four qabs of barley [per week]. . . And one pays over to
her a half qab of pulse, a half log of oil, and a qab of dried figs or a maneh of
fig cake. And if he does not have it, he provides instead fruit of some other
type (m. Ket. 5.8).
Malina and Rohrbaugh fill out these terse remarks in the Mishnah which
concern the support a man owes to his divorced wife. They observe that the
amounts specified suggest an intake of about 1800 calories per day, slightly
above what the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
recommends.
Grain, oil and wine were the most important commodities, especially grain
and the products made from it. One-half of the caloric intake of much of the
ancient Mediterranean region came from bread. Since wheat was much
superior to barley, the husband who provided an estranged wife with barley
bread was required to provide her twice the ration of wheat. Vegetables
114

(lentils, beans, peas, chickpeas, lupines, cabbage and turnips) were common,
but of much inferior status. Olive oil and fruit, principally the dried fig,
were also a required part of the provisions an estranged husband must
provide. Another quarter of the caloric intake came from wine, usually for
males and wealthy women. It is estimated that an adult male in ancient
Rome consumed a liter of wine daily.
Meat and poultry were expensive and rarely eaten by peasants. Most people
ate it only on feast days or holidays, though temple priests ate it in
abundance. Livestock kept solely to provide meat was unknown in Roman
Palestine and was later prohibited by the Talmudic sages. Fish was a typical
Sabbath dish. Milk products were usually consumed as cheese and butter.
Eggs, especially chicken eggs, were also an important food. Honey was the
primary sweetener (figs met some needs) and was widely used in the Roman
period. Salt served not only as a spice but also as a preservative of meat and
fish; pepper, ginger and other spices were imported and expensive.
Examining the "bread basket" of Palestine, Broshi takes the reader through
the same food groups mentioned above, but with a more scientific concern
for the caloric value of each item and a comparison of their consumption
patterns in contemporary nations. He also cites valuable comparative
materials from ethnoarchaeological research and from mishnaic and
talmudic texts. In this study we learn in detail about various qualities of
bread and how they were made. Besides information on olive oil, we learn
about other oils made from seeds and nuts. The full array of fruits and
vegetables (30 kinds each) available is also noted. We are introduced to the
cattle economy of the Roman period, when the raising of animals for meat
was actually prohibited. Fish, especially in fish sauces, formed a regular part
of the diet. Mention is also made of the raising and consumption of nonkosher items such as boars and rabbits. The article is valuable also for its
excellent bibliography.
A third convenient study of this material was done by Gildas Hamel. In a
chapter called "Daily Bread" (1990:8-56), Hamel documents in considerable
detail from ancient authors the various food groups consumed in Roman
Palestine (fruits, grains, legumes, vegetables, meat and animal products,
spices and drinks). His recounting includes important information on the
amount of a given item from a typical tree or field, food preparation of
various items, popularity of certain foods, and accessibility of certain foods
to rich and poor. His treatment of bread is especially worthwhile. He
borrows from other classicists the judgment that "roughly speaking,
115

classical diet consisted mainly of bread and porridge made from wheat or
barley supplemented by vegetables, fish and spices and not much else" (21).
There are, of course, descriptions of the luxurious banquets of aristocrats.
These delight in enumerating all the exotic and rare foods found in the
Roman empire, almost in the sense of "can you top this?" Among the many
texts available, readers will find profit in Philo's brief description in
his Contemplative Life 48-57 and Petronius' elaborate satire of such meals in
his Satyricon. Other classical authors mention in great detail the variety of
foods available for consumption, in particular Pliny, Natural History, books
17-19 and Athenaeus, Deipnosphists, books 1-2.
3.2 Dietary Restrictions. Of particular interest to bible readers is the diet of
Judeans in the second-temple period. It was a kosher diet, from which
"unclean" foods were prohibited. Anthropologist Mary Douglas refocussed
critical analysis of the biblical diet by offering valuable clues on the cultural
significance of the classification of foods, in particular "the abominations of
Leviticus" (1966:41-57). After discussing the ancient tradition of allegorizing
the distinction between clean and unclean foods in terms of virtue and vice,
Douglas interprets the abominations of Leviticus in terms of symbolic
anthropology, specifically in terms of God's holiness and separateness.
Holiness is related to wholeness; Leviticus focusses attention the necessary
physical perfection of things that may be offered in sacrifice and eaten.
Correspondingly, hybrids and imperfect things are an abomination because
they do not conform to the class to which they presumably belong. She
points to a cultural understanding of what constitutes a "clean" sky, land
and sea animal, an understanding which is not fully spelled out in the Bible,
but which can be teased out with careful reading. Foods are clean which
completely fulfil their definition in terms of diet, locomotion and place.
Perfect sky animals (birds) should not dive into the sea, nor should they eat
fish in place of grain, nor should hop on the ground. Complete land animals
should walk on legs, eat grass or grain (i.e., chew the cud). Likewise clean
sea animals should not crawl out the sea; they must swim as fish do, and
thus have scales.
Douglas' taxonomy of clean and unclean animals enjoyed a healthy scholarly
conversation and issued in a richer version of her analysis of the diet of the
Israelites (1975:261-73). In examining the classification of birds, fish and
animals, she now adds that concern must be had for the multiple dimensions
of Hebrew thought and culture. She notes three rules for meat: (a) rejection
of certain animal kinds as unfit for table (Lev 11; Deut 14), (b) of those
admitted as edible, the separation of the meat from blood before cooking
116

(Lev 17:10; Deut 12:23-27), and (c) the total separation of milk from meat,
which involves the minute specialization of utensils (Exod 23:19; 34:26; Deut
14:21). Analyzing dietary restrictions, Douglas then can identify what makes
an animal an abomination, a classification which now includes notions of
suitability for temple sacrifice and consumption as food.
Douglas then argues that the three rules noted above have close social and
cultural correlations with other aspects of the world of the Hebrews.
Animals fit for temple sacrifice (and so consumption) must be bodily whole
or unblemished. This accords with the rule that Levites, who are selected for
sacred temple duties, must be of pure descent and unblemished (Lev 21:1823). In regard to the second rule, certain birds, for example, may neither be
offered or eaten (m. Hul. 3.6), because they eat carrion and do not separate
the meat from blood before eating. And the third rule, which prohibits meat
cooked in milk, replicates procreative functions, thus reflecting sexual rules
concerning who may marry whom. Thus dietary restrictions replicate
values, structures and patterns found in other areas of Hebrew culture. In
examining dietary concerns, then, readers of ancient documents should be
aware how these rules replicate other aspects of the social world of the
peoples they represent.
Douglas' insights are refined in Jean Soler's excellent article (1979). He
brings an anthropologist's eye not only to Leviticus, but to the priestly
material in the early parts of Genesis, which serve as the appropriate lens
for reading Lev 11 and Deut 14. He offers confirmation and expansion of
Douglas' observations, especially the replication of the cultural
understanding of wholeness and purity in relation to the physical body. The
importance of his contribution lies in the careful analysis of the creation
story (Gen 1) and its symbolic replication in the ideology of the Israelite and
Judean peoples.
The symbolic meaning of dietary restrictions for Judeans and Christians is
based on the old adage, "You are what you eat." Hence holy people eat holy
(or whole) foods. Hence Peter objects to God concerning the unclean foods
he is commanded to eat; as a "holy" person, he has kept a holy diet (Acts
10:13-14). Part of the conflict with Jesus' disciples over eating grain plucked
on the Sabbath lies in the issue of whether the grain was properly tithed;
untithed food is not clean and so those who ate it could be considered
unclean themselves. The social importance of the abolition of the Judean
kosher diet for Christians is noted in the actions of Jesus and Paul, who
declare all foods clean (Mark 7:19; 1 Cor 10:25-15; see Acts 10:15). The
residual problem of dietary restrictions is surely behind the crisis over eating
117

at Antioch; Peter, who should keep kosher diet, because he is the "apostle to
the circumcised," started to eat with the uncircumcised; Paul accused him of
hypocrisy when he returned to his kosher diet (Gal 2:11-14). Thus analysis of
the symbolic importance of dietary restrictions has much to say about who
belongs to the group and who is welcome. After all, "you are what you eat"
(i.e., group identity confirmed by specific diet); but then "likes eat with
likes" (i.e., group identity confirmed by commensality).
We have concentrated on the diet and dietary customs of Judeans because
these impinge directly on biblical texts. But a reader might profitably
consult the fine survey article of Brothwell (1988:247-61) for materials on
the Greco-Roman world. He relies heavily on Pliny the Elder for his
information, and favors the Roman over the Greek world, which makes this
article of particular importance to students of second-temple Judaism and
early Christianity. Nevertheless, Brothwell describes in great detail the
various foods eaten and their percentage and importance in the diet of the
ancients. He focuses on the basic elements of diet, but includes the more
unusual foods available and their sources of origin. The article includes an
excellent, if brief, bibliography.

4.0 Social and Anthropological Interpretations of Meals

What the cross is to Jesus, the meal is to the early church, its primary
symbol. Yet meals are never easy to read, for much more communication is
put forth than the passing of plates and the eating of foods.
4.1 Social Aspects of Meals. In recent years there has been increasing
interest in the "social" dimensions of meals. For example, Gerd Theissen
(1982:145-74) analyzed the conflict described in 1 Cor 11:17-34 in terms of
the social strata of the persons described at the group's meal. His study is
"social" in that it asks questions about groups, such as: what were the
different groupings at the meal? what were the various points at which the
meal began? what different quantities of food consumed and by whom? were
the meals consumed qualitatively different? This valuable study greatly
advances our understanding of the conflict Paul describes, for Theissen
shows that there were at least two groups at the meal, one of which was
wealthy enough to eat meat and drank well and another poor and deprived
of abundant food and beverage. His study, however, is hardly "sociological"

118

in that he relies exclusively on Greco-Roman parallels to interpret the text

and advances no abstract or scientific model of meals.
Also recommended is the study by Philip Esler (1987:71-109) of table
fellowship between Jews and Gentiles as this reflects social relations in
Luke-Acts. Taking a clue from Mary Douglas, Esler situates his
interpretation of meals in terms of anthropological notions of external threat
and purity laws, and so focusses directly on meals and group identity and
group boundaries. He then presents a wealth of primary data from antiquity
on the unlikelihood of Jews eating with Gentiles. Turning then to other New
Testament documents, he examines the importance commensality plays in
group identity in Galatians, Mark and Matthew. Finally Esler deals with the
new social practice of Jesus' Jewish disciples in eating with Gentile converts,
first in the case of Cornelius (Acts 10-11), then in regard to the Apostolic
Council (Acts 15), and then the meal described in Acts 27:33-38. This
substantial study contains more history of eating traditions than social
analysis, and in that fills a reader's need to know what the prevailing
customs were for Jews dining with Gentiles. It employs but one aspect of
anthropology in its analysis, but a major one nonetheless and one which
touches on the very theme that Luke is arguing.
4.2 Anthropological Aspects of Meals. Gillian Feeley-Harnik (1981) offered a
more anthropological interpretation of Jewish and Christian meals, as she
drew upon formal cultural studies of diet, commensality, and cultural values.
Dealing first with Jewish sectarianism in the Greco-Roman period, she
indicates that commensality or its absence should be interpreted in terms of
group membership. "Likes eat with likes." Hence the meals of Judeans
indicate either their distinctive group affiliation, if eaten with other Judeans,
or their separation, if commensality was refused. Food, moreover, functioned
as a metaphor for the word of God. Hence concern for doctrinal and ethnic
purity are replicated in the dietary and commensality practices of the
Judeans. Her basic thesis can be succinctly summarized:
[F]ood, articulated in terms of who eats what with whom under which
circumstances, had long been one of the most important languages in which
Jews conceived and conducted social relations among human beings and
between human beings and God. Food was a way of talking about the law
and lawlessness (1981:72).
She then states her hypotheses about the symbolic nature of food and eating
in the Hebrew scriptures:
119

1. The power of the Lord is manifested in his ability to control food: to feed
is to bless, to confer life; to feed bad food or to starve is to judge or punish,
to confer death.
2. Acceptance of the power and authority of the Lord is symbolized by
acceptance of his food.
3. Rejection of the power and authority of the Lord is symbolized by seeking
after food he has forbidden.
4. People "limit" or "tempt" the Lord--that is, question the extent of his
power or authority--by questioning his ability to feed them.
5. The Lord's word is equated with food.
6. Eating joins people with the Lord or separates them (1981:72).
After this, she studies the Christian custom of eating Christ's body and
blood. Examining how Jesus' last supper differed from the passover meal,
she offers the summary conclusion:
The eucharist . . . is a symbolic representation of salvation in food patterned
exactly after the passover. The difference is that in this case, as in Jesus'
interpretation of the heavenly marriage feast and other traditional
statements about politico-religious and social relations, the significance of
the meal--the food, the host, the guests, the circumstances--is absolutely
reversed. Temple and sacrifice, family, priesthood, and nation are radically
redefined (1981:130).
Put more simply, "in contrast to the passover that brings the family together,
Jesus' sacrifice breaks it apart to create new bonds" (1981:144).
For a reader looking for an succinct entrance into the "language of food,"
Feeley-Harnik's fourth chapter will serve as a most useful tool ("Food
Symbolism in the Judaic Tradition," 71-106). The approach is that of
cultural anthropology, which aims to offer a model which can be applied to a
cross-cultural analysis of meals in various geographical regions and at
different times. The chapter is deftly organized around the key question of
"who eats what with whom under which circumstances," which links food
consumption with group identity and values.

120

Highly recommended is a brief study of meals and their social dynamics in

Luke by the Norwegian scholar, Halvor Moxnes (1987:158-67). While
focussing on Luke's gospel, Moxnes reads the document through the lens of
a multi-dimensional model of meals drawn from cultural anthropology. The
delight of this piece lies in its easy, but solid presentation of a series of
critical perspectives on meals. They function as boundary markers between
groups (i.e., Jesus and the Pharisees), as starting mechanisms for new groups
(i.e., Jesus' feedings), as indicators of hierarchy and internal social
stratification (i.e., seating), and as occasions for reciprocity. When
applicable, Moxnes contrasts the tradition social expectations encoded in
meals with the strategy of Jesus and the new portrait of God developed by
Luke. Because of its brevity, depth and application to a text, Moxnes' article
is an excellent place to start a critical study of meals.
Mary Douglas (1982b:82-124) analyzed British meals as "a system of
communications." Although her focus was on specific issues such as the
introduction of new foods into the British diet, she argued that food
preparation and consumption are more than issues of nutrition, for they are
social events and constitute a medium of social relationships. This allowed
her to ask questions about the implicit rules concerning time, place and
sequence of actions and objects which structure the preparation and
consumption of foods. This important insight alerts readers of ancient texts
to ask questions about the typical times for eating, the amount and quality of
the food consumed, the sequence of foods served, and particular customs
regulating what, where and how it is eaten. This should alert us that meals
and foods are not merely material objects to be studied in terms of nutrition,
but social events which occur in regular patterns rich in meaning and
communication.
In an earlier article (1975:249-60), Mary Douglas examined food as a code.
Typical of most anthropological investigations, she discusses their theory of
meals and commensality as "communication" or "language" or "code":
If food is treated as a code, the messages it encodes will be found in the
pattern of social relations being expressed. The message is about different
degrees of hierarchy, inclusion and exclusion, boundaries and transactions
across boundaries. Like sex, the taking of food has a social component, as
well as a biological one. Food categories therefore encode social events
(1975:249).
Douglas examines the various patterns that occur in meals: (a) temporal
schemes of meals: meals which climax the week (i.e., the Sunday midday
121

meal), seasonal meals occurring on regular holidays, and meals related to

the life cycle (birth, wedding and funeral meals); and (b) the patterned
activity of meals (from soup to nuts). This leads her to appreciate how the
meaning of a meal is found in a system of repeated analogies. "Each meal
carries something of the meaning of the other meals; each meals is a
structured social event which structures others in its own image." This is a
most useful insight for our study; for we have observed earlier how the
symposium influenced the shape of the passover as well as the presentation
of many of Jesus' meals, including the last supper. Solemn meals such as
Passover for Judeans and Christians or symposia for Greeks and Romans
might be expected to encode values and structures of the general culture.
And the patterns of these meals can be expected to embody social categories
such as "hierarchy, inclusion and exclusion, boundaries and transactions
across boundaries."
These two articles of Mary Douglas are quite abstract and are not
recommended for beginning readers. Their value lies in the theoretical
underpinnings for a more detailed analysis of meals vis-a-vis social behavior.
Douglas' key insight that food consumption is a "code" or "communication"
has served as a charter for other scholars who have absorbed this
perspective and who examine how "the message it encodes will be found in
the pattern of social relations being expressed. . . Food categories encode
social events (1975:249)." Foremost among those who have adapted
materials of Douglas and other anthropologists for biblical interpretation is
Jerome Neyrey, who developed a complex series of social science models and
perspectives to describe as fully as possible all of the social interactions that
occur in a meal.
Of particular importance to readers is the recent work of Jack Goody
(1982). The opening chapter of this book should be required reading,
because Goody takes us through the history of sociological and
anthropological analysis of cooking, meals and food consumption. Through a
crisp survey of the major works on the topic, he explains the ideology
encoded in functionalist and structuralist approaches to meals. He presents
Levi-Strauss' classic distinction between the raw and the cooked is critical
perspective, as well as that of Mary Douglas. Finally, he lays out his own
agenda for studying the topic (1982:37-38), which is most valuable for us.
Processes Phases Locus
Growing Production Farm
122

Allocating/storing Distribution Granary/market

Cooking Preparation Kitchen
Eating Consumption Table
Clearing up Disposal Scullery
Economic issues dominate the production phase, which has to do with
organization of resources and the technology of producing and storing food.
Political issues are central to the distribution phase, where rents, tributes
and taxes must be paid. With the preparation phase, attention is shifted
from fields and granaries to the kitchen. Her women rather than men and
servants rather than mistresses take over the process; systems of division
and stratification of labor are made explicit. Finally, in the consumption
phase, attention must be paid to the identity and differentiation of those of
eat, the practice of eating together or separately, the importance of feasts
and fasts, food prohibitions and preferences, table manners and modes of
serving. Goody, therefore, has laid out a practical agenda of the kinds of
questions a careful researcher should have in mind when meals are
considered. The remainder of his book fleshes out these basic approaches
and provides data and modeling for students. Beginning readers are well
served especially by the first chapter, the survey of anthropological
approaches, of Goody's book.

4.3 Practical Models for Interpreting Meals. How should a reader of the
Bible think about meals? Neyrey offered a practical, multilayered model for
interpreting meals first in a study of Mark 7 and then in an investigation of
meals in Luke-Acts. He begins his analysis of Mark 7 (1988a:63-92) by
noting two textual emphases in that part of the gospel: (a) frequent mention
of bread (6:38-44, 52; 7:2-5, 27-28; 8:4-10, 16-21) and (b) association of
Pharisees with hands, lips and bodily surfaces and Jesus with heart and
bodily interior (7:1-23). The evangelist framed the controversy in Mark 7
around the custom of washing hands before eating, which can of course be
analyzed in a strictly historical manner concerning the existence of rules for
washing of hands and vessels. But when we ask an anthropological question
about the meaning of washing before eating or the significance of hands vs
heart, we need more than mere historical data or more accurate social
description.
123

Neyrey employs two practical models to examine the symbolic issues of

bread/kosher diet and hands/lips vs heart in Mark 7: (a) a model of purity
advanced by Mary Douglas (1966:41-57) and developed by Bruce Malina
(1981:122-52) and (b) a model of body symbolism, also derived from Mary
Douglas (1966:114-28; 1982a:65-81) and developed further by Neyrey
himself (1986b:129-170).
In regards to "purity systems," Neyrey notes how people tend to order their
worlds and classify all objects; this order is called "purity" and is structured
in a cultural "purity system." Purity thus means social system or pattern of
classification. When this general and abstract model of social perception is
combined with specific Judean articulation of purity rules and labelling,
observers gain a offer a rich framework for interpreting the controversy
between Jesus and the Pharisees over eating breads with unwashed hands
and observing kosher diet.
The elaborate purity system of the first-century Judeans served to classify as
much of the world and its objects as possible in terms consonant with the
dominant value of "holiness" or "separateness" which was central to their
culture. As a chosen people, the Judeans separated themselves from
Gentiles; and as a temple-oriented people, they extended the classifications
of things suitable for temple purity to other aspects of daily living. Thus a
consonant system of replicated classifications told them what could be eaten,
whom they could marry, where objects and persons should be positioned,
and the like. In short, explicit and implicit "maps" of persons, places, things
and times guided Judeans to evaluate or structure all things in their world.
What fit this system was holy; what violated it was unclean.
This cultural tendency, moreover, implies a constant observation of
boundaries to make sure that clean things only are in clean places. This
tendency to build a fence around the Torah in all aspects (m. Aboth 3.14)
helps us understand the Pharisaic custom of washing hands (and vessels)
before eating. The holy interior must be guarded from anything unclean;
and so washing rituals serve as "fences" to separate clean from unclean (the
same applies to tithes on food, which transform them into "holy" foods fit
for consumption). These rules for foods and eating replicate, then, the more
dominant cultural norm of a "holy" people, separate from the Gentiles, and
consecrated to God.
Yet to understand more fully the issues of foods and eating in Mark 7, some
notion of how the body is socially perceived and regulated is also necessary.
Mary Douglas has argued that "the body is a model which can stand for any
124

social system" (1966:115). That is, the body is perceived to have structure
just as the social body is orderly arranged. And as the social body admits of
control and classification, this tendency is replicated in the way the physical
body is perceived and controlled. Strong social control repeats itself in
strong bodily control, and vice versa. Just as the social body is concerned
with its boundaries (see "fences" above), so the physical body attends
carefully to its entrances and exits, namely the bodily orifices (mouth, ears,
anus, genitals). This key idea helps us to appreciate how people, who
perceive the world in terms of purity and pollution and who attend carefully
to separation from Gentiles and all uncleanness, would tend to guard the
mouth against eating untithed or unkosher foods.
Neyrey explains how Mark presents Jesus as challenging both the
macrocosmic view of a world classified by purity and pollution (1986b:10524) and the microcosmic replication of this in terms of how he ate, with
whom he ate, and what he ate. In Mark 7, Jesus criticizes concern for bodily
exterior (washing of hands and vessels, lip observance of God) and focuses
on interior purity (an obedient heart, a virtuous soul). The view of the
physical body attributed to Jesus, then, is less controlled than that credited
to the Pharisees; and each view of the physical body is replicated in the
relatively open or closed social relations which each practiced. Thus Jesus'
reforming stance concerning eating customs and diet, which are reported in
Mark 7, criticizes specific Judean food rules and eating customs, thus
attacking also the Judean social values of ethnic and religious separateness.
In a subsequent study, Neyrey set forth a more complete social science model
for understanding the meals and table fellowship of Luke-Acts (1991:36187). This study builds on his previous efforts to crack the code of food as
communication, and contains five distinct perspectives:
a) meals as ceremony,
b) meals and purity system/symbolic universe,
c) meals and body symbolism,
d) meals and economic reciprocity,
e) meals and social relations.

125

4.3.1 Meals as Ceremonies. Meals are not rituals of status transformation or

change, but ceremonies. The following diagram summaries the important
differences between "ritual" and "ceremony," without which we labor to
understand the structure and function of a meal.
CEREMONY RITUAL
a. frequency: a. frequency:
regular irregular
b. calendar: b. calendar:
predictable, planned unpredictable, as needed
c. time focus: c. time focus:
past-to-present present-to-future
d. presided over by: d. presided over by:
officials professionals
e. purpose: e. purpose:
confirmation of status change,
roles and statuses transformation of role/status
in institutions

Meals, unlike transformation rituals such as circumcision, marriage or

death, occur regularly; for example, the Shabbat meal is eaten weekly and
Passover every spring. They are, moreover, predictable and so planned for;
they occur on fixed calendrical dates, such as Passover, a birthday (Mark
6:21), Hanukkah, and the like. Meals such as these look to some event in the
past, which still has influence in the present, and so past deeds tend to be
rehearsed or memory plays an important role. They are generally presided
over by the officials of the institution in which they occur, either the father in
the household, the king in his political palace, or the priest in the temple.
126

Significantly, they confirm the roles and statuses of the persons of their
respective institutions: the head of the family presides over the family
passover (Exod 12:3-4, 26-27) or Jesus at the Last Supper (Luke 22:14-37).
Thus to interpret a given meal correctly, we must know (a) when it occurs
(daily, weekly, or annually), (b) who presides over it (the head of the
household, a priest, a governor or king), and (c) in which social institution a
meal is celebrated (the family or a fictive-family group, the temple, the
palace).
4.3.2 Meals and Purity System/Symbolic Universe. This survey has already
discussed the contribution of Mary Douglas (1966:41-57, 114-28) toward
understanding the general and specific concepts of purity and pollution (see
also Neyrey 1986b:91-128; 1988a:63-91). Practically speaking, what this
model offers is a way of mapping out the classification system of a given
social group so that we can learn who eats with whom, what is eaten, where,
when, how, and the like. Hence in examining meals, Neyrey attends to maps
of persons, places, times and things.
Maps of Persons Who eats with whom? Likes eat with likes; family eats with
family, Pharisees with Pharisees. Second, there are maps of where people sit
at a meal (e.g. 1QSa ii.11-17; Philo,Contemplative Life 67, 69, 75;
Plutarch, Table Talk 1.3 619B; Luke 14:7-11). Seating arrangements signal
and replicate one's role and status in a group, its order and hierarchy. We
speak of a "head" table at a banquet; the head of the household sits at the
"head" place (see Plutarch, Table Talk 1.2 616B). His "right hand" is
traditionally the place of honor (Luke 20:42; Acts 2:33).
Graeco-Roman and Jewish meals owe much of their structure to the
symposium, at which there were elaborate maps of persons. Roles are clearly
specified: a host, a chief guest, and other guests (Steele 1984:382-389). Places
taken by the participants reflect their status, with the chief guest closest to
the host and the other guests arranged in some declining order of status.
Map of Things Certain foods were proscribed and others prescribed. Jews
had an elaborate code of clean and unclean foods. These kosher concerns
extended even to the dishes used in the preparation and consumption of
foods, e.g. Pharisaic concern for the porosity of vessels and their ritual
washing. The talk at table is also mapped. Certain talk is appropriate and
even required at meals, for example, at Passover specific benedictions for
each of the four cups are pronounced, as well as the recitation of the Exodus
haggadah and the Hallel psalms.
127

Maps of Places The symbolic order of the universe is replicated in the spatial
arrangement of persons and things at a meal and in regard to the locale
where one sits (e.g. dining room or temple precinct). A Pharisee, for example,
would concern himself about the place where he ate to ensure that the
proper diet was prepared in the proper way and served on proper utensils.
Maps of Times Although daily meals vary in terms of frequency and time of
day, formal meals reflect a serious concern for proper time and sequencing.
Considerable attention was paid to the exact time when Shabbat started to
determine when to begin the weekly Sabbath meal. Even in the course of a
meal, we find elaborate time arrangements according to which dishes are
served in a fixed sequence, "from soup to nuts."
The symbolic system, then, indicates maps of persons, things, places and
times which structure not only the symbolic world of those who eat, but are
specifically replicated in a meal ceremony. In fact, a meal may be an
excellent window through which to view the symbolic universe. For this end,
the following questions may prove useful:
a. WHO: who eats with whom; who sits where; who performs
what action; who presides over the meal
b. WHAT: what is eaten (or not eaten); how it is tithed or
grown or prepared; what utensils are used; what rites accompany the meal
(e.g., washing of hands or full bath); what is said (and silence)
c. WHEN: when one eats (daily, weekly, etc.; time of day);
when one eats which course during the meal
d. WHERE: where one eats (room); where one sits; in which
institution (family, politics)
e. HOW: how one eats, at a table or not; sitting, standing
or reclining

128

4.3.3 Meals and Body Symbolism. Neyrey repeats here his use of Mary
Douglas' anthropological observations on the physical body developed in
other places (1986a:129-70; 1988a:63-91), which we exposed above. In
essence, he builds on Douglas' observation that the physical body is a
microcosm of the social body:
The body is a model which can stand for any bounded system. The body is a
complex structure. The functions of its different parts and their relation
afford a source of symbols for other complex structures (Douglas 1965:115).
The same ordering of the social body is replicated in the control of the
physical body.
The social body constrains the way the physical body is perceived. The
physical experience of the body, always modified by the social categories
through which it is known, sustains a particular view of society (Douglas
1982a:65).
This means that where we find a strong system of order and classification in
the social body, we find rules controlling the body in regard to a) bodily
boundaries (skin, hair and clothing), b) bodily structure, and c) bodily
margins or orifices.
Just as the social body builds walls, guards its gates, restricts admission, and
expels foreign or unclean objects, so this same tendency is replicated in the
physical body. Physical bodies tend to be concerned with their boundaries or
surfaces (skin, clothing) and with bodily entrances and exits (mouth, eyes,
ears, genitals). Just as guards are stationed at borders or city gates, so the
physical body tends to guard about what may enter (food) or leave the
physical body (spittle, menses, semen, urine). The body is punctuated by
certain orifices which are gateways to its interior, and so are subject to great
scrutiny.
Neyrey argues that in regard to bodily orifices, meals indicate that we attend
to the mouth. Through it food enters the body; we expect that the mouth will
be governed so that it admits prescribed (1 Cor 11:23-28), but not proscribed
foods (1 Cor 8 & 10). From the mouth comes speech, and so it is doubly
scrutinized. Certain speech is prescribed for certain meals (see Map of
Things above).
Other bodily issues, such as posture and clothing, are issues at meals. Exod
12:11 legislated how Israelites should eat Passover "Your loins girded, your
129

sandals on your feet, you staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste."
But second-temple Jews began it sitting and ate it reclining; it was eaten in
festive attire and leisurely, because, as one mishnah says, "we are no longer
slaves."
R. Levi has said: "Because slaves eat standing, here (at the passover meal)
people should recline to eat, to signify that they have passed from slavery to
freedom" (j. Pes. 10.37b; Jeremias 1968:49).
4.3.4 Meals and Reciprocity. Inviting people to a meal inevitably carried
with it the expectation of an invitation in return. Theories of exchange
applicable to the first century describe three forms of reciprocity:
generalized, balanced, and negative.
(a) Generalized reciprocity refers to interactions which focus on the interests
of another party, and so are considered "altruistic" because they are otherdirected. Common forms include hospitality, gifts, and various types of
assistance given especially to kin, for example the nurture and support
parents give children. (b) Balanced reciprocity refers to interactions in
which the concerns of both parties are addressed. If generalized reciprocity
looks to the benefit of the other, balanced reciprocity describes a
symmetrical concern for equivalent benefit for both parties: a balanced
exchange, a quid pro quo, a tit for tat. Common forms of balanced
reciprocity include buying and selling of goods, payment to professionals for
services rendered, trade and barter, especially among neighbors. (c)
Negative reciprocity refers to interactions which focus only on the interest of
the self and one's extended self, family or group. Negative reciprocity refers
to a movement in which one party tries to get something from another
without reciprocating at all, and so getting something for nothing or with
impunity. Common forms include cheating, theft, overcharging and various
forms of appropriation or seizure of another's goods, especially against
strangers or enemies.
As regards meals in Luke-Acts, Jesus' example of petitioning in prayer (in
Luke 11:11-12) illustrates how in a kinship group a parent is expected to
show altruistic regard for his children in terms of the food given them:
"What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead give him a
serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion?" The parable of
the great banquet offers another example. The host sends his servants with
the command, "Go out quickly . . . and bring in the poor and maimed and
blind and lame" (14:21). After that there is still room, so the servant go once
more, "Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in
130

that my house may be filled" (14:23). God's messianic banquet, then, would
be an apt illustration of divine generalized reciprocity in regard to meals.
Perhaps the fault of the "Fool," who planned to hoard his extraordinary
good harvest in bigger barns so that he might "take his ease, eat, drink and
be merry," exemplifies his failure to show any reciprocity to his tenants and
neighbors by sharing this heaven=sent gift of extra food (12:20-21).
For economic and social reasons, invitations to meals, whether wedding
feasts, religious and civic celebrations, or fellowship meals, are normally
considered under the rubric of balanced reciprocity. I invite you; you invite
me. This would imply that invitations are given to those who can reciprocate.
The rule is illustrated when Jesus breaks it by enjoining: "When you give a
dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your
kinsmen or your rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and you
be repaid" (14:12). Even if invited (an unimaginable thing), a poor person
would decline an invitation in dread of the enormous financial obligation to
reciprocate with a comparable meal. But Jesus abolishes the expected
balanced reciprocity when he says, "You will be blessed, because they cannot
repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just" (14:14b-15).
4.3.5 Meals and Patron-Client Relations. People in the New Testament world
were constantly seeking patrons and clients in the standard game of securing
a safe and steady supply of the limited and scarce goods of life. Especially in
peasant societies, a landowner might choose to act as patron to certain
people as his tenants; this relationship might be symbolized by the food (or
land, tools/ animals to work the land, seed, etc.) which the patron bestows on
his tenant-as-client. Or the founder of a faction might start and sustain the
group he gathers around himself by meals and distribution of food. Since
patron-client relations are a form of reciprocity, if the patron distributes
food, then one might ask what he gets in return? what is expected of those
who receive?
Like other biblical writers, Luke considers God as patron to Israel, his
clients. And so, giving glory, honor and praise to God-the-patron, his clients
call on God to feed them: "Give us each day our daily bread" (11:3). The
material which follows the giving of the Our Father confirms this
relationship of patron and client. First, a parable is told about a person in
need of food ("three loaves"), who petitions over and over to a patron to
provide this food (11:5-8). The emphasis here is clearly in praise of persistent
petitioning of one's heavenly patron: "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek,
and you will find; knock and it will be opened" (11:9-10). Not surprisingly,
the examples used are petitions for food. The next items in this collection of
131

materials on petitioning one's patron are also requests for food: "What
father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will give him a serpent; of if he
asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion?" (11:11-12). God, then, is the
supreme patron who gives food to his clients in due season.
Patronage describes the relationships among members of God's covenant
community. The well-to-do are instructed to act as patrons of the poor when
they are told not to invite their "friends, brothers, kinsmen or rich
neighbors" to a dinner, but rather to invite "the poor, the maimed, the lame,
the blind," who cannot repay them (14:12-14).
Thus Neyrey offers those who investigate meals two detailed analyses of
gospel texts, both Mark and Luke. The models presented for in-depth
analysis of the social transactions encoded in meals are clearly presented and
can serve as helpful and applicable tools for investigations of other meals in
other cultures and at other times. Students who take seriously the
anthropological perspective that meals are a "code" or a "communication"
or a "language" will find these two articles particularly clear and helpful.

5.0 Fasting and Refusal to Fast

There were five fast days in the liturgical calendar of second-temple
Judeans; Pharisees are said to have fasted twice a week (Luke
18:12; Didache 8.1). Along with prayer and almsgiving, fasting was
considered the core of piety (Tob 12:8; see Acts 10:30-31), especially after the
destruction of the Temple. Fasting, then, denotes religious observance and
characterizes holy persons (Philo,Contemplative Life 34; Luke 2:27 and 1
Tim 5:5). But what if one refuses to fast, such as Jesus apparently did
according to Mark 2:18-22?
Most investigations of fasting in second-temple Judaism and early
Christianity tend to be collections of valuable data on who fasted, from
what, and when, with occasional interest in the motivation for fasting.
General dictionary articles such as Milgrom-Herr (1971:1189-95) and
Muddiman (1992:773-776) offer satisfactory collections of materials from
the perspective of history and social description. The monograph of
Wimmer (1982) attempts to deal with "the meaning" of fasting (pp 3-6, 11116); it focusses on Jesus' fasting or his words on it. Although Wimmer
situates NT fasting in the context of Judean and Greek traditions, he does
132

not ever consider how fasting is an act of communication; his approach, upto-date in terms of the prevailing paradigm of biblical research, does not ask
about the cultural or social "meaning" of fasting. Particularly rich is the
collection of materials gathered by Arbesmann (1949:1-71). It covers fasting
in pagan and christian antiquity, indicating in regard to these periods both
the origins and practices of fasting, and the specific relationship between
fasting and mantic activity and prophecy. Important also is the study of
Lowy (1958) on motivations for fasting in ancient Judaism. He list four
reasons, which because of the relationship synagogue and church in
antiquity, are worth knowing: (a) for the purposes of atonement, (b) in case
of mourning, (c) as purification ritual, especially before a sacrificial meal,
and (d) as a means of increasing magical powers and causing dreams and
visions.
As valuable as these studies are, they do not address the fundamental social
question of why people fast and what they communicate to their social group
by fasting. It is not enough to say that Judean fasting was for atonement
(Lev 16:29), or that it constituted a part of funeral rites (2 Sam 1:12) or that
it disposed a person for revelations (2 Esdr 5:13). Moreover, such
explanations simply cannot deal with refusal to fast, as is alleged of Jesus. If,
as this article has shown, food is a language, then what is being
communicated either by fasting or refusal to fast?
Bruce Malina (1986:185-204) offers an anthropological interpretation of
fasting (and refusal to fast) that deals precisely with the symbolic messages
communicated. He focuses on the culturally specific meaning of fasting,
namely, why first-century Mediterraneans fasted and why this behavior
would have meaning for their contemporaries. He identifies three
perspectives on fasting: (a) a functionalist approach (fasting occurred
especially when food supplies were limited), (c) a conflict approach (nonconsumption as boundary marking and conflict resolution), and (3) a
symbolic approach (meanings of consumption and non-consumption depend
upon on the features of a given social system and its core values).
Malina distinguishes abstinence, fasting and avoidance. Abstinence, such as
dieting and asceticism, effects the non-consumer; it might be practiced for
reasons of purgation, purification, weight loss, causation of visions, and the
like. In contrast, fasting is intended to have an effect on someone else than
the non-consumer; it is practiced as a form of social interaction or
communication. Avoidance of certain foods, such as Jewish prohibitions of
non-kosher animals, falls beyond the control of the non-consumer, for it is
socially commanded by the group.
133

As communication, fasting can operate both on a vertical and a horizontal

level, depending on whether the non-consumer wishes to have an effect on
persons higher in rank than himself (God, the king, etc.) or on persons of his
own status (kin and clan). In addition, Malina employs the notion of four
symbolic media of communication (power, commitment, influence, and
inducement). Fasting is the refusal to interact with others in those media,
and so communicates a rejection of the institution in which they are rooted.
He describes the sort of messages conveyed by non-consumption or fasting.
It communicates a negation of reciprocities that make up social interaction.
And so it puts the person fasting "out of bounds" or apart from the normal
patterns of exchange; this new state is called in terms of ritual analysis the
"liminal state," that is, a state of transition. Hence one who fasts is
essentially seeking to change his or her status and is directed toward those
who can effect this transition. Fasting, then, is a form of "self-humiliation"
to persuade those in higher status than those fasting to reverse their low
status. This goes a long way toward our understanding of fasting in contexts
of mourning, national calamity, group sense of impurity, or some estimate of
the negative state of the group. Some evil is present and fasting petitions
hierarchically superior persons to deal with this evil and so reverse the
current status of the petitioners.
Finally Malina addresses the issue of non-fasting, such as is reported of
Jesus in Mark 2:18-20. Jesus' refusal to fast communicates two things: he
did not concern himself with the boundary maintenance of his contemporary
Judeans, that is, he did not perceive either himself or his group as polluted
and so in need of status reversal. Second, this implies that he thought that
the needed status reversal (repent, believe in the gospel!) had already come
with his own mission.
Malina's article is exceptionally fruitful for it asks questions and offers
perspectives that are generally not found in standard discussions of fasting,
which tend to be more historically oriented. His article, moreover, is
positioned as the last chapter of a very rich book which takes readers stepby-step through some basic models which aid in examining the cultural
meaning of behavior. Thus the chapter on fasting employs the full resources
and offers a reader an exceptionally rich model of the cultural meanings of
consumption and non-consumption.

134

6.0 Jesus' Meals and Table Companions: Current New Testament Issues
New Testament scholarship on the Gospels currently gives considerable
attention to the significance of Jesus' eating habits and to the presence or
absence of females at the meals portrayed.
6.1 Gospel Accounts of Jesus' Eating. In his book on themes in Luke, Robert
Karris (1985) wrote on "The Theme of Food." The approach is basically that
of redaction criticism, and so the first part of the study contains a useful
listing of all the passages and terms concerned with food and meals in Luke.
By way of interpretation, Karris classified his materials into three related
themes. First, God's impartial generosity is manifested in the adequate food
provided, especially for the needy. Second, Jesus, "glutton and drunkard,"
ate with tax collectors and sinners, which constitutes an "acted parable" of
God's particular care for outcasts. Finally, Jesus' Last Supper is foremost a
symposium at which he delivers a Farewell Address which contains major
material about new social relationships. This comprehensive and readable
survey of the specifically Lukan material will quickly orient readers to the
basic issues concerning Jesus' table fellowship and its significance for
Christology and Church.
In the same vein, Scott Bartchy's dictionary article (1992) invites the reader
to examine the same materials, but from a much richer perspective. Bartchy
takes formal cognizance of the symbolic nature of meals, foods and table
fellowship; he introduces his materials in terms of relevant and productive
concepts from cultural anthropology. Thus he calls attention to (a) the
importance of purity rules concerning diet and meals and (b) the breaking of
social boundaries by Jesus' deviant table habits. He offers good insights into
the way Jesus' praxis in both Mark and Luke functions as social
indoctrination, "serving" of others in Mark and "open table fellowship" in
Luke. Scott's article is pithy and pregnant, and can serve as an excellent
orientation to the issue of the symbolism of meals in the Gospels.
The very title of Smith's article, "The Historical Jesus at Table" (1989)
describes the thrust of this study. Although Smith debates whether the
portrait of Jesus' eating habits reflects the historical Jesus or a later
idealization of him, his article contains a fine survey of the major motifs in
the gospels concerned with meals. After a brief review of scholarship, Smith
defines meals in antiquity, which comprises a terse historical description of
ancient meals and an acknowledgement of anthropological perspectives on
the social meaning of meals. He abandons the latter perspective to do more
strictly historical reporting, namely, description of Jesus' meals with
135

disciples, his concern with dietary regulations, and his commensality with
outcasts. Recognizing that Jesus' table customs should be construed as
parabolic actions, Smith's own analysis leads him to the of the historical
judgment that the portrait of Jesus at table reflects the "idealized, historic
Jesus of the tradition."
6.2 Jesus' Table Companions. The gospel accounts of Jesus' eating habits
have sparked studies into the presence or absence of women at the meals
described in the New Testament. Nor is it surprising in a period of the
emergence of feminist scholars in the biblical guild that attention is being
paid to the presence of women at meals. Kathleen Corley, first in a summary
article (1989) and then in a book (1993), examines the topic from the
perspective of history and social description.
In her 1989 article, Corley deftly takes a reader through the important
historical data from antiquity about the presence and absence of women at
meals. She interprets her valuable collection of classical texts in the light of
social questions, namely, the status of women. Corley builds on the insight
that table fellowship is the most important generative matrix of the social
formation of the Jesus movement groups. And acknowledging the classical
cultural expectation of a gender divided world (males in public, females in
private space), she argues that the presence or absence of women at meals
may be shown to conform to this cultural code or engage it.
Corley's own collection of classical texts and her digest of the critical
literature allow her to make important historical distinctions. In classical
Greece women were generally absent from meals, even within the
household; but in Rome during the end of the Republic, women might be
present at public meals in the household, if only for the first part of the meal.
When women are noted as participating at meals where non-related males
are present, these almost always reflect the customs of aristocrats. The
"flamboyant behavior" of aristocratic Roman women is balanced by
philosophical criticism of this new practice and by the celebration of the
more traditional virtues urged for females.
Thus Corely's method is basically an historical description of changing
patterns. Her data and interpretation tend to confirm that women who
appear in public at meals would be considered a social anomaly, and so bear
the stigma of a "public" woman, most likely labelled a courtesan or
prostitute. This study will acquaint readers with basic historical and cultural
materials pertaining to Greco-Roman meals. It is sensitive to the social
implications of eating patterns, although it does not itself engage in
136

anthropological explanations of meals. It is highly recommended for its

completeness and balance.
Corley's article seems to be a digest of her dissertation, which was later
published as a book (1993). The book has the great advantage of presenting
much fuller collections of material about Greco-Roman meal patterns, as
well as detailed investigations of the presence of women at meals in the
synoptic gospels. Of particular interest for students of meals is Corley's
excellent second chapter (1993:24-79), in which she succinctly but
persuasively describes the social expectations about women at table and the
historical realization of those expectations. She notes, as she did in her
article, the changing social patterns in Greece and Rome, namely, how
traditional social directives in the Greek cultural world concerning women
at meals were modified by Romans at the end of the Republic, and how
social criticism of this Roman relaxation of custom led to a reaction which
restored and strengthened traditional expectations about women. Corley's
book, moreover, takes readers through each of the synoptic meal scenes at
which women are said to be or might be present, and how this would be
perceived by the ancients and how the evangelists conform to traditional
cultural expectations concerning women at meals. This study, moreover,
easily puts an inquiring reader in touch with the latest secondary literature
on the relevant social, historical and exegetical discussions of women at table
in antiquity. Like the earlier article, the focus is historical, but it provides
valuable data that might be processed using more formal models of cultural
analyses of meals.
7.0 Conclusions: Specific Issues and Specific Readings.
What, then, should a reader read and in which order? The answer lies in the
questions readers ask and orientation they bring to this topic. The issues that
galvanize readers are generally either historical studies of meals or
interpretation of them in the light of anthropological and social models. This
dichotomy probably reflects the past training of readers as well as their
intellectual aesthetics.
If readers' interests lie in matters historical or literary, then the chapter of
Karris is an excellent orientation to the topic in the Jesus materials. This
descriptive study should be supplemented with any or all of Smith's articles.
There is a certain repetition in them, but they comfortably feed readers with
materials from the Hellenistic world and make understandable certain
aspects of meals described in the Christian scriptures, especially their
symposiac structure.
137

This readers guide, however, was oriented from the beginning toward issues
of meaning and symbolism in regard to meals. The dominant orientation
here is the interpretation of meals as a form of language, a communication, a
code or a symbol. In this line of inquiry, the works of formal anthropologists
such as Feeley-Harnick and Douglas are highly important, even if difficult to
follow. Feeley-Harnik's book should be read; its clear exposition of social
questions to ask about meals has greatly influenced the literature of biblical
interpreters. It does not spell out in depth a model to use or rationale for its
observations, so readers cannot stop there.
The two brief studies by Bartchy and Moxnes are ideal for beginning
readers. They are deep and worth digesting, but brief in their exposition.
These accessible studies readers will come back to again and again for
orientation and insight.
The two studies by Neyrey, precisely because they synthesize various socialscience perspectives, are highly recommended for readers who want fulsome
and comprehensive interpretations of meals. They not only present in clear
form fruitful perspectives for interpreting the "language" of meals, they are
also detailed interpretations of biblical texts. Their value for readers lies in
the systematic and clear presentation of models for interpretation, which
attend to symbolic issues as well as economics and social relations. Thus they
both inform readers of the meaning of meals in Mark and Luke-Acts, and
guide them with user-friendly models to begin their own interpretation of
texts dealing with meals.

8.0 Works Consulted

Arbesmann, Rudolf
1949
"Fasting
and
Antiquity," Traditio 7:1-71

Prophecy

in

Pagan

and

Christian

Bahr, Gordon
1970 "The Seder of Passover and the Eucharistic Words," NovT 12: 181-202
138

Bartchy, Scott
1992 "Table Fellowship." Pp. 796-800 in Joel Green and Scot McKnight,
eds., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press

Broshi, Magen
1986 "The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period - Introductory Notes," The
Israel Museum Journal 5: 41-56

Brothwell, Don R.
1988 "Foodstuffs, Cooking, and Drugs," Civilization of the Ancient
Mediterranean. Greece and Rome. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
1.247-61

Burkert, Walter
1991 "Oriental Symposia: Contrasts and Parallels." Pp. 7-24 in William J.
Slater, ed., Dining in a Classical Context. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press

Corley, Kathleen
1989 "Were the Women around Jesus Really Prostitutes? Women in the
Context of Greco-Roman Meals," SBLASP 1989: 487-521

139

1993 Private Women, Public Meals: Social Conflict in the Synoptic

Tradition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers

Douglas, Mary
1966 Purity and Danger. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
1975 "Deciphering a Meal." Pp. 249-275 in Implicit Meanings. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul
1982a Natural Symbols. New York: Pantheon Books
1982b "Food as a System of Communication." Pp. 82-124 in In the Active
Voice. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Esler, Philip Francis,

1987 "Table Fellowship." Pp. 71-109 in Community and Gospel in LukeActs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Feeley-Harnik, Gillian
1981 The Lord's Table. Eucharist and Passover in Early Christianity.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press

Goody, Jack
1982 Cooking, Cuisine and Class. A Study in Comparative Sociology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

140

Hamel, Gildas
1990 "Daily Bread." Pp. 8-56 in Poverty and Charity in Roman Palestine.
The First Three Centuries. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press

Jeremias, Joachim
1968 The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 3rd edition. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press

Karris, Robert J.
1985 "The Theme of Food." Pp. 47-78 in his Luke: Artist and Theologian.
New York: Paulist Press

Kennedy, Charles A.
1987 "The Cult of the Dead in Corinth." Pp. 227-36 in John Marks and
Robert Good (eds.), Love and Death in the Ancient Near East. Guilford, CT:
Four Quarters Publishing Company

King, Philip
1988 "The Marzeah Amos Denounces -- Using Archaeology to Interpret a
Biblical Text," BAR 15,4: 34-44

Lowy, S.
1958 "The Motivation of Fasting in Talmudic Literature," JJS 9: 19-38
141

Malina, Bruce
1981 The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology.
Atlanta: John Knox Press
1986 "Testing the Models: The Case of Fasting." Pp. 185-204 in
his Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox Press

Malina, Bruce and Richard Rohrbaugh

1992 Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press

Milgrom, Jacob and Moshe Herr

1971 "Fasting and Fast Days," Encyclopaedia Judaica 6:1189-95

Moxnes, Halvor
1987 "Meals and the New Community in Luke," Svensk Exegetisk
rsbok 51: 158-67

Muddiman, John
1992 "Fast, Fasting," Anchor Bible Dictionary 2.773-76

142

Murray, Oswyn
1991 Sympotica. A Symposium on the Symposium. Oxford: Clarendon Press

Neusner, Jacob
1982 "Two Pictures of the Pharisees: Philosophical Circle or Eating
Club," Anglican Theological Review 64: 525-38

Neyrey, Jerome H.
1986a "Body Language in 1 Corinthians: the Use of Anthropological Models
for Understanding Paul and His Opponents." Pp. 129-170 in John H. Elliott
(ed.), Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament and Its Social
World. Semeia 35
1986b "The Idea of Purity in Mark." Pp. 91-128 in John H. Elliott
(ed.), Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament and Its Social
World. Semeia 35
1988a "Symbolism in Mark 7," Forum 4/3: 63-92
1988b "Unclean, Common, Polluted and Taboo," Forum 4/4: 72-82
1991 "Ceremonies in Luke-Acts: The Case of Meals and Table Fellowship."
Pp. 361-87 in his The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation.
Peabody, MA: Hendrikson Publishers

Pervo, Richard I.
1985 "Wisdom and Power: Petronius' Satyricon and the Social World of
Early Christianity," Anglican Theological Review 67: 307-328

143

Pilch, John
1993 "The Necessities of Life: Drinking and Eating," BibT 31: 231-37

Pope, Marvin
1981 "The Cult of the Dead at Ugarit." Pp. 159-79 in Gordon D. Young,
ed., Ugarit in Retrospect. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns

Slater, William J.
1990 Dining in a Classical Context. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press

Smith, Dennis
1980 Social Obligation in the Context of Communal Meals. Unpublished
Th.D. thesis: Harvard University
1981 "Meals and Morality in Paul and His World," SBLASP 1981:319-39
1987 "Table Fellowship as a Literary Motif in the Gospel of
Luke," JBL 106: 613-38
1989 "The Historical Jesus at Table," SBLASP 1989: 466-86

Soler, Jean
1979 "The Dietary Prohibitions of the Hebrews," New York Review of
Books June 14: 24-30. Reprinted pp. 126-38 in Robert Forster and Orest
Ranum (eds.), Food and Drink in History. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1979
144

Steele, E. Springs
1984 "Luke 11:37-54 -- A Modified Hellenistic Symposium?" JBL 103: 37994

Stein, S.
1957 "The Influence of Symposia Literature on the Literary Form of the
Pesah Haggadah," JJS 8: 13-44

Theissen, Gerd
1982 "Social Integration and Sacramental Activity: An Analysis of 1 Cor
11:17-34." Pp. 145-74 in The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Essays
on Corinth. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Wimmer, Joseph
1980 The Meaning and Motivation of Fasting According to the Synoptic
Gospels. Rome: Pontifical Gregorian University.

Questions, Chreiai, and Honor Challenges:

The Interface of Rhetoric and Culture in Mark's Gospel
Jerome

H.

Neyrey,

University of Notre Dame

145

S.J.

Mark's gospel constantly presents people asking Jesus questions and him answering them
with a counter-question. Robbins' treatment of "questioning" material in the Gospel of
Mark compared the teacher-student relationship in Hellenistic literature to the way Jesus
deals with his disciples, which on balance illustrates an edifying and productive educational
exercise.(1) Yet, many chreiai in Mark record enemies, not students, asking Jesus questions
in episodes hardly irenic and never exchanges of information. On most public occasions
Jesus is engaged in a controversy(2) or challenge/riposte exchange.(3)These Markan chreiai
embody the aggressive nature of the controversy/challenge in the rhetorical form of a
question, which functions as a weapon wielded against Jesus to test and, if possible, defeat
him. Questions, then, serve as weapons with lethal intent, for they do not seek information
from Jesus but attempt to embarrass him. Jesus, moreover, generally defends himself by
answering a question with a question, thus making his own aggressive thrust at his
opponent.
A full investigation of the phenomenon of questions in Mark entails three related items.
First, we need data on "questions" in antiquity: who asked questions of whom, why and in
what context? Second, we examine the chreia for two reasons: (1) many chreiai begin with
a question asked of a sage and (2) the chreia is undoubtedly the dominant form in which
Mark reports the controversies of Jesus. Scholarship indicates that chreiai often served to
celebrate the wisdom or cleverness of a sage(4) and thus honor him for this prowess. Third,
this rhetorical material embodies the pivotal cultural values of antiquity, namely, honor and
shame. We argue, then, that the chreia describes the typical "challenge/riposte" exchange
which is a common form of social intercourse among ancient Mediterraneans. Hence, an indepth appreciation of Jesus' controversies requires analysis of all three aspects for a truly
thorough study of Mark's presentation of Jesus as an honorable person. Jesus is at least as
good as the best of the ancient sages! He is certainly typical of sages in the Mediterranean
world! He warrants our highest praise and honor.
I. Questions in Ancient Literature.
"Questions" are more than statements in an interrogatory form, for they provide points for
dispute, quarrel, discussion and the like.(5) While a "question" may be a sentence in an
interrogative form, it frequently functions as a topic for debate, a controversial point, a
difficulty, a quarrel and a puzzle. It is only occasionally a disinterested quest for
information.(6)
To appreciate how the ancients understood "questions" we should examine the social
forums in which questions might be asked, such as forensic rhetoric, philosophy, education
and entertainment.
146

A. Questions in Forensic Rhetoric

Quintilian describes the various ways in which both questions and answers can be stated to
achieve special rhetorical effect. Concerning questions he notes: "What is more common
than to ask and enquire? For both terms are used indifferently, although the one seems to
imply a desire for knowledge, and the other a desire to prove something" (Inst. Orat. 9.2.6)
(7)
. This native informant distinguishes seemingly neutral questions seeking information
from aggressive ones, that is, those which "desire to prove something" either in attack or
defense of something. He then itemizes different types of questions and their rhetorical
aims (9.2.6-11). There are "simple questions" such as: "Who are you and from whence do
you come?" Yet questions are asked "not to get information, but to emphasize our point."
From Cicero he draws the following example: "What was that sword of yours doing,
Tubero, that was drawn on the field of Pharsalus?" (Cicero, Pro Lig. 3.9). Some
questions put an audience on the spot: "We may also ask what cannot be denied, as 'Was
Gaius Fidiculanius Falcula, I ask you, brought to justice?'"; some are calculated to stump an
opponent: "We may put a question to which it is difficult to reply, as in the common forms,
'How was it possible?' 'How can that be?'" Our purpose might simply be "to throw
odium on the person to whom it is addressed" or "to embarrass our opponent and to deprive
him of the power of feigning ignorance of our meaning" or to provoke "indignation, as in
the line: 'Are any left that still adore Juno's divinity?'" Finally, questions may shame people
into action: "At times they may express a sharp command, as in: "Will they not rush to arms
and follow forth from all the city?" Therefore, Quintilian illustrates the rhetorical use of
questions as aggressive or combative tools, which either support our attack, prevent the
person questioned from denying accusations, cause difficulty in replying, throw odium,
embarrass, and shame someone. Questions, then, often function as weapons.
Answers, like questions, are more than neutral exchanges of information and are likewise
crafted for special rhetorical effect (Inst. Orat. 9.2.12-16). Either because it makes a better
defense or increases the the power of an attack, "One question is asked and another is
answered." For example, "a witness for the prosecution was asked whether he had been
cudgeled by the plaintiff, and replied, 'And what is more, I had done him no harm.'" Or the
purpose may be "to elude a charge, a very common form of a reply. The advocate says, 'I
ask if you killed the man?' The accused replies, 'He was a robber.'" Another kind of answer
is "the dissimulatory reply, which is employed solely with the purpose of raising a laugh."
Answers, like questions, do not convey information neutrally, but continue the game of
attack and defense. Thus, questions and answers should be examined in terms of their
rhetorical function, which only occasionally has to do with a simple transfer of information.
B. Questions in Philosophical Discourse
Socrates asks two types of questions, not distinguishable in terms of their rhetorical form
but only by context.(8) Playing the role of midwife, Socrates asks questions to give birth to
the truth already existing in his dialogue partner; these are not aggressive, challenging
questions. Yet Socrates questions Sophists to expose their fallacies and shame them; these
questions are highly aggressive as one notes in the following remark:

147

If you really wish, Socrates, to know what the just is, neither merely ask questions nor
criticize for the sake of gaining honor ( ) since your acumen has perceived that it is
easier to ask questions than to answer them--but do you yourself answer and tell what you
say the just is (Rep. 1.336C).
Philosophers, then, can ask questions to score points by ridiculing the answers given.
Similarly, Apollonius asks a series of questions to bring his pupil Damis to the realization
that he has little or false understanding.(9) He explains to his disciple that "my question
which I asked you to begin with was a fair one, although you thought that I asked it in order
to make fun of you" (2.5). Whether or not such was the intent, it was experienced by the
one questioned as ridicule.(10) In many extant writings of philosophers and
serious thinkers in antiquity, the topic for discussion appears in the form
of a question.(12) This may be simply the title of the discourse or the
actual opening lines of the treatise which begin with a formal
interrogative asked the sage. Inasmuch as these topics are hotly
debated, philosophical questions have a combative or aggressive quality.
Moreover, they seem to function rhetorically as the occasion to honor
the sage's wise words and thus burnish his reputation.
The diatribe seems to be a refined form of philosophical education. (13) Stowers' treatment of
this yielded one useful conclusion which pertains to the dialogical shape of the diatribe.
The speaker initially engages his audience by means of questions, such as , ', , , or non
vides enim. Subsequently an interlocutor raises objections and false conclusions to the
material proposed, which are expressed as questions introduced by , , , , or quid ergo. These
questions are rarely neutral requests for information, as Stowers makes very clear: "The
diatribe is not the technical instruction in logic, physics, etc., but discourse. . .where the
teacher employed the 'Socratic' method of censure and protreptic. The goal of this part of
the instruction was not simply to impart knowledge, but to transform the students, to point
out error and to cure it."(14) Thus the tone of questions in a diatribe is combative, even
downright hostile; pointing out another's contradictions will most likely be taken as an
offense.
C. The Literary Genre: "Questions and Answers"
Sze-har Wan recently outlined the history in antiquity of the genre "Question and Answer"
( ).(15) He credits Aristotle with the first "zetematic work," which has survived as
fragments in Porphyry's ; most of those fragments contain a question introduced by . He
notes the remark of Prophyry that "in the Alexandrian Museum it was the custom for
questions to be posed and developed solutions written down." (16) There is considerable
debate, however, about the source and meaning of the "questions": were they objections or
criticisms raised about a document or aspects of a text? In many instances, they seem to be
challenges frequently raised about an author or document or topic which issued in
apologetic responses.
D. Questions in Education

148

"Education" is a catchall term for situations where the formal purpose of question and
answer is the direct transfer of information. Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras contains a
sample of questioning and answering which communicates the chief ideas of the sage on
three topics: (1) what a thing is, (2) what is the best in a category, and (3) what should be
done or avoided.
Those, then, on what a thing is, are as follows: for example, what are the islands of the
blessed? Sun and moon. . . Those on what is best, are, for example: what is the most just
thing? To sacrifice. . .What is the wisest of things among us? Medicine. What is the
loveliest? Harmony.(17)
But while this format appears to be a simple exchange of information, we remember that it
is sectarian information, which surely has in mind other philosophies which are herein
criticized. Hence, there are right and wrong answers, thus winners and losers. The
questions, then, imply a contest, a game, or a combat.
E. Questions and Entertainment
Participants at symposia raised for discussion questions which served as the evening's
entertainment (i.e., Plutarch's Table Talk and Athenaeus' Deipnosophistai). But even
entertainment may entail playing a competitive game of sparring with the weapon of one's
wits.(18) Suetonius records how the emperor Tiberius delighted in trying to stump his
banquet guests with hard questions about mythology: "He used totest even the grammarians
. . . by questions like this: 'Who was Hecuba's mother?' 'What was the name of Achilles
among the maidens?'" (Tiberias 70.3). Tiberius asked these questions as part of a game, "to
test even the grammarians," which reminds us that such questions, while "entertaining,"
were also very competitive. Finally, Plutarch describes a most deadly question contest
between Alexander and the Gymnosophists. Because they were "reputed to be clever and
concise in answering questions," Alexander put difficult questions to them, with the proviso
that "he would put to death him who first made an incorrect answer" - a pleasant evening
was had by all!(19)
In one of the topics or "questions" discussed after a banquet, Plutarch relates a conversation
on the very topic of "questions" (Table Talk 2.1 629E-631C). Because this discussion
theorizes about the social propriety of asking questions, we examine it more closely.
Plutarch concludes: "To sum up: those who wish to give happiness rather than distress put
questions of such sort that the answers are attended not by blame from the audience but by
praise, not by hatred and anger but friendliness and good will" (2.1 631B-C). Obviously,
questions can be very aggressive and agonistic. The conclusion explains the observation
about a certain Gobryas who admired the Persians precisely because "They asked each
other such questions as it is more agreeable to be asked than not and joked each other on
matters about which it was more agreeable to be teased than not" (629E). Thus, an
important distinction is made: questions can be both agreeable or disagreeable and friendly
or hostile.
Plutarch's report elaborates on agreeable questions,(20) but a mirror reading of what makes a
question agreeable provides clues to disagreeable questions as well. If agreeable questions
149

are those asked (1) on topics about which the answerer enjoys expertise or unique
knowledge and (2) which touch on his successes, conversely, disagreeable questions would
be those (1) about which the answerer has little or no knowledge and (2) which expose his
misfortunes or failures. Thus it is agreeable for an "expert" to be asked about esoteric
matters such as "astronomy or dialectics." Plutarch concludes, "People are pleased with
those who ask them questions on subjects which, because they themselves have knowledge
of them, they are unwilling to go unknown and lie hidden" (2.1 630B).(21)
II. Questions and the Chreia
The chreia, one of the ten fundamental genres taught budding writers and orators in the
second level of education,(22) is defined as "a concise reminiscence aptly attributed to some
character."(23) Concerning the chreia(24) we have myriads of examples as well as formal
rhetorical theory from the rhetorical handbooks known as the progymnasmata.(25) Aelius
Theon(26) classified the chreiai as (1) sayings chreiai (), (2) action chreiai (), and (3) mixed
chreiai, a combination of saying and action (). He distinguished two kinds of sayings
chreia: one recording a simple statement of the sage (: "So-and-so said....") and the other
noting his response to a question or provocation (: "When asked about X, so-and-so
responded. . ."). The responsive chreia, moreover, could be either (1) a question requiring a
simple yes or no answer ( ' ); (2) a question demanding a longer answer ( ); or (3) a
question seeking some explanation ( ' )(27). In this study we focus on the responsive chreia,
with attention to the question asked which prompts the sage to answer, often answering a
question with a question.(28)
Are the questions asked the sage neutral or hostile? Is the answer testy and defensive? In
their summary remarks on the topic, Hock and O'Neill point out an antagonistic context for
many chreiai: ". . .chreiai depict philosophers in typical situations, such as chiding students,
attacking vices, responding to critics, debating with one another." (29) "Typical situations,"
they indicate, consist of conflict and push and shove: "chiding," "attacking," "responding to
critics," "debating" and the like.(30) The collection of chreiai by Hock and O'Neil amply
illustrate the aggressive manner in which the sage is provoked to speak; for
example: "Anacharsis, when reproached () by someone because he was a
Scythian, said, "I am by birth, but not in manner of living" (31); and "Diogenes,
when someone rebuked () him for his poverty, said: "You poor devil, I have seen no one
playing the tyrant on account of his poverty, but all do on account of their wealth." (32) Our
previous survey of the various forums in which questions were asked suggests that we
should presume an agonistic context.(33) Questions, even among philosophers, were more
likely attempts to prove something or score points, rather than neutral requests for
information.(34)
III. Questions and Honor Challenges.
Remembering that questions frequently have a polemical or combative quality, we turn now
from rhetoric to culture to study how questions function as honor challenges. Honor is the
abstract, general term which both natives and anthropologists use for a person's worth,
value, respect, reputation and fame.(37) Honor refers to two social actions: one's claim to
150

pride and the acknowledgment of that claim;(38) the claim, of course, may be rejected
outright or challenged. Regarding the sources of honor, a person may be ascribed it by
another or achieve it on his/her own merits. Ascribed honor refers to inherited or bestowed
worth: birth into a respectable family, commission as procurator, or studying under a
renown teacher. Achieved honor is earned the old fashioned way, by effort and merit,
namely, prowess in military, athletic, and artistic fields, benefactions, and by the common
practice of challenging another and taking his worth and value as one's own. Yet honor
describes a social dynamic whereby people compete for prestige and respect, and it is this
to which we must attend.(39)
A. The Agonistic Nature of Society in Antiquity
Students of Greco-Roman literature increasingly recognize the agonistic nature of social
life in antiquity.(40) Take for example Plato's description in his Laws of the world in an
intense and constant state of warfare, city against city, village against village and man
against man: [Clinias speaking] "He meant, I believe, to reprove the folly of mankind, who
refuse to understand that they are all engaged in a continuous lifelong warfare against all
cities whatsoever. . .Humanity is in a condition of public war of every man against every
man, and private war of each man with himself (Laws 1.625E-626E).(43)
In such an agonistic and competitive environment, the pursuit of honor, that is , takes on
special importance. can be rendered positively as "love (and pursuit) of honor" (44) or
negatively as "ambition," as Augustine does in The City of God.(45) Xenophon represents
the positive, if elitist, view: "The pursuit of honor () is not a natural component of the
irrational animals nor of all human beings; those who have a natural desire for praise and
honor are at the greatest distance from cattle--they are considered to be men, no longer
mere human beings" (Hiero 7.3). But with most people passionately pursuing honor, virtue
becomes vice and a source of endless enmity with winners and losers.
B. The Rationale for Conflict: Perceptions of Limited Good
Why win/lose? Why not win/win? In his analysis of peasant societies, George Foster
describes how peasants perceive all things in the cosmos, including honor, as limited in
amount and thus scarce:
By "Image of Limited Good" I mean that broad areas of peasant behavior are patterned in
such fashion as to suggest that peasants view their social, economic, and natural universes-their total environment--as one in which all of the desired things in life such as land,
wealth, health, friendship and love, manliness and honor, respect and status, power and
influence, security and safety, exist in finite quantity andare always in short supply, as far
as the peasant is concerned. . .in addition there is no way directly within peasant power to
increase the available quantities.(46)
If something valuable exists in limited amounts, he continues, "It follows that an individual
or family can improve a position only at the expense of others."(47) Hence, if someone
acquires honor by prowess or cleverness, then others will perceive themselves as losing.
Thus love of honor () is a risky business. Many will interpret claims to honor as
151

encroachments on their own worth and either refuse to acknowledge them or challenge
them. If the claims pertain to matters of wisdom, the challenger might express this by
asking hard questions! The perception of limited good, Foster has shown, leads directly to
the aggressive phenomenon of envy.(48)
How ancient is this perception of limited good? In addition to the Baptist's surprising
remark that it is acceptable for Jesus to increase at John's own expense (3:30), (49) we find
the concept expressed widely. For example: "People do not find it pleasant to give
honor () to someone else, for they suppose that they themselves are being deprived of
something."(50) Plutarch described a person hearing an outstanding speaker
and expressing envy at his success: "As though commendation were
money, he feels that he is robbing himself of every bit that he bestows
on another" (Plutarch, On Listening to Lectures 44B; seeOld Men in
Public Affairs 787D). Philo explains the error of polytheism in terms of
limited good: the more honor and regard given to deified mortals, the
less there is for the true Deity (Ebr. 110; see Josephus, Ant. 4.32). Hence,
Greco-Roman literature provides ample evidence that it viewed its social relations as an
agonistic and competitive world in which success in gaining honor, a paramount value,
generally came at the expense of others. Thus envy flourished and few claims were likely to
go unchallenged.
C. Challenge and Riposte: Choreographing Honor Claims
Bruce Malina studied the extensive field reports of those who reported on the endless game
of challenge and riposte in twentieth-century Mediterranean cultures.(51) He suitably
customized the anthropological generalizations with sensitivity for interpretation of
documents from the ancient world and describes the typical steps in the choreography of
honor challenges: (1) claim to honor, (2) challenge to that claim, (3) riposte to the
challenge, and (4) public verdict by onlookers. Shortly we will consider two issues: (1) how
questions serve as challenges and answers function as ripostes and (2) how the responsive
chreia is formally structured as a challenge and riposte exchange.
D. The Responsive Chreia and the Typical Honor Challenge
Responsive chreiai were introduced in various ways indicative of the aggressive or
competitive nature of the questions asked. Hock and O'Neil observed that responsive
chreiai frequently are provoked by "praise, reproach or rebuke,"(52) which provocation
should be culturally interpreted as a challenge to the honor, reputation and worth of the
sage. The response of the sage to the provocative challenge should likewise be culturally
interpreted as a riposte to the challenge. "Challenge and riposte" are but the scientific or
etic labels for what the natives understand in terms of a provocation to which a "response"
is made. On this point, the etic description adequately fits the emic data; scientific notions
of honor challenge describe in more general terms what is encoded in the responsive chreia.
Hence, chreiai describe provocations or challenges of some sort. Moreover, when we
compare the formal elements of a typical responsive chreia with the choreography of an

152

honor challenge, we can observe a striking homology. After all, the very classification of
a chreia as "responsive" means that it responds to something, a provocation or challenge.
Table 1
Formal Elements of a Responsive Chreia Compared with Those of a Challenge to Honor
_________________________________________________________________________
____
Responsive Chreia Challenge to Honor Followed by Response
Presumption of wit or wisdom by a famous Claim of prowess by someone
person (the person's reputation)
Provocation, in a question, reproach or Challenge, verbal or physical
rebuke
Response, an answer to a question or a retort Riposte, verbal or physical
to a rebuke
Verdict: honor, recorded by those Verdict: honor or shame, awarded
immortalizing the event proportionately by onlookers
_________________________________________________________________________
_____
Thus we have the requisite interpretative tools to assess the controversies of Jesus in the
Gospel of Mark: (1) data on "questions" as a challenging weapon, (2) knowledge of the
responsive chreia, which embodies both provocative questions and answers, and (3) the
cultural framework of honor challenges in world of limited good, which is the cultural
background of most responsive chreiai.
IV. Questions in Responsive Chreiai in Mark: Challenge and Riposte
My survey of the Gospel of Mark surfaces at least the following examples of responsive
chreiai in Mark: 2:1-12, 15-17, 18-22, 23-28; 3:1-6, 22-30, 31-35; 4:35-41; 6:1-6; 7:1-13;
8:11-13; 9:9-13; 10:2-9, 13-16, 17-22, 35-41; 11:27-33; 12:13-17, 18-27, 28-34, 35-37. We
label these as "responsive" chreiai because they correspond closely to the rhetorical
definition of this type as found in Aelius Theon and other authors of progymnasmata.
(53)
Dibelius noted that the form of a chreia might be somewhat fluid, but always contained a
"situation" which evoked or provoked a saying.(54) Most of the chreiai listed above have a
153

brief setting, followed by some word or action which requires Jesus to respond. In one case,
enemies "watched him, to see whether he would heal on the sabbath" (3:2), which action
provokes a response from Jesus; in another instance, a storm causes the disciples to rebuke
Jesus with a question (4:37-38). But the general pattern of the Markan chreiai begin with a
provocation which requires a response by Jesus. Most of these chreiai portray enemies and
critics of Jesus issuing the provocation, the tone of which appears quite hostile. Yet Mark
also contains exchanges between teacher and disciple, some of which depict the disciples
asking questions requesting information (4:10-13; 10:23-31) or problems presented to Jesus
for a solution (7:14-22; 9:38-41) or Jesus sternly questioning disciples for their failure to
understand (8:14-21).(55) We focus, however, on the situations where critics or enemies
provoke Jesus, generally by a censorious remark or action, to which he cleverly responds.
In particular, we examine the role of questions, both in the provocation and the response.
A. Responsive Chreiai Provoked by Challenging Questions
From our list we can identify twenty responsive chreiai which begin with a
provocation(56) in the form of a question. Fourteen of them start with someone asking Jesus
a question, while a few begin with Jesus asking questions of others. For example:

2:16 "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

2:18 "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast,
but your disciples do not fast?"
7:5 "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders,
but eat with hands defiled?"
10:2 "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
11:28 "By what authority are you doing these things, or who gave you this authority
to do them?"(57)

Other episodes begin with Jesus asking questions; for example:

3:4 "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?"
154

12:35 "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?"

What we have learned about the use of questions leads us to see that the questions asked of
Jesus and by him are never dispassionate requests for information, (58) but challenges which
put him, his disciples or his opponents on the spot. Mark notes this when on occasion he
narrates that Jesus' questioners seek to "argue" with him () and to "test" him () (8:11), or
when Pharisee and Herodians come "to entrap" () Jesus in his speech (12:13). (59) By the
same token, the questions which Jesus asks in 3:4; 11:17 and 12:35 should likewise be
assessed as aggressive weapons.
From a literary point of view, Mark quickly teaches his audience a list of Jesus' enemies.
Those who ask Jesus questions all turn out to be his adversaries who constantly criticize
him, plot his harm, test him, seek to entrap him, and the like. Even if Mark does not label
their question in some way as hostile and challenging, the general character of the narrative
indicates that questions are agonistic weapons, simply because they come from Jesus'
enemies.
B. Responsive Chreiai Which Answer a Question with a Counter-Question
The rules for the chreia in the progymnasmata indicate that a "response" or answer is
necessary to a challenging question. After all, the function of a "responsive" chreia lies in
its showcasing the wisdom and cleverness of a sage by his successful reply. The sage must
say something clever and witty or lose his reputation because the provocation challenges
his role and reputation. While many chreiai report some clever statement by the sage, Mark
overwhelmingly presents Jesus responding by answering a question with a counterquestion.(60) It is striking that of the fourteen responsive chreiai which begin with a question
asked of Jesus, twelve of them cast his answer in terms of a counter-question by Jesus.
Consider, for example, these four samples:
2:19 "Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them?"
2:23-26 "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry...?"
11:29-30 "I will ask you a question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority
I do these things. Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men? Answer me."
12:15-16 "Why do you put me to the test?...Whose likeness and inscription is this?"(61)

If questions serve an aggressive function, then Jesus expertly plays the game and wields his
weapons as well as or better than his opponents. By the code of ancient rhetoric concerning
155

the grounds for praise, Jesus displays extraordinary prowess, and thus merits the loyalty
and respect of his disciples.
C. Rhetoric: Responsive Chreiai vis--vis and Culture: Challenge-Riposte
Yet we are not finished, for we should examine the responsive chreiai in Mark in the light
of what cultural anthropology describes as the ubiquitous game of push and shove or
challenge and riposte. Earlier, we suggested a homology between the key elements of the
responsive chreia and challenge-riposte exchange, which we more formally examine now.
In terms of its native rhetorical form, the responsive chreia contains a provocation which
occasions a response. The provocation in Mark nearly always consists of a critical question
asked of Jesus; and the response likewise comes in the form of a counter-question. Insofar
as we have been successful in arguing the aggressive or hostile nature of questions, the
responsive chreia in Mark portrays a contest or controversy. In terms of cultural
anthropology, these pivotal elements of provocation and response fully reflect the common
social interchange labeled by the social scientists as challenge and riposte. Why bring in the
cultural material? What purpose does it serve? Knowledge of challenge and riposte
exchanges makes salient what often is unclear, namely, the hostile and aggressive character
of most responsive chreia in Mark.
Table 2
Similarity of Rhetorical Responsive Chreia and Cultural Challenge-Riposte in Mark
_________________________________________________________________________
____
Chreia: Provocation Chreia: Response Public Verdict
Culture: Honor Challenge Culture: Riposte
_________________________________________________________________________
____
Mark 2:1-12 2:6-7 2:8-11 2:12
Mark 2:15-17 2:16b 2:17 ----Mark 2:18-22 2:19 2:19-22 ----Mark 2:23-28 2:24 2:25-28 ----Mark 3:1-6 3:2 3:4-6 3:6
Mark 3:22-30 3:22 3:23-30 ------

156

Mark 4:35-41 4:38 4:39-40 4:41

Mark 6:1-6 6:2-3 6:4-6 ----Mark 7:1-13 7:5 7:6-13 -----Mark 8:11-13 8:11 8:12-13 ----Mark 9:9-13 9:10-11 9:12-13 ----Mark 10:2-9 10:2 10:3-9 ----Mark 10:13-16 10:13 10:14-16 ----Mark 10:17-23 10:17 10:18-19 ----Mark 10:35-41 10:35, 37 10:36, 38 10:41
Mark 11:27-33 11:28 11:29 ----Mark 12:13-17 12:13-15a 12:15b-17a 12:17b
Mark 12:18-27 12:18-23 12:24-27 12:28
Mark 12:28-34 12:28 12:29-31 12:32
_________________________________________________________________________
__
While it is true that not all responsive chreiai are hostile, the ones listed here all contain a
provocation which is either a criticism of Jesus' behavior, a question to trap him in his
speech or a hostile scrutiny of his words and actions. Rhetorical analysis according to an
emic description of the responsive chreia labels these as "provocations" which occasion or
demand a response from a sage; cultural analysis according to etic description of
competitive social exchange labels them as challenges which require a riposte.
Recalling Pitt-River's definition of honor as a claim to worth which is acknowledged,(62) we
quickly see that Mark's narrative consists of a constant testing of and refusal to
acknowledge Jesus' claim to be a reforming prophet or an authorized son of God. In the
initial appearance of Jesus in public, he entered the synagogue on the sabbath and taught.
Here, at least, Mark notes that the crowds were "astonished at his teaching, for he taught
them as one who had authority" (1:21). Teaching presumes a claim to a certain role and
social standing, for not all people have voice in Mark's world. (63) In Mark 1:21-28, then, the
claim to honor is embedded in the public activity of teaching, which in this case is
acknowledged, first in v 22 and at the conclusion of the pericope: "And they were amazed,
so that they questioned among themselves, saying, "What is this? A new teaching! With
157

authority he commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him" (1:27). In this case,
acknowledgment is equivalent to a public verdict of honor to Jesus with accompanying
increase in reputation and respect: "And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all
the surrounding region of Galilee" (1:28). Inasmuch as he is said to perform better than the
Scribes, they are publicly judged as losing respect and reputation.
Yet after that, many refuse to acknowledge his role and status. While not wishing to reduce
the entire conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, Scribes etc. to issues of envy,
nevertheless, in a world where all goods are thought to exist in limited supply and where
there is intense competition for honor, we expect challenges to claims. Ideally, since it is
God who ascribes to Jesus his role and status (1:11), there ought not to be challenges to
God's sovereignty. Certain characters in the narrative audience of Mark, however, do not
evaluate Jesus' honor as ascribed by God (3:22) and others see it simply as personal
achievement (6:2-3); and since they would typically perceive themselves as losing honor
and respect as Jesus gains it,(64) they challenge his claims. This, we maintain, is what
happens in all of the responsive chreiai that we are examining; that is why the critical and
hostile questions asked of Jesus are challenges to his identity and authority, that is, to his
worth or honor. Those who stand to lose face and respect envy Jesus in turn (see Mark
15:10) and express that envy in terms of challenges. But Mark records that Jesus was
always highly successful in answering his critics, that is, in delivering an appropriate
riposte to the challenges. And, as we saw, his favorite rhetorical weapon is the same one
used on him, namely, the question.
Of considerable importance to this study is the assertion that the conflictual social relations
described in the Markan chreiai take place in public, which is the arena where grants of
honor or shame are awarded the participants. In our table above, the public verdict appears
in the narrative only occasionally.(65) But we are quick to note that the ancient world
presumed that males were in "public" all the time, except when in the privacy of their
household. The evangelist often tells us that Jesus is "in public," either in the synagogue, on
the streets, traveling to another town, teaching in the temple, etc. Thus some audience
always observes both challenge and riposte. Even when Jesus appears to be "at home," we
must be careful to read these passages in the light of the gender division of ancient society;
for, when unrelated males are gathered together even "at home," this is still "public" in the
sense that it is exclusively male territory and thus a public spectacle. Hence, even when
Jesus was "at home" (2:1), his residence was filled with unrelated males, both friends and
enemies. Hence, the narrative does not always spell out that a public observes provocation
and response/challenge and riposte, but an audience is there and does its job of observing
the challenge and riposte and awarding victory and honor to one party and defeat and
shame to the other. Moreover, the very gospel presumes another public, namely, Mark's
readers, who serve as an audience who also credits Jesus with honor and respect.
Thus students of the controversy stories in Mark should examine them both in terms of
their emic rhetorical form (responsive chreiai) and their cultural dynamics (honor
challenges and ripostes). If the template of a responsive chreia highlights the provocation
and response of a sage, the challenge-riposte model emphasizes the aggressiveness and
hostility of the provocation and the requirement of an honorable riposte. And our
appreciation of how questions are weapons which are wielded either as aggressive
158

challenges or responsive ripostes underscores the combative character of the responsive

chreia in Mark. At stake in each confrontation is the reputation and fame of Jesus as wise
sage and prophet.
D. Telling Winners and Losers
In two ways Mark tells us who won or lost in the game of challenge and riposte: either
silence or hostile reaction. According to the rules of the game, when a questioner asks a
question which stumps or silences the person questioned, this constitutes a victory.
Epictetus offers a classic illustration of this:
When someone in his audience said, Convince me that logic is
necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?
--Yes.--Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument? --And when the
questioned had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him, How, then, will you
know if I impose upon you? --As the man had no answer to give,
Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this
instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know
whether it is necessary or not? (2.25).
The initial request provokes or challenges Epictetus; although not itself
in the form of a question, it calls into question the teacher's status.
Epictetus answers this with a question, in fact, a series of questions, all
of which have the purpose of exposing the ignorance of the
questioner/petitioner and so reducing him to silence: "the man had no
answer to give." Thus narrative audiences know who won the contest by
observing who is "reduced to silence." Failure to answer a question
indicates loss of ability and so the end of the game, which means loss of
honor. Having the last word was important, then as now.(66)
Mark narrates how on one occasion Jesus asked a question, to which those questioned
could not or would not reply: "'Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do harm?'
But they were silent"(3:4) -- a silence clearly signaling victory for Jesus. On another
occasion, Jesus asks a counter-question which his audience refuses to answer: "'Was the
baptism of John from heaven or from man?' . . . They answered, 'We do not know'" (11:30,
33). The audience knows that Jesus' question has put the chief priests and the scribes in a
no-win situation; hence their "silence" or refusal to answer counts as defeat: "Neither will I
tell you by what authority I do these things" (11:33b). Finally Mark narrates how, after
unsuccessfully attempting to defeat Jesus in the stylized game of questions (12:13-34),
(67)
his questioners were silent and silenced: "And after that no one dared to ask him any
questions" (12:34).
In a second mode, Mark indicates that those who were bested in the question/counterquestion exchange express their defeat by plotting vengeance to avenge their humiliation.
Those silenced by Jesus in 3:4 subsequently plot his destruction (3:6), which in the culture
should be interpreted as their attempt at revenge for their loss. Similarly those reduced to
159

silence by Jesus' question concerning the temple subsequently plot revenge: "'Is it not
written, My house shall be a house of prayer for all the nations' (11:17) . . .they sought a
way to destroy him" (11:18).
Similarly, Mark reports Jesus' victory in various ways. Luke expresses the ideal public
verdict of a challenge-riposte exchange with the notice: "As he said this, all his adversaries
were put to shame; and all the people rejoiced at all the glorious things that were done by
him" (13:17). Yet Mark communicates this same sense of victory in his account of the
reactions of the public observers of the challenge-riposte exchanges: (1) amazement at his
words (: 2:12); (2) glorification of God for his actions (: 2:12); (3) awe at his performance (
: 4:41); (4) amazement at his response (: 12:17); and (5) crowds gladly hearing him
(12:37). On one occasion, the scribe who had asked Jesus a hard question praises his
answer: "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that God is one. . ." (12:32). Yet the
narrative, while providing these occasional reports of Jesus' success and his enemies' loss,
continually, although implicitly, acknowledges Jesus' success and so his worthiness of
honor and prestige.
V. Conclusions and Further Questions
A. What Do We Know If We Know This?
In terms of rhetorical background, our survey of "questions" indicates that how they
function more often than not as competitive, even hostile weapons intended to inflict major
damage. Questions score points, draw blood, and shame opponents. The same interpretation
applies equally to the phenomenon of answering a question with a counter-question, which
also is an aggressive weapon. And by observing who is reduced to silence, we have
narrative clues about who triumphed in the question game and who lost. Moreover, we now
know more about both the form and function of the responsive chreia. By focussing on why
and how a chreia is labeled "responsive," and by bringing to bear the material on "question"
vis--vis the provocation of a responsive chreia, we have a better understanding of both the
shape and intent of the responsive chreia in Mark. We note in particular the importance of
appreciating that the occasion for a responsive chreia is a provocation, often a question
asked, an objection stated, or a reproach or insult given.
In terms of Mark's cultural world, the anthropology of honor and shame situates responsive
chreiai in their appropriate cultural context and further enriches our appreciation of the
rhetorical strategy of reporting chreiai, namely, to honor the clever sage by showcasing his
prowess in the culturally valued game of quick-wittedness. Furthermore, we have learned
more about the pursuit of honor in the ancient world as well as the agonistic nature of most
social intercourse. It is imperative that we appreciate how the ancients viewed all things in
terms of a limited good perspective and so played a zero-sum gain in terms of honor: if
someone gains, another must lose. Hence, all honor claims threaten others; and those who
are threatened challenge lest they be losers in the game of gaining respect and repute.
Moreover, the anthropology of honor and shame describe the typical choreography of
conflictual social relationships which are stylized in the rhetorical form of a responsive
chreia. This form (claim, challenge, riposte, and public verdict) provides the social and
cultural framework for responsive chreiai. We argue that what rhetoricians call responsive
160

chreiai are homologous with what anthropologists identify as challenge and riposte
exchanges. Finally, anthropological discussions of honor and shame represent the
reflections of scholars who have done years of exacting field work. This study of both the
"question" and the responsive chreia should rightly be considered as one more piece of field
work; we now have an important emic or native report about ancient cultural life.
In terms of Mark's rhetorical education, this survey of both the "question" and the
responsive chreia provide native evidence of what we call the "great code" of honor and
shame in the ancient Mediterranean world. Students able to write Greek at the level
represented by Mark typically learned this through progymnastic education, which taught
them to write chreiai. Moreover, even as they learned the rhetorical form of the chreia, they
likewise learned the code of honor which is embodied in it: how to attack, provoke, and
challenge, as well as how to respond and answer. Although I would maintain that the values
of honor and shame permeate the ancient world in areas of social life independent of
education, here at least we find a formal school, not simply for learning rhetorical genres,
but for refining one's sense of the dominant cultural values of honor and shame. Since
Greco-Roman rhetorical education was available from Britain to Babylon, we may safely
speak of a "Mediterranean" literary culture and value system which incorporated most of
what was left of "Hellenization" after Alexander. Rhetorical education itself embodied as
well as spread the culture of honor and shame.
Finally, when all of this material is brought to bear on Mark, we appreciate first of all how
the evangelist regularly employs the rhetorical form of the responsive chreia to showcase
the wisdom and cleverness of Jesus. The frequent use of the responsive chreia in Mark,
moreover, indicates that Jesus was forever under siege and always challenged. This means
that in the eyes of the evangelist, he lived a typical agonistic public life, both claiming and
defending his claims to special role and status, and being very successful at it. He is, as are
most honorable people in antiquity, a skilled combatant! He accepts challenges (i.e.,
questions) and parries them expertly by asking counter-questions in turn. No turning of the
cheek here! If questions are weapons, then Jesus deserves an Olympic medal for prowess in
asking questions which silence his opponents! The few instances where Jesus' questions
begin episodes indicate that the evangelist was not simply presenting him as a defensive
expert who fends off challenges, but in addition as someone who also initiates conflict. This
conflict, if read in the light of honor and shame, functions to shame his opponents and win
him further honor.
B. Further Questions
Thus far we have focussed on questions which occur in the genre known as the responsive
chreia. But Mark's gospel contains many other instances of questions asked.(68) It is beyond
the scope of this article to analyze each instance; but the materials presented here about the
aggressive nature of questions provide important interpretative background from the
cultural world of Mark and should be taken into account as we interpret each instance.
Proper assessment in light of the materials presented in this article should lead to a sharper
understanding of the rhetorical strategy of Mark, which has much to do with
acknowledging the honorable claims of Jesus.
161

NOTES
1. Vernon K. Robbins, Jesus the Teacher. A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of
Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992) 136-66.
2. On the controversy form, see Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (New
York: Harper and Row, 1968) 39-54; and Arland Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries: The
Form and Function of the Conflict Stories in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1979).
3. For the interpretation of Jesus' controversies in anthropological terms as
challenge/riposte exchanges, see Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, "Honor and
Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World," The Social World of
Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation (Jerome H. Neyrey, ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1991) 29-32 and 49-52; Richard L. Rohrbaugh, "Legitimating Sonship -- A Test of Honour.
A Social-Scientific Study of Luke 4:1-30," Modelling Early Christianity. Social-Scientific
Studies of the New Testament in Its Context (Philip F. Esler, ed.; London: Routledge, 1995)
183-97; and Jerome H. Neyrey, "The Trials (Forensic) and Tribulations (Honor Challenges)
of Jesus: John 7 in Social Science Perspective," BTB 26 (1996) 116-23.
4. Ronald Hock and Edward N. O'Neil (The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric. Volume I.
The Progymnasmata [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986] 49) talk about both a humorous and a
didactic function, all to the credit of the sage. See also Henry A. Fischel, "Studies in
Cynicism and the Ancient Near East: The Transformation of a Chria," Religions in
Antiquity: Essays in Memory of E. R. Goodenough (ed. Jacob Neusner; Leiden: Brill,
1968) 372-411. Yet not all chreiai function to give honor to the sage. Henry Fischel
describes a chreia which is meant to "ridicule the sage as absent-minded, impractical or
other--worldly, and demonstrates that he contradicts his own principles in word or deed"
("A Chreia on Absent-Mindedness," Rabbinic Literature and Greco-Roman
Philosophy [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973] 79). If not praise or honor, then blame or shame.
5. A semantic word field for "question" would include: 1. (point of dispute, question); 2.
(examination, quarrel, dispute); 3. (matter of doubt, question, puzzle); 4. (question for
discussion, difficulty, puzzle); 5. (that which is asked, question); 6. (questioning,
interrogation); 7. (that which is sought, question, inquiry); 8. (inquiry, question); 9. (main
question of an investigation).
6. We will not attempt to analyze or classify types of questions. On the topic of "rhetorical
questions," see Wilhelm Wuellner, "Paul as Pastor: The Function of Rhetorical Questions in
First Corinthians,L'Aptre Paul. Personalit, Style et Conception du Ministre (A. Vanhoye,
ed.; BETL 73; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986) 50-72 and Duane F. Watson, "1
Corinthians 10:23-11:1 in Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric: The Role of Rhetorical
Questions," JBL 108 (1989) 308-18.

162

7. All texts and translations of Greco-Roman literature are taken from the Loeb Classical
Library.
8. See Gerasimos Santas, "Socratic Questions and Assumptions," Socrates. Philosophy in
Plato's Early Dialogues (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979) 57-96; Michael C.
Stokes, Socratic Conversations (London: Athlone Press, 1986); Ian Kidd, "Socratic
Questions," Socratic Questions (Barry Gower and Michael Stokes, eds.; London:
Routledge, 1992) 82-92; Gregory Vlastos, "The Socratic Elenchus: Method Is All," Socratic
Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) 1-38.
9. Epictetus spoke about a process of interrogation (i.e., Socratic questioning) which he
called the "contest of 'question and answer.'" The phrase "question and answer" ( ) seems to
be a code word for Socratic questioning (1.7.3, 4, 26).
10. The practice of conducting philosophical discussion by means of question and answer
survives Plato and becomes a disputation genre found commonly in the works of Cicero
and Plutarch.(11)
11. For example, the interlocutors in Cicero's The Nature of the Gods ask aggressive
questions of one another. Cotta, who speaks in defense of Stoic doctrine, asks Velleius, the
Epicurean, a testy question: "But as for your master Epicurus. . .which of his utterances is, I
do not say worthy of philosophy, but compatible with ordinary common sense?" (1.22.61).
One cannot mistake the aggressive tone in another question put to Velleius: "What if your
assumption, that when we think of god the only form that presents itself to us is that of a
man, be entirely untrue? Will you continue to maintain your absurdities?" (1.29.81). On
occasion, a questioner asks a series of questions and answers them himself to show the
absurdity of the position being maintained (see (3.39.93). Scoring points seems more
important than finding the truth.
12. For example, topics in Epictetus' discourses are introduced by a formal interrogative,
such as , or . These questions and answers distinguish different schools of thought and so
have embedded in them a polemical edge to them. Epictetus' questions differ in content and
tone from Plutarch's Greek Questions and Roman Questions, which give evidence of more
neutral antiquarian or historical interests. Plutarch's Questions () are thought to depend in
form on Ps-Aristotle's Problems; see H. J. Rose, Roman Questions of Plutarch (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1924) 49. Other examples of this sort of "question" in Plutarch would
include Quaestiones Naturales ( ), Quaestiones Platonicae ( ) and Quaestionum
Convivalium Libri ( ).
13. Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans (SBLDS 57; Chico,
CA: Scholars Press, 1981); see also his article "The Diatribe," Greco-Roman Literature and
the New Testament (ed., David E. Aune; SBLSBS 21; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 71-83.
14. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans, 76. Epictetus amply illustrates
the way in which questions are used in diatribal censure and indictment; see 2.25.

163

15. Sze-kar Wan, "Philo's Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim: A Synoptic

Approach," SBLSP 1993: 24-33; see Heinrich Drrie and Hermann Drries,
"Eratopokriseis," RAC 6 (1966) 342-70. I am indebted to Gregory Sterling for allowing me
to consult his analysis of this genre, which is forthcoming as The Jewish Plato: Philo of
Alexandria, Greek-Speaking Judaism, and Christian Origins.
16. Schol. Hom. Ad Il. 9.682 cited by Wan, "Philo's Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesim,"
27.
17. Life of Pythagoras 82; see John Dillon and Jackson Hershbell, Iamblichus. On the
Pythagorean Way of Life (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 107.
18. Plutarch's Dinner of the Seven Wise Men recounts a "contest () of wisdom" between
the kings of Ethiopia and Egypt (152F).
19. Plutarch, Alex. 64.1-11; the same contest is reported in Clement of Alexandria, Strom.
6.4.
20. "Men are glad to be asked what they are able to answer easily, that is, questions about
matters in which they have experience; for about what they do not know, either they say
nothing or are chagrined as though asked for what they cannot give or they reply with a
guess and an uncertain conjecture and so find themselves in a distressing and dangerous
situation" (Plutarch, Table Talk 2.1 630A).
21. Among the celebrated solvers of conundrums and riddles, one thinks of Oedipus,
Samson (Judg 14:12-20) and Solomon (1 Kgs 10:1-5; Josephus, Ant. 8.143); see James L.
Crenshaw, "Riddles," ABD4.721-23.
22. The chreia enjoyed a long history in Greek literature; see Jan F. Kindstrand ("Diogenes
Laertius and the Chreia Tradition," Elenchos 7 [1986] 219-43. Important current studies of
the chreia include Ronald Hock and Edward O'Neil, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric, 3-60;
Burton Mack and Vernon Robbins, Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels (Sonoma, CA:
Polebridge Press, 1989); see also Burton Mack, "Decoding the Scripture: Philo and the
Rules of Rhetoric," Nourished with Peace (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984) 81-115.
23. The definition is from Aphthonius, as cited in Hock and O'Neil, The Chreia in Ancient
Rhetoric, 23.
24. On the significance of the chreia in relationship to the gospels, see in particular Vernon
Robbins are uniquely valuable: "Classifying Pronouncement Stories in Plutarch's Parallel
Lives," Semeia 20 (1981) 33-42; "Pronouncement Stories and Jesus' Blessing of the
Children: A Rhetorical Approach," Semeia 29 (1983) 43-74; "A Rhetorical Typology for
Classifying and Analyzing Pronouncement Stories,"SBLSP 1984: 93-112; "Pronouncement
Stories from a Rhetorical Perspective," Forum 4/2 (1988) 1-31; "The Chreia," GrecoRoman Literature and the New Testament (David Aune, ed.; SBLSBS 21; Atlanta: Scholars

164

Press, 1988) 1-23 and "Introduction: Using Rhetorical Discussions of the Chreia to
Interpret Pronouncement Stories," Semeia 64 (1994) vii-xvii.
25. The progymnasmata used in this study are: Aelius Theon of Alexandria (Spengel
II.112.20-115.10; see James R. Butts, The "Progymnasmata" of Theon. A New Text with
Translation and Commentary[unpublished dissertation: Claremont, 1986]); Hermogenes of
Tarsus (Spengel II.14.8-15.5; see C.S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic [New York:
Macmillan, 1928] 23-38); Menander Rhetor (see D. A. Russell and N. G.
Wilson, Menander Rhetor [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981]); Aphthonius of Ephesus
(Spengel II.42.20-44.19; see Ray Nadeau, "The Progymnasmata of Aphthonius in
Translation,"Speech Monographs 19 [1952] 264-285 and more recently Patricia P. Matsen,
Philip Rollinson and Marion Sousa, eds., Readings from Classical Rhetoric [Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press, 1990] 266-88).
26. Theon 3.22-70 (Butts, The "Progymnasmata" of Theon, 186-95).
27. The following examples illustrate the first two species of the responsive chreia. As an
example of the first kind, i.e., a questions with a simple yes and no, Hock and O'Neill cite:
"Diogenes, on leaving the baths said 'No' to the one who asked if many men were bathing,
but 'Yes' to another who asked if a large crowd was there" (Diogenes Laertius 6.40; Hock
and O'Neill, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric, 29). Illustrative of the second type of question
which seeks a longer answer is the anecdote about Aristotle: "When someone inquired why
we spend much time with the beautiful, 'That,' he said, 'is a blind man's question'"
(Diogenes Laertius 5.20).
28. Readers will quickly note that the broad category of "responsive chreia" described by
ancient rhetoricians has been further distinguished in the modern classification of
"apophthegms" and "pronouncement stories"; see Jan Kindstrand, "Diogenes Laertius and
the Chreia Tradition," 221-24. See in particular Robert Tannehill, "Types and Functions of
Apophthegms in the Synoptic Gospels,"ANRW II.25.2 (1984) 1792-1803 and
"Introduction: The Pronouncement Story and Its Types," Semeia 20 (1981) 6-10; Vernon K.
Robbins, "Classifying Pronouncement Stories in Plutarch's Parallel Lives,"Semeia 20
(1981) 33-42; and Paula Nassen Poulos, "Form and Function of the Pronouncement Story
in Diogenes Laertius' Lives," Semeia 20 (1981) 54-59; and Robert C. Tannehill, "Varieties
of Synoptic Pronouncement Stories," Semeia 20 (1981) 107-11, 114-16.
29. Hock and O'Neil, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric, 4.
30. In Tannehill's classification of pronouncement stories, he notes how the tone differs
from type to type. Some types either develop tension (correction story ) or begin with it and
embody conflict (objection story); see his "Introduction," 6-7; "Varieties," 103-4 ). Yet
inquiry stories are by classification neutral requests for information or questions
("Introduction," 10; "Varieties," 114); yet Tannehill describes a "testing inquiry," which is
far from being a neutral request for information ("Varieties," 115). The aggressive tone of
the objection chreia was noted by other contributors to the Semeia 20 issue, notably
Robbins and Poulos.
165

31. From Gnom. Vat. 15, cited by Hock and O'Neill, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric, 30.
32. From Stobaeus 4.33.26, cited in Hock and O'Neill, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric, 31.
33. Diogenes Laertius' collection of chreiai frequently records the provocation as some sort
of agonistic challenge by noting how it is stated in some form of reproach or ridicule;
chreiai might begin with some form of (1) : 1.104; 2.68, 69, 72; 4.47; 5.17; 6.1, 4, 6, 49, 56,
58, 63, 66, 67; 7.171, 174, 182; 8.82; (2) : 2. 36, 70; 5:18; 9.29; (3) or : : 2.76; : 2.50,
74, 76, 80; 4:49; 6:47; (4) or : 2.75, 77 or : 2.79.
34. In regard to rabbinic literature, David Daube studied three types of questions in rabbinic
literature (The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism [New York: Arno Press, 1973] 14169). In the chapter "Public Retort and Private Explanation," he outlined one form as: " (1) a
question by an outsider, (2) retort good enough for him but not revealing the deeper truth,
(3) the request of the disciples, and (4) the full explanation in private" (p. 142). In certain
stories beginning with a question, the sage answers by asking his own question (pp. 14445).(35)
35. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, 144-45. (36)
36. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, 158-69.
37. Major anthropological studies of Mediterranean honor include J. G. Peristiany, Honour
and Shame. The Values of Mediterranean Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1966); Julian Pitt-Rivers,The Fate of Shechem or the Politics of Sex (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1977) and "Honor," International Encyclopedia of the Social
Sciences 6.503-11; David D. Gilmore, Honor and Shame and the Unity of the
Mediterranean (Special Publication of the American Anthropological Association # 22;
Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1987). For adaptation of this
material to the cultural world of the New Testament, see note # 3 above; see also the recent
issue of Semeia edited by Don Benjamin and Victor Matthews, Honor and Shame in the
World of the Bible, Semeia 69 (1996).
38. Julian Pitt-Rivers defines honor as: "Honour is the value of a person in his own eyes,
but also in the eyes of his society. It is his estimation of his own worth, his claim to pride,
but it is also the acknowledgment of that claim, his excellent recognized by society,
his right to pride" (The Fate of Shechem, 1).
39. See
Esther
Goody, Questions
and
Politeness.
Strategies
in
Interaction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978) especially pp. 17-43.

Social

40. On the agonistic nature of ancient society, see Jean-Pierre Vernant, Myth and Society in
Ancient Greece (New York: Zone Books, 1988) 29-56; Peter Walcot, Envy and the Greeks,
52-76; and Alvin W. Gouldner, Enter Plato: Classical Greece and the Origins of Social
Theory (New York: Basic Books, 1965) 41-77; David Cohen, Law, Violence, and

166

Community in Classical Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) esp. 7075, 90-101, 128).(41)
41. David Cohen, Law, Violence, and Community in Classical Athens, 70-75, 90-101, 128.
(42)

42. Christopher A. Faraone, "The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding

Spells," Magika Hiera. Ancient Greek Magic (C.A. Faraone and Dirk Obbink, eds.; Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1991) 10-17.
43. The translation is that of A.E. Taylor in The Collected Dialogues of Plato (eds. Edith
Hamilton and Huntingon Cairns; Bollingen Series LXXI; Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1963) 1227-28.
44. Xenophon, who thinks positively of , praises the Athenians for this most noble pursuit:
"Athenians excel all others not so much in singing or in stature or in strength, as in the love
of honor (), which is the strongest incentive to deeds of honour and renown" (Mem.
3.3.13).
45. "He [God] granted supremacy to men who for the sake of honour, praise and glory
served the country in which they were seeking their own glory, and did not hesitate to
prefer her safety to their own. Thus for one vice, that is, love of praise, they overcame the
love of money and many other vices" (5.13). Negative evaluations of abound in Greek
literature; see Plutarch, Precepts of Statecraft 805F andOld Men in Public 788E.
46. George M. Foster, "Peasant Society and the Image of Limited Good," American
Anthropologist 67 (1965) 296, emphasis in the original; see also his article "Cultural
Responses to Expressions of Envy in Tzintzuntzan," Southwest Journal of Anthropology 21
(1965) 24-35. Students of classical Greece have indicated the applicability of this notion to
aspects of ancient Hellenic culture; see Walcot, Envy and the Greeks 22; David
Cohen, Law, Sexuality, and Society: The Enforcement of Morals in Classical
Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 183-98 and Law, Violence and
Community in Classical Athens, 26, 63-70; J. Elster, "Norms of Revenge," Ethics 100
(1990): 862-85.
47. Foster, "Image of Limited Good," 297, emphasis in the original.
48. George M. Foster, "The Anatomy of Envy: A Study in Symbolic Behavior," Current
Anthropology 13 (1972) 168-69.
49. I am indebted to Prof. K.C. Hanson for pointing out Judges 7:2 as a typical illustration
of this in the Hebrew scriptures. God requires Gideon to reduce the size of his force to
ridiculous smallness lest by his victory with a numerous army Gideon boast that "My own
hand has delivered me" and thus deprive God of God's share of the glory.

167

50. Anonymus Iamblici in H. Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (5th edition; ed., W.
Kranz; Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1935) 2.400E.
51. Chief among these studies is that of Pierre Bourdieu, "The Sentiment of Honour in
Kabyle Society, Honour and Shame. The Values of Mediterranean Society (J. G. Peristiany,
ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966) 191-241.
52. Hock and O'Neil, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric, 30-31.
53. Martin Dibelius classified many of these same incidents as "Chria" in his form-critical
study of the Gospels (From Tradition to Gospel [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965]
152-61. Rudolf Bultmann, however, labeled them "apophthegms" (The History of the
Synoptic Tradition, 12-23) with a sub-species of apophthegm called "a controversy story"
(39-54).
54. Dibelius (From Tradition to Gospel, 155-56).
55. On the relationship of teachers and disciples, see Robbins, Jesus the Teacher, 136-62.
56. In the pioneering study of the "pronouncement story" in Semeia 20, various authors
called attention to stories which begin because of some "stimulus" or "challenge"
(Tannehill, "Introduction," 7 and 8). Others talk about the "adversive" character of the
certain stories and note the "role of adversary" in them (Robbins, "Classifying
Pronouncement Stories," 35 and 39); still others indicate how they begin with some sort of
"faultfinding" (Poulos, "Form and Function of the Pronouncement Story," 57) or "testing"
(Tannehill, "Varieties," 103, 107, 115).
57. Other examples in Mark are: 2:6-7, 24; 4:38; 6:2-3; 9:10; 10:17; 12:14-15, 23, 28.
58. We allow, of course, for the Markan pattern that Jesus' disciples ask him the inner or
parabolic meaning of his remarks when in private (see 4:10-14; 7:17-22; 10:10-12, 23-31)
-- a different type of question and answer.
59. Concerning the agonistic nature of the public discourse with Jesus, the narrator signals
the provocation with terms such as: (1) catch (): Mark 12:13; (2) snare (): Luke 11:54; (3)
snare (): Matt 22:15; (4) lie in wait for, ambush (): Luke 11:54; (5) argue with (): Mark
8:11; 9:14; (6) test (): Matt 16:1; 19:3; Mark 10:2; and observe so as to find cause for
criticism: Mark 3:2.
60. On counter-questions as typical responses to questions, see Bultmann (History of the
Synoptic Tradition, 41): "The reply [in a controversy dialogue] to the attack follows more
or less a set form, with special preference for the counter-question or the metaphor, or even
both together." Bultmann's observation, while remarkably intuitive, is in no way supported
by any relevant parallels classical rhetorical literature.
61. Other examples include: 2:8-9; 3:23, 33; 4:40; 10:3, 18, 38; 12:24.
168

62. Pitt-Rivers, The Fate of Shechem, 1; see also "Honor," International Encyclopedia of
the Social Sciences 5.503-4.
63. Commenting on the inaugural appearance of Jesus in Luke's gospel, Richard Rohrbaugh
discusses who has sufficient status to have public voice in antiquity; see "Legitimating
Sonship -- A Test of Honour," 186, 194-95. Not all males have public voice; very few if any
females do (see 1 Cor 14:33-36; 1 Tim 2:11-13); see Victor H. Matthews, "Female Voices:
Upholding the Honor of the Household,"BTB 24 (1994) 8-15.
64. For example, the disciples of John the Baptizer complain to their teacher that Jesus'
success comes at their expense (John 3:26); far from issuing a challenge to Jesus, the
Baptizer declares that in this case it is appropriate that "He must increase, but I must
decrease" (3:30). Similarly, John reported to Jesus that "a man cast out demons in your
name and we forbade him, because he was not following us" (Mark 9:38). The disciple
challenged the rival exorcist because he perceived that success was coming at Jesus'
expense. Yet Jesus called off the challenge, stating that in the long run any success of the
alternate exorcist would redound to Jesus' reputation: "Do not forbid him; for no one who
does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me" (9:39).
65. Luke 13:17 records the classic illustration of a public verdict. After Jesus healed the
woman, the ruler of the synagogue asked a provoking question and was answered by Jesus'
counter-question. The narrative audience then delivers a public verdict, awarding honor to
Jesus and blame to his challengers: "As he said this, all his adversaries were put to shame;
and all the people rejoiced at all the glorious things that were done by him" (13:17).
66. Yet we must distinguish silence-as-defeat from silence-as-dismissal. A sage might
remain silent when questioned as a gesture of disdain to the questioner, indicating that he
does not consider himself in any way challenged by a stupid or improper question. For
example, see the actions of Epictetus: "When an impious man asked him to define piety, he
was silent; and when the other inquired for the reason, 'I am silent,' he replied, 'because you
are asking questions about what does not concern you'" (1.86). Hence, on the two occasions
when Jesus is silent during his trial (Mark 14:60-61; 15:2-5), I am inclined to read his
behavior in terms of honor and shame, rather than a facile allusion to the Suffering Servant
of Isaiah who was described as "a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not
his mouth" (Isa 53:7). It is one thing to give a riposte to the challenges to Jesus' honor ("Are
you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" 14:60; "Are you the king of the Jews?" 15:2); but
quite another to disdain to answer frivolous and false charges. Yet either in speech or in
silence, Jesus maintains his honor before his questioners.
67. Daube, "Four Types of Question," 158-69.
68. For example, Mark 1:24; 3:23, 31-34; 4:10, 14, 21, 30, 48, 40; 5:7, 9, 30-31, 35; 6:3738; 8:4, 5, 11, 12, 17-21, 36-37; 9:9-12, 19, 28-29, 33, 50; 10:26, 35, 38; 11:5, 17; 14:19,
20, 37, 60-62; 15:2-5, 9, 12, 14, 34.

169

"It
Was
Out
of
Envy
That They Handed Jesus Over" (Mark 15:10):
The Anatomy of Envy and the Gospel of Mark
Anselm C. Hagedorn and Jerome H. Neyrey
Mark narrates how Pilate perceived that "it was out of envy that they handed Jesus
over" (15:10). What did Pilate see that most New Testament commentators fail to
notice? One writer has gone so far as to claim that ". . . envy is not a topic of any
significance in ... the New Testament." (1) Yet Mark states that envy was the reason why
certain people "handed Jesus over" to be killed.(2)
To interpret Pilate's perception of a situation of envy, we turn to two sources.
Anthropological studies can provide a comprehensive "anatomy of envy" which
describes who envies whom, what is envied, why people envy, how one envies or avoids
envy. Foster, for example, offers not only an analysis of individual aspects of envy, but
a systematic explanation of its complex structure. (3)Second, we possess a significant
data on envy from the ancients themselves. These native informants tell us things
about their world which give concrete illustration of Foster's more generalized study.
Thus they verify the accuracy of Foster's modern study for the ancient world as well
as provide suitable adaptation of it for that historical period. Rarely did the ancients
offer us a systematic treatment of envy as Foster does, although we find the beginnings
of such in Aristotle, Basil and Cyprian. (4) With both an accurate anthropological
model and input from ancient informants, we have a useful tool for assessing the envy
against Jesus described in Mark's gospel.
We argue that Mark presents Jesus in terms of the pivotal cultural values of his day,
honor and shame. His rhetorical strategy is to praise Jesus as worthy Messiah and Son
of God. Yet in acknowledging this honor, Mark knows that the success Jesus enjoys
will only earn him bitter envy from his peers. Honor provokes envy, which issues in
conflict and hostility. Yet, even the portrayal of the envy of Pharisees, scribes and chief
priests toward Jesus contributes to his honor, for it implies Jesus' superiority. Mark,
we contend, knew as only natives knew the full social dynamic of honor and envy. His
hero was crucified in shame, which demands an explanation; and he offers us a
culturally plausible one narrating how Pilate "perceived that it was out of envy that
they handed Jesus over" (15:10).
I. Thinking about Envy: A Systemic Approach

170

Writing about envy in James 3:13-4:10, Johnson describes it in terms of a topos,

which for all its value is limited by the nature of his inquiry.(5) Operating out of the
traditional scholarly paradigm with which he is familiar, Johnson is content to label
envy as a vice according to Hellenistic moral philosophy.(6) This paradigm ignores the
important consideration of envy in terms of a cultural system of values.
Anthropological studies of envy, however, provide us with a sophisticated analysis
which takes us beyond the labeling of it as a vice. In particular, we turn to Foster's
analysis, "The Anatomy of Envy: A Study in Symbolic Behavior," (7) which examines
envy as a symbolic form of behavior. As Foster's title indicates, he provides us with a
systematic model, an "anatomy" of envy, which analyzes it comprehensively and
situates it within a study of complex social relations. (8) Thus we hope to take readers
beyond the traditional analysis of envy as a vice and examine it in terms of the
complex social relations it expresses.
A. Definition of Envy
In his catalogue of emotions to which an orator might appeal, Aristotle succinctly
defines envy as " a certain kind of distress at apparent success on the part of one's
peers in attaining the good things that have been mentioned, not that a person may get
anything for himself but because of those who have it" (Rhet. 2.10.1).(9) Envy basically
consists of pain or distress caused by another's success. The modern world defines
envy in the same way: "to feel displeasure and ill will at the superiority of another
person in happiness, success, reputation or the possession of anything
desirable."(10) Furthermore, Aristotle distinguishes envy () from emulation (). While
both are "distress" at the success of another, envy attacks a successful person and
seeks to level him without spurring the envier to achieve anything on his own. In
contrast, emulation does not seek to harm the successful person, but spurs on the less
accomplished person to seek parity of honor by noble actions. Hence Aristotle
understands emulation:
. . .a kind of distress at the apparent presence among others like him by nature, of
things honored and possible for a person to acquire, [with the distress arising] not
from the fact that another has them but that the emulator does not (thus emulation is
a good thing and characteristic of good people, while envy is bad and characteristic of
the bad; for the former [person], through emulation ( ), is making an effort to attain
good things for himself, while the latter, through envy ( ) tries to prevent his neighbor
from having them) (Rhet. 2.11.1).
Thus, whereas envy is censured because it seeks to harm another, emulation is
praiseed because it encourages a person to attain excellence on his own merits.(11)
The issue is still not as clear as it needs to be, for we must distinguish envy from
"jealousy." People may be defensive of their own achievements and assets, and so act
suspiciously of the envy of others and defend themselves from harm. (12) The OED
defines "jealousy" as: "the state of mind arising from the suspicion, aggression or
knowledge of rivalry".(13) Hence, we should distinguish three things:(14)
171

envy () = distress at another's success (evil)

emulation () = incentive to match the success of another (good)
jealousy () = defense of one's family, property or reputation (good).
Hence envy attacks the person who possesses much, whereas jealousy defends what is
possessed (wife, children, house, etc.). Have nots are envious of those who have; those
who have are jealous of what they have.
Although the ancients regularly distinguished envy, emulation, and jealousy, (15) they
did not always exercise terminological exactness in expressing this. Envy () and
jealousy () are occasionally used as synonyms; and can mean both attacking envy,
good emulation and defensive jealousy.(16) When Pilate observed that it was "out of
envy" that Jesus was handed over, this refers to the pain felt by Jesus' rivals over his
fame and prestige.
B. Socioeconomic and Psychological Conditions that Breed Envy.
Three elements need to be considered: (1) the image of "limited good," (2) the
agonistic nature of peasant society, and (3) the values of honor and shame. Foster
himself originated discussion of "limited good" in his model of envy.(17) In treating
interpersonal relationships among peasants, he commented on the agonistic nature of
their intercourse,(18) linking it to the notion of "limited good." Our study of the ancient
world can supplement Foster's model with culturally specific notions of the ancient
passion for honor and with consideration of its modal personality as a group-oriented
person..
1. Limited Good. Foster describes how peasants perceive that all good things in the
world exist in limited supply.(19)
By "Image of Limited Good" I mean that broad areas of peasant behavior are
patterned in such a fashion as to suggest that peasants view their social, economic, and
natural universes--their total environment--as one in which all of the desired things in
life such as land, wealth, health, friendship and love, manliness and honor, respect and
status, power and influence, security and safety, exist in finite quantity and are always
in short supply, as far as the peasant is concerned. Not only do these and all other
"good things" exist in finite and limited quantities, but in addition there is no way
directly within peasant power to increase the available quantities.(20)
He notes that "any advantage achieved by one individual or family is seen as a loss to
others, and the person who makes what the Western world lauds as 'progress' is
viewed as a threat to the stability of the entire community." (21) Why? If supply is
thought to be radically limited, any person's gain must comes through loss by others.
Two things happen when people view the world in this way: (1) they "are reluctant to
advance beyond their peers because of the sanctions they know will be leveled against
172

them"(22) and (2) the person "who is seen or known to acquire more becomes much
more vulnerable to the envy of his neighbors." (23) Hence, if someone gains success,
goods, honor or anything valued by a group, then others correspondingly perceive
themselves losing worth, prestige and the like. Envy follows as surely as night follows
day.
In the literature of antiquity we can readily observe this perception of "limited good"
as part of that cultural world. The classical biblical instance (24) of this stands behind
the exchange between John the Baptizer and his disciples over the rising success of
Jesus. When John says, "He must increase, I must decrease" (John 3:30), he confirms
the popular perception that Jesus' gain in reputation necessarily comes at his own
expense. But John differs from his disciples in that he does not envy Jesus as they do.
In the Greco-Roman world, the perception of limited good is aptly expressed in the
remark of Iamblicus: "People do not find it pleasant to give honor () to someone else,
for they suppose that they themselves are being deprived of something." (25) Similarly,
Plutarch describes a person hearing an outstanding speaker and expressing envy at
his success: "As though commendation were money, he feels that he is robbing himself
of every bit that he bestows on another" (On Listening to Lectures 44B; see also Old
Men in Public Affairs 787D). Finally Josephus reflects this when he describes the envy
of John, son of Levi, at his own rise in fortune:
[John]. . .believing that my success involved his own ruin, gave way to immoderate
envy. Hoping to check my good fortune by inspiring hatred of me in those under my
command, he tried to induce the inhabitants of Tiberias, Sepphoris, and Gabara to
abandon their allegiance to me and go over to him (Life 122-23).(26)
Therefore, the success, fame, and prestige of someone are popularly thought to come
at the expense of others, who then surface as the most likely candidates to envy those
of rising fortune.
2. Agonistic Nature of Society. Foster mentioned a phenomenon which we consider
pivotal for understanding envy in antiquity, namely, the agonistic nature of certain
societies. In his study of peasant relationships, Foster observed the "prevalence of
conflict" and cites other ethnographers who confirm that "all the families quarrel
with each other. Always the same squabbles, endless squabbles, passed down from
generation to generation in endless lawsuits." (27) In his study of envy, he itemizes the
"expressions of envy": "direct aggression and its functional equivalent, witchcraft,"
along with "gossip, backbiting and defamation."(28) Students of classical literature
have long been aware of the agonistic nature of ancient Greece in which conflict
abounded.(29) In his study of conflict in the law courts of Athens, Cohen surfaces a
number of terms which indicate the prevalence of combativeness there. He describes
that society as agonistic, drawing on the terms for combat, and cognates; it truly
"loves fighting" () and celebrates rivalry and combat (), and so is in "love with
victory or rivalry" (). A contentious society, it is always competing (). In fact, it
rejoices in making enemies ().(30) Christopher Faraone, who examined binding spells
in the Hellenistic world, classified them in terms of four "agonistic contexts":
173

commercial curses, curses against athletes and public performers, amatory curses and
judicial curses.(31)
Why this interminable and agonistic behavior? Foster's concept of "limited good"
goes a long way toward explaining how success of others breeds envy. A winner's
success comes at the expense of others. And as we examine "honor," we shall see that
the ancient world constantly competed for fame, reknown and honor. The competitive
quest for honor () leads to agonistic behavior to achieve this honor and envy by
others at the honor of the successful.
3. Honor: the Ultimate "Limited Good." For what did they compete? Anthropologists
and New Testament scholars call honor one of the pivotal values of the Mediterranean
world, both ancient(32) and modern.(33) Honor most basically refers to one's worth,
standing and reputation in the eyes of village or neighborhood. (34) It is one's social
credit rating or social entitlement to respect and interaction. Since the ancients
considered "love of honor" () as humankind's highest goal, it seems safe to say that
they competed intensely for honor, which, like all other goods, exists in limited supply.
How does one get it? Individuals acquire honor in either of two ways: (1) honor and
respect may be ascribed to him by others or (2) he achieves fame on his own merits.
Honor, say the experts, is both one's claim to some worth and the public
acknowledgment of that claim.(35) In the case of ascribed honor, the claim is made by
others on behalf of someone. Since kinship was the most important institution in
antiquity, one's birth into a "noble" family immediately meant ascribed worth in the
eyes of the family's peers; the family itself makes claims to worth on behalf of its
offspring which are most commonly expressed when marriages are arranged. Within
that family, moreover, siblings have differing degrees of ascribed honor. Parents
typically prized male children over female ones; and they valued their first-born male
more than his siblings. In this case, the family ascribes worth to the son and makes
claim of such before others.
In contrast, an individual by his own achievements may earn respect and fame. He
might make a name for himself in any number of socially approved ways, such as
benefaction, military prowess, athletic competition and excellence in drama and
poetry. These avenues to success were open only to elites; non-elites, who made up at
least 90% of the ancient population, could normally achieve prestige only through
agonistic behavior which was socially sanctioned in the common game of push-andshove labeled by the anthropologists as "challenge and riposte." Anyone in a village or
neighborhood who claims special respect based on achievement was likely to be
challenged by others because of the pervasive perception of "limited good," especially
in regard to so valuable a commodity as honor.
We should attend to the ways in which people who love honor live primarily in a
shame, not guilt, oriented society.(36) They take their clues from family and neighbors
about what is valuable and how one should behave. In learning to compete, they keep
a keen eye on how their behavior is perceived by others. Thus they participated in
what Cohen calls the "politics of reputation,"(37) and were subject to strong social
174

control by virtue of the opinions of others. All were socialized to compete for honor as
well as to envy those who in fact succeed.
C. What Is Envied?
As Aristotle said, "success" is what the envious attack (Rhet. 2.10.1).(38) Josephus, for
example, regularly connects "success" () with envy. He states that "John, believing
that my success () involved his ruin, gave way to immoderate envy ()" (Life 122).
Alternately, describing the national scene, he remarks about John Hyrcanus, "The
prosperous fortune () of John and his sons, however, provoked a sedition among his
envious () countrymen" (War 1.67).(39) But what is "success" to the ancients?
As Cyprian remarked, the envious person becomes the enemy, not of the man, but of
the honor he has acquired.(40) In regard to ascribed worth, since kinship was the most
important institution in antiquity, one's birth into a noble family and one's birthplace
among siblings was an immediate source of ascribed honor, but also of envy. The
Hebrew Bible testifies to the incessant envy between siblings over ranking and
inheritance, which are the signs of honor.(41) Comparably, a person
who achieves success on his own merits, may, for example, enjoy wealth. Aristotle
comments that the importance of wealth lies its use, (42) which might take the form of
conspicuous consumption(43) or conspicuous expenditure, i.e., benefaction (44) and
liturgies.(45) Wealth, then, might be the object of envy because it brings honor to
someone. Furthermore, success through prowess in war, pan-Hellenic games (46) or
contests of poetry and drama(47) will be envied because of the fame it brings someone.
Thus "success" earns an honorable reputation, which becomes the object of envy.
D. The Enviers and The Envied
Foster identifies all players in the game of envy: (1) envy between equals, (2) envy
between non-equals, and (3) envy of the gods or the dead. In regard to envy between
equals, he observes that "every society designates those of its members who are
deemed eligible to compete with each other for desired goals." (48) They are "conceptual
equals": social peers and even kin or brothers. Similarly Aristotle in his discussion of
envy begins with just this topic, who envies whom? Speaking first about enviers, he
states: "Envy is defined as a kind of distress at apparent success on the part of one's
peers ( )" (Rhet. 2.10.1). He clarifies this notion of peer envy by noting what they
share in common: "I mean those like themselves in terms of birth, relationship, age,
disposition, reputation, possessions" (2.10.2) He then discusses those who are envied:
"It is evident, too, whom people envy. . .they envy those near to them in time and place
and age and reputation, whence it has been said 'Kinship, too, knows how to envy'"
(2.10.5). Most typically, then, envier and envied are social equals. Cicero echoes this
commonplace when he says, "People are especially jealous (invident) of their equals,
or of those once beneath them, when they feel themselves left behind and fret at the
other's upward flight" (De Or. 2.52.209).
Equals and peers might well be persons of the same trade. Hesiod describes the work
of Strife, daughter of Night, who stirs up conflict between non-elite artisans: "And
175

potter is angry with potter, and craftsman with craftsman, and beggar is jealous of
beggar, and minstrel of minstrel" (Works and Days 25-26). This remark was
repeatedly quoted in antiquity as illustrative of the peer nature of envy.(49) Aristotle
said the same: "Kinship (), too, knows how to envy" (Rhet. 2.10.5). Walcot's
discussion of envy points out just such kinship or peer envy among sibling rivals such
as Dionysius and Heracles in Aristophanes' Frogs(50) On this topic, Plutarch advised
brothers to seek honor and distinction in different fields: "Since envy and jealousy of
those who surpass them in repute and honour are implanted by nature chiefly in men
of ambitious character, to guard against these vices it is highly expedient that brothers
should not seek to acquire honours or power in the same field, but in different fields"
(On Brotherly Love 486B). Similarly, the Hebrew scriptures narrate rivalry between
brothers, which Christian writers on envy regularly cite as prime examples of envy.(51)
Most societies, however, do not allow certain people to compete. For example, Foster
notes the universal taboo prohibiting a son to compete with his father for the
possession of the mother-wife (see Deut 22:30); similarly, daughters may not compete
with their mothers for the father-husband.(52) Moreover, in highly structured societies
such as the ancient world, the disruptive effects of envy between have-nots and haves
is strictly controlled by means of social distancing of the population into age groups or
different social locations or caste systems. Slaves cannot compete with their masters,
nor peasants and artisans with rulers and aristocratic elites. This does not preclude
social conflict, since the superior party may well fear those below him, especially their
use of the aggressive evil eye or some other form of witchcraft. This is only to say that,
whereas the rivalry between "conceptual equals" or peers is socially approved, envy
between socially distant people is not sanctioned competition.
Foster identifies a third case of envier and envied, namely, the envy of the gods and
the dead.(53) While many peoples in world history fear the envy and jealousy of the
gods, no instance of this is better documented than that of the ancient Greeks. Ranulf,
in his extensive study of the topic, distinguishes three types of envy of mortals by the
gods: (1) punishment by the gods of the guilty, (2) misfortune for no particular reason,
and (3) misfortune as a result of divine envy.(54) In regard to the first type, Homer
notes that certain of the gods resent being ignored or slighted by mortals and so take
vengeance on the guilty.(55) The second type refers to a fatalistic sense that all lives
contain successes and failures, as well as joys and disappointments. They come to
mortals with no rhyme or reason and so seem capricious. (56) We are concerned
particularly with the third type, namely, the nemesis of the gods for human behavior
which exceeds the limits of honorable mortal actions. Throughout its history, Greek
literature discourses on the fickleness of fortune; yet in many cases they interpret
misfortune as a form of divine retribution on a person who tried to usurp what
belongs to the gods, rose too high or sought to be like the gods.(57)
Foster himself interprets the envy from the gods as a psychological projection, (58) and
goes on to describe the "moral indignation" contained in it as a kind of socially
sanctioned form of envy. Non-elites cannot successfully challenge elites; but they can
express their envy of them by an appeal to a theory of divine or disinterested
punishment through civic law codes and beliefs that the gods punish in justice.
176

(59)

Similarly, since the envy of the gods was directed to the elites of society, Gouldner
described it as an "order-inducing" element which acts to restrain the excesses of
tyrants and autocrats:
... it encourages men at the top of the system to restraint in their relations with those
beneath them, limiting the resentment they will provoke. While reality alone might be
expected to induce prudence and restraint among those at the bottom of the system,
the belief in the envy of the gods provides supernaturally sanctioned motives for
restraint and moderation among those at the top who would otherwise be less
controllable.(60)
This notion of envy will play a significant role when we take up the topics of avoiding
envy by practicing moderation.
Envying down? "Except in very general and atypical senses," Foster argues, "it seems
that one normally does not envy down." (61) Perhaps the examples from classical
literature should be considered atypical, but they describe elites envying down in
terms of hybris.(62) In Herodotus, a certain rebel, Otanes, advised the abolition of the
monarchy because of its inevitable corruption; he portrays the hybristic behavior of
monarchs in general, which exemplifies what it means to envy down:
The advantage which he holds breeds insolence (), and nature makes all men envious
(). This double cause is the root of all evil in him; he will do many wicked deeds, some
from the insolence () which is born of satiety, some from envy (). For whereas an
absolute ruler, as having all that heart can desire, should rightly be envious of no man,
yet it is contrariwise with him in dealing with his countrymen; he is envious of the
safety of the good, and glad of the safety of the evil (3.80).(63)
The ancients expected rulers to act with hybris toward their subjects, especially
toward those perceived as rivals. In this sense, then, royal "envy" is akin to
"jealousy," namely, defensive behavior of what is one's own. (64) The ancients regularly
told a stock story of how a monarch successfully dealt with the leading men of his
kingdom. For example, Herodotus narrates that the Corinthian tyrant sent a
messenger to the tyrant of Miletus to discover the right way to rule:
He sent a herald toThrasybulus and enquired how he should so order all matters as
best to govern his city. Thrasybulus led the man who had come from Periander
outside the town, and entered into a sown field; while he walked through the corn and
plied the herald with still-repeated questions about his coming from Corinth, he
would cut off the tallest that he saw of the stalks, and cast away what he cut off, till by
so doing he had destroyed the best and richest of the crop. . .Periander perceived that
Thrasybulus had counseled him to slay those of his townsmen who stood highest
(Herodotus 5.92).(65)
Thus the ancients tell numerous stories of "envying down," that is, acts of hybris by
kings to those below them, which seem like a jealous defense of tyrannical privilege.
177

Our investigation, however, supports Foster's contention that envy normally arises
between equals and peers.
E. How one envies:
Although Aristotle calls envy a "distress" (, Rhet. 2.10.1), it is a very dangerous
phenomenon because it rarely stays at the level of an emotion, but seeks ways to
achieve its purpose. Basil commented that the goal of the envier was "to behold the
victim of his envy pass from happiness to misery, that he who is admired and
emulated might become an object of pity."(66) Envy regularly metamorphosed into
hostile action. Both Cyprian and Basil describe the primal act of human envy as
Cain's murder of Abel;(67) they go so far as to call envy "the mother of homicide." (68) In
what specific ways do enviers seek to reduce from honor to pity those envied? What
forms of social interaction might the envious person employ?
Our investigation surfaced six different ways whereby enviers might reduce an
admired person to pity: (1) ostracism, (2) gossip and slander, (3) feuding, (4) litigation,
(5) the evil eye, and (6)homicide. By ostracism,(69) we mean the social mechanism
developed in classical Athens whereby a person who gained too much prominence was
banished from the city for a limited time. (70)Although allowed to return, the envied
person was nevertheless out of the public's eye and unable to exercise "love of honor"
in competition with others; thus ostracism necessarily resulted in a lowering of the
honor and worth of the envied and banished person. Gossip is essentially "critical talk
about absent third parties."(71) Plutarch provides the modern reader with a unique
report by a native informant on the relationship of gossip and envy: "Since it is the
searching out of troubles that the busybody [i.e., gossiper] desires, he is possessed by
the affliction called 'malignancy,' a brother to envy and spite. For envy is pain at
another's good, while malignancy is joy at another's sorrow" (Talkativeness 518C).
Reputations are easily ruined by gossip. Feuding describes the persistent state of
"enmity" () which existed between individuals or families in antiquity.(72) Those
feuding often conducted their attacks through litigation.(73) Fifth, enviers might put a
curse on those whom they envy or bewitching them, which is often described in terms
of the evil eye.(74) The evil eye was important enough to warrant Plutarch's attention in
his Table Talk ("Question 7" 680C-683B). Basil, too, describes how the evil gaze of an
envious person causes harm:
Some think that envious persons bring bad luck merely by a glance, so that healthy
persons in the full flower and vigor of their prime are made to pine away under their
spell, suddenly losing all their plumpness which dwindles and wastes away under the
gaze of the envious, as if washed away by a destructive flood.(75)
Finally, an envious person might resort to physical violence and even homicide to
reduce the status of the person envied, as noted above in regard to Cain's murder of
Abel and Saul's attempts to slay David. Thus, envy is no empty emotion.
F. Why One Envies? Love of Honor ()
178

Aristotle explained "for what reasons, and of whom, and in what frame of mind, men
are envious" (Rhet. 2.10.1). The motive, he states, is "ambition" or "love of honor"
():
And the ambitious () are more envious than the unambitious (). And [those are
envious] who are wise in their own conceit; for they are ambitious () for wisdom. And
on the whole, those fond of fame () in some way are envious in that regard (Rhet.
2.10.2-3).
Aristotle presumes that we know what he and his world mean by "love of honor" (),
a common term found throughout Greek literature..
"Love of honor" was a frequently mentioned and highly prized commodity from
Homer to Augustine. For example, Xenophon described the Athenians as passionate
for praise: "Athenians excel all others not so much in singing or in stature or in
strength, as in love of honour (), which is the strongest incentive to deeds of honour
and renown" (Mem. 3.3.13). Similarly, Augustine looks back on Rome and describes
what seems to him the pivotal value which drove Romans in all their endeavors, the
love of praise: "For the glory that the Romans burned to possess, be it noted, is the
favourable judgment of men who think well of other men" (City of God 5.12). For love
of praise, the Romans overcame vices common to other peoples: "He (God) granted
supremacy to men who for the sake of honour, praise and glory served the country in
which they were seeking their own glory, and did not hesitate to prefer her safety to
their own. Thus for one vice, that is, love of praise, they overcame the love of money
and many other vices" (5.13).(76) Xenophon valued "love of honor" so highly, he
identified it as one of the chief things that distinguish not only humans from animals,
but noble humans from ordinary folk.(77)
"Honor" for the ancients meant primarily renown and reputation. Hence they
engaged in various competitions which bring victory and so fame. Competitions could
be as innocent as rivalry at plays, dances and songs at festivals, or as deadly as
quarreling, feuding and warring. Hence, it is not surprising that "love of honor" in
competitive contexts is translated by scholars as "rivalry" or "aspiration" or simply
"ambition." But at heart, it is a passionate quest for honor.
Yet, say Aristotle and many other ancient informants, this "love of honor" produces
envy. Since the ancients were intensely desirous of fame and honor and thought that
all things existed in limited supply, envy naturally follows love of honor. Hence,
Aeschines remarks in one of his speeches how his client was put upon "by men who
were envious () and wished to bring insult upon his honorable name" ()
(Embassy 111). Isocrates describes a famous Greek army which was filled with gods
and the sons of the gods, "men who were not of the same temper as the majority of
mankind nor on the same plane of thinking, but full of pride and passion and envy
and ambition ( )" (Panathenaicus 81-82). Similarly, Plutarch describes how the envy
which springs up in someone while listening to a lecture arises from "ambition" ():
"Now while envy in other matters is engendered by certain untrained and evil
dispositions of a man, the envy that is directed against a speaker is the offspring of an
179

unseasonable desire for repute () and ambition ()" (Listening to Lectures 39E).
(78)
Among the ancients, then, desire for fame, glory and honor (, , cupido gloriae) not
only spurred individuals to excellence but pricked others to envy their success.
G. How One Avoids Envy.
Foster lists "four distinct but intimately related" types of behavior by people who fear
the envy of others and seek to reduce their own visibility and vulnerability:
"(1) concealment, (2) denial, (3) the 'sop' (i.e., symbolic sharing) and (4) true
sharing."(79) In regard to concealment, people in a world of conspicuous consumption,
such as the honor-and-shame world of antiquity, are in a genuine bind: honor comes
from displaying wealth or prowess, but such display leaves one vulnerable to envy.
And privacy is very likely to invoke the curiosity of neighbors, who assume that
people whose houses and lives are not totally open must be hiding something from
them. Boasting, the opposite of concealment, openly invites envy. Denial might be the
simple rejection of a compliment such as Jesus' rejection of the label "Good" when
the rich man addressed him as "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
(Mark 10:17-18). Sop refers to the forced sharing of something to placate those who
lost out in competition for it. True sharing as in the case of potlatch, public
liturgies(80) or lavish hospitality has a way of leveling wealth and thus reducing
envy. Leitourgia, for example, might be costly for wealthy aristocrats, but they
function to redistribute wealth; of them Isaeus remarks:
Our forefathers. . .performed every kind of choregic office, contributed large sums for
your expenses in war, and never ceased acting as trierarchs. As evidence of all these
services, they set up in the temples out of the remainder of their property, as a
memorial of their civic worth, dedications, such as tripods which they had received as
prizes for choregic victories in the temple of Dionysus, or in the shrine of Pythian
Apollo. Furthermore, by dedicating on the Acropolis the first-fruits of their wealth,
they have adorned the shrine with bronze and marble statues, numerous, indeed, to
have been provided out of a private fortune (On the Estate of Dicaeogenes 5.41-42).(81)
In addition to these strategies for avoiding envy, the Greco-Roman world urged
another, the practice of moderation. The entrance column at the temple at Delphi was
engraved with three pithy sayings: "Know thyself" ( ), "Nothing overmuch" ( ), and
"A pledge, and ruin is nigh."(82) The wise man who "knows himself" will avoid
extremes and not go beyond the limits of what society thinks is appropriate to a
person of his social location (Plutarch, Letter to Apollonius 116D-E). Nor will he allow
others to praise him too much (Plutarch, Dinner of the Seven Wise Men 164C). For, as
was popularly thought, "Fortune has a knack, when men vaunt themselves too highly,
of laying them unexpectedly low and so teaching them to hope for 'nothing in excess'
( )" (Diodor of Sicily 15.33.3). The practice of moderation or "nothing to excess" was
hallowed in Horace's ode on "golden mediocrity":
Better will you live, Licinius, by neither always pressing out to sea nor too closely
hugging the dangerous shore in cautious fear of storms. Whoso cherishes the golden
mean (auream mediocritatem), safely avoids the foulness of an ill-kept house and
180

discreetly, too, avoids a hall exciting envy (invidenda). 'Tis oftener the tall pine that is
shaken by the wind; 'tis the lofty towers that fall with the heavier crash, and 'tis the
tops of the mountains that the lightning strikes (Ode 2.10.1-12).(83)
A person avoids provoking others to envy by moderating desires and behavior which
manifest ambition and attract attention. It was part of ancient lore that lightning
strikes the tallest tree or highest mountain. (84) Moderation cautions against striving to
be that tall tree or high mountain.
We see, therefore, that envy implies a set of social values (honor and shame) and a
social dynamic such as agonistic competition for fame. It operates out of a particular
perspective of "limited good," which heightens public sensitivity to every rise in
reputation and success of each person in village or city. We learned, moreover, who
envies whom, for what reason, and how. Focussing on envy we are peering into the
heart of the value system of the ancient world.
II. The Gospel of Mark and the Anatomy of Envy
Mark uses the term "envy" only once, indicating that Pilate discerned it as the cause
for Jesus' arrest: ". . .it was out of envy ( ) that the chief priests had delivered him up"
(Mark 15:10//Matt 27:18). While Mark's only use of the specific term, it implies a
social game that has been going on constantly throughout the narrative. From our
understanding of "the anatomy of envy," two things suggest themselves: (1) the mere
presence of the term "envy" implies a larger and easily recognizable social process;
and (2) the social process of envy may be narrated without mention of the term
"envy." Thus we intend to examine Mark's narrative to see how pervasive are the
social dynamics expressed by "envy" and how a formal knowledge of the "anatomy of
envy" can aid readers in grasping the presence and importance of the phenomenon.
The rationale for this interpretative strategy rests on an analogy with physical
anthropology. When researchers find a bone, they know that it implies a complete
skeleton, which they are increasingly adept at reconstructing by means of comparative
anatomy. Moreover, skeletons belong to animals who live in specific social
environments, have a certain kinds of locomotion, eat a particular diet, behave in
predictable social ways, etc. One bone invites reconstruction not only of skeleton, but
of social world. Similarly, the presence of "envy" in Mark 15:10 signals that it is an
important bone which implies a skeleton of elements or, as Foster has called it, an
"anatomy of envy." That one clear notice in Mark invites us to consider the
phenomenon of envy occurring elsewhere in the gospel, the crowning moment of
which is Mark 15:10.
A. Mark 15:10 and the Anatomy of Envy
Mark 15:10 will only be viewed accurately when seen against the backdrop of the
events narrated in chs 11-15 and understood in terms of the "anatomy of envy." Mark
accurately uses the term envy and not jealousy; for, the chief priests are distressed at
Jesus' success and seek to destroy his prestige. Moreover, in terms of the socialpsychological background implied here, the situation is clearly one of "limited good."
181

Jesus not only invaded the physical space of the elite priests by entering the Temple,
he challenged their priestly role in his critique of the way the Temple was run (11:1519, 12:9 & 12, and 40-44). Thus he was increasing at their expense, or so they
perceived it. Third, there can be no doubt of the agonistic nature of the relations
between Jesus and the Jerusalem elite in chs 11-12, which climax in his arrest, trial
and death. Fourth, the chief priests envy Jesus' honor, symbolized most dramatically
by the Hosannah! of the crowd as he enters the city (11:9-10). Jesus occasioned this
envy because of his miracles, but especially by his bold public actions, first in
redefining the temple cultus (11:15-19) (85) and by giving an excellent riposte to the
incessant challenges to him in 11:28-33 and 12:13-37. This honor was publicly
acknowledged at least by the crowds at his entrance into the city, during the
subsequent conflicts (12:12), and at their end (12:37). Fifth, Mark suggests that, by
being envied, Jesus is the peer of the chief priests and deserving of both honor and
envy. He only gains in stature by being envied. Finally, in terms of how the chief
priests envy Jesus, initially they issue direct challenges (11:28-33), and follow up their
defeats with surrogate attacks: "And 'they' [i.e., chief priests] sent to him some of the
Pharisees and some of the Herodians to entrap him in his talk" (12:13). These attacks
escalate with his arrest and trial (14:46 and 55-65) and culminate with their handing
Jesus over to Pilate for execution (15:6-15). The motive for such envy would be
understood as Jesus' gain in honor and their loss. Thus Pilate's perception that it was
"out of envy" that Jesus was handed over is a striking clue which leads us to identify
and connect seemingly disparate elements in the narrative into a coherent and
plausible cultural scenario.(86) The narrative strategy in portraying Jesus envied seems
to serve the basic rhetorical aim of the gospel, namely the praise of Jesus and the
acknowledgment of him as Christ, Prophet and Lord -- that is, the Most Honorable
person in the cosmos next to God.
B. Other Aspects of Envy in Mark.
Native Christian informants in antiquity, such as Basil ("Concerning Envy" ) and
Cyprian ("Envy and Jealousy"), readily spot the reference to envy in Mark 15:10, and
appreciate how it indicates much larger patterns of envy throughout the whole of the
gospel. What do these native informants see? Using the "anatomy of envy" adapted
from Foster, we classify their native observations as follows.
Why envied? Basil states that it was because of his miracles, (87) but a fuller socialscience reading of his remarks tells us several things. Jesus achieved great honor by
his actions; he earned the right to be called "Benefactor" and "Giver of Life" and
"Judge," indications of very high status and thus of public worth and value. Although
Basil does not say that the chief priests were "lovers of honor," that is surely the
implication in his assessment of the motive for their envy, namely, that they were
losing out in the intense competition for public regard and fame. How prevent envy?
Cyprian saw in Jesus' exhortation to lowliness a way of forestalling envy, a point
noted above in the anatomy of envy.(88) Cyprian sees him systematically proscribing
the entire social dynamic of honor seeking. In addition, Basil notes several other
important aspects of the anatomy of envy. For example, speaking of how an envier
envies, Basil points to the use of gossip and slander to attack Jesus' reputation. (89) And
182

in describing who envies, Basil identifies a characteristic of the envious person as a

"hypocrite."(90) Although he does not identify any specific group or incidence of
hypocritical attack on Jesus, it would not take much imagination to find numerous
instances of this in the gospels. Thus our ancient informants observe envy occurring in
diverse ways in the gospel narratives, even if the term appears but once. For natives of
that cultural world, envy is a predictable, regular and important element of life.
C. A Full Inventory of Envy in Mark
We now list from Mark the following inventory of elements of envy which form a
large and comprehensive "anatomy of envy": (1) growing fame and reputation;
(2) growing attacks on Jesus; (3) envy begins at home; (4) envy of a rival exorcist; (5)
envy among the disciples themselves; (6) shunning honor and avoiding envy;
(7) secrecy and avoiding envy; (8) refusing compliments; and (9) the evil eye.
1. Growing Fame and Reputation: Envy Sure to be Attracted
Since lightning strikes the tallest trees, Jesus' growing public acclaim identifies him as
a classic target of envy. It is a simple fact that Mark's narrative contains a consistent,
dramatic rise in the positive public evaluation of Jesus, which constitutes an essential
narrative element concerning him. The following list indicates this relentless dynamic:
- "At once his fame ( ) spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region
of Galilee" (1:28)
- "He [the cured leper] went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news (
), so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was out int he country; and people came to him
from every quarter" (1:45)
- "It was reported ( ) that he was at home. And many were gathered together, so that there was
no longer room for them" (2:1-2)
- "And all the crowd gathered about him" (2:13)
- "A great multitude from Galilee followed; also from Judea and Jerusalem and Idumea and from
beyond
the Jordan and from about Tyre and Sidon" (3:7-8)
- "The crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat" (3:20)
- "A very large crowd gathered about him, so that he had to get into a boat" (4:1)
- "He went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him; and all
men

183

marveled" (5:20)
- "Great crowds gathered about him" (5:21), see also requests for healing which depend on his
reputation
being spread (5:22-23, 27-28); other requests presume a growing reputation (7:31; 8:22; 9:14ff; 10:4647)
- "King Herod heard of it; for Jesus' name had become known" () (6:14)
- Crowds anticipate his arrival and gather, obviously having heard of his reputation (6:32-34)
- "The people recognized him, and ran about the whole neighborhood and began to bring sick people
on
their pallets to any place where they heard he was. . ." (6:53-56)
- "He went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and would not have any one
know it; yet he could not be hid" (7:24-25)
- "When a great crowd had gathered . . ." (8:1)
- Jesus tests his reputation and fame by asking: "Who do men say that I am?" (8:27-30)
- "He went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to him again" (10:1)
- "They came to Jericho, and as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great crowd. . ." (10:46)
- A great crowd welcomed him upon his arrival at Jerusalem, indicating his fame and reputation (11:111)
- "All were astonished at his teaching" (11:18)
- "And a great throng heard him gladly" (12:37)

A person with such a positive reputation will indubitably be envied, since in a "limited
good" world, Jesus' growing fame will be interpreted by some as their loss. Hence, in
terms of the anatomy of envy, people will envy him because of his success and good
reputation and they attack him for his honorable standing in the public's eye.
2. Growing Attacks on Jesus
We consider now how Jesus' enemies mount a sustained attack on him. From our
knowledge of the anatomy of envy, we argue that all of these attacks are motivated by
envy.
184

(a) Responsive Chreia and Honor Challenges. In terms of the literary and rhetorical
level of Mark's gospel, there has been considerable work done in describing the
pervasive form known as the "responsive chreia." (91) One ancient exponent of the
chreia divided it into three main classes: (1) sayings-chreiai (), (2) action-chreiai () and
(3) mixed chreiai ().(92) This rhetorician then divided the sayings chreia into two
species: statement () and response (). We focus only on the "sayings" type of chreia in
which the sage "responds" to a question or criticism.(93)
Responsive chreiai, according to Hock and O'Neil, are set in very agonistic situations,
such as "chiding students, attacking vices, responding to critics, debating with one
another and reflecting on the philosophical life." (94) Yet the chreia should not be left
simply in the literary world, but given a proper social and cultural interpretation in
terms of the competition for honor so characteristic of the agonistic world of antiquity.
The very form of the responsive chreia, which begins with a hostile remark or a
critical question, embodies what students of the anthropology of honor and shame
regularly identify as the choreography of challenge and riposte. Because honor
comprises both an individual's claim to worth and public acknowledgment of that
claim, without that public approval, the claim remains empty and foolish. Besides
being un-acknowledged, claims may in fact be challenged, which action demands a
response.(95) Thus we typically find four steps in a challenge/riposte exchange: (1)
claim, (2) challenge, (3) riposte, and (4) public verdict. Since honor is always a matter
of public awards of reputation, the whole challenge-riposte exchange must take place
in public so that the public sees the challenge, assesses whether a riposte is needed,
and awards success or failure to the challenger. The responsive chreia begins with a
challenge to the sage, either a criticism or a question, to which the sage responds in
typical witty fashion. He thus maintains his reputation for wisdom and wit, which is
evident in the fact that chreiai are told celebrating the his cleverness. As such, a
responsive chreia encodes the fundamental social dynamic of the cultural world of
antiquity: in a competition for honor, challenge = criticism or question, and riposte =
witty reply.
In regards to Mark,(96) only rarely do we find a formal claim by Jesus or others on his
behalf at the beginning of a chreia. It is generally implicit in some bold action of Jesus
which elicits a challenge (2:5, 23; 6:2). Furthermore, Markan chreiai occasionally end
with some sort of public verdict, generally in Jesus' favor (3:6; 12:12, 17, 32, 37). In
contrast, the essential elements of the chreia (question/response) are always carefully
stated, both the challenging question or criticism and the defensive riposte: 2:6/8-11;
2:16/17; 2:18/19-22; 2:24/25-28; 3:2/4-6; 3:22/23-30; 3:32/33-35; 6:2-3/4-5; 7:5/6-13;
8:11/12-13; 9:11/12-13; 10:2/3-9; 10:17/18-19; 11:28/29; 12:13-15/16-17; 12:18-23/2428; and 12:28/29. Neither the ancient rhetorical sources nor the anthropology of honor
and shame state that envy prompts the challenge; but neither do they find it
repugnant. Within the framework of competition for honor in a limited good world, it
would be a very safe assumption that a challenging question or strong criticism would
be prompted by a desire to take down a peg or two the person with the reputation for
prowess and success. Tall trees and mountains always attract lightning. But the point
is: the dominant literary form in Mark, the responsive chreia, encodes both challenge
and riposte, which are the basic social dynamics of honor challenges. In Mark, the
185

responsive chreia occur as the agonistic reaction by the elites and their retainers to
Jesus' growing reputation. In a word, envy!
(b) Slander and Gossip. Mark's single incidence of slanderous gossip illustrates in a
culturally recognized way how an envier envies. Scribes presumably heard of Jesus'
growing reputation, came from Jerusalem, and spread this slander: "He is possessed
by Beelzebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out demons" (3:22). Mark does not
state why these scribes said this about Jesus. But the implicit reason in the narrative
would seem to be Jesus' remarkable success at casting out demons, which elevates him
above other local figures, especially the scribes: "He taught them as one who had
authority, and not as the scribes" (1:22) and "With authority he commands even the
unclean spirits, and they obey him" (1:27). As a result, "at once his fame spread
everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee." With Jesus' sudden
rise in reputation, the scribes lose their prestige; in a limited-good world, his success
comes at their expense. Can envy be far behind?
(c) Arrest, Trial and Death. The evangelist summarily identifies all of the hostility
against Jesus in Mark 14-15 as the result of envy. Earlier, we noted how in Athens the
law courts were used as forums in which to stage rituals of status degradation of
prominent people, especially one's rivals. The same thing appears to happen in Mark's
account of Jesus' arrest and trial before the Judean assembly of elders. (97) Yet, in the
case of Jesus, the enviers are not content with his being taken down a peg or two. They
seek his total shaming, namely, his death. The narrative has already prepared its
readers for this type of aggressive move; earlier, after Jesus successfully defended
himself from envious challenges about his table fellowship (2:15-17), fasting (2:18-22),
and Sabbath violations (2:23-28; 3:1-5), those who lost their honor challenges then
took counsel "how to destroy him" (3:6). (98) Although Foster's analysis of the
expressions of envy dealt mainly with the potent weapons of "gossip, backbiting and
defamation,"(99) we saw from Basil and Cyprian that physical aggression and homicide
are genuine ways of envying a rival in antiquity.
3. Envy Begins at Home: Rejection at Nazareth. All four gospels record that Jesus was
denied "honor" at home, whether that home was Judea (John 4:43-44) or Nazareth in
Galilee. Mark's version of this illustrates the dynamics of envy, even if the term is not
formally used. In shape, the narrative contains the classic challenge/riposte exchange
which characterizes all of Jesus' public appearances: (1) claim: not only does Jesus'
reputation precede him, he assumes the socially important role of "teacher" in the
synagogue, thus claiming special status (6:1-2a); (2) challenge: the people in the
synagogue refuse to acknowledge his new role and status (6:2b-3); (3) riposte: Jesus
cites the proverb, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and
among his own kin, and in his own house" (6:4), which dismisses the challenge by
effectively exposing their envy. And his refusal to act as benefactor to them also serves
as an apt riposte (6:5-6). (4) Public verdict: the "public" assembled in the local
synagogue is both challenger and jury in this case; the narrative does not indicate that
they withdrew their challenge and awarded Jesus his due in honor.(100)

186

The challenge-riposte form indicates that the sole issue is Jesus' "honor." Why should
his village neighbors be so hostile to Jesus, a local boy who made good? In the world
of "limited good," they would be understood as envious of his success; for, his rise in
fame means a corresponding loss in honor for the rest of them. We are reminded of
Basil and Cyprian's notice of endless sibling rivalry in the Bible, which brings the
issues of honor, limited good and envy directly into the kinship circle. For from being
improbable, it is to be expected.
4. Disciples Envious of a Rival Exorcist
A disciple in Jesus' inner circle reports how he acted loyally. John found a person
outside their network, not only imitating Jesus' exorcisms, but performing them in his
name: "We saw a man casting out demons in your name" (9:38). (101) John perceived
this in terms of "limited good" and interpreted the rival exorcist's actions as a claim
to fame which will diminish Jesus' reputation and thus of the disciples. Hence he
rebuked this rival: "We forbade him." John's actions would normally be
praiseworthy, for he showed loyalty to his patron-teacher, Jesus, by defending Jesus'
special claim to precedence. But Jesus tells him not to challenge the rival exorcist,
which is utterly surprising and quite untypical of the way people act in an
honor/shame world (see Num 11:26-30).
More occurs than meets the eye. A principle is at stake, namely, Jesus' investment in
the dynamics of gaining and maintaining honor. By foreswearing reactions in defense
of his own honor, Jesus at this point steps apart from the native value system. When
challenged, he offers no riposte. Thus Jesus declares that he himself does not act to
acquire honor, will not be defensive of whatever worth he has, and will not participate
in the game of envy.(102) Hence, he censures John's envy of a rival; for, disciples who
take up their cross to follow Jesus and who lose the whole world of his sake (8:34-37)
simply do not participate in the quest for honor as that is defined in his world. In
terms of their ancient culture, they are very odd persons indeed.
5. Envy Among the Disciples
Later James and John approach Jesus to request high status in his kingdom: "Grant
us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left" (10:37). (103) They ask for nothing
less than being second-in-command, far above the role or status to which other
disciples might aspire. This unabashed quest for precedence naturally precipitates the
usual challenge by the other disciples: "When the ten heard it, they began to be
indignant at it" (10:41). They perceive the situation in terms of limited good: if James
and John increase, there is significantly less prestige for them. Their "indignation" (),
then, is an predictable reaction here.(104) Mark does not state that their motive is envy,
but in our "anatomy of envy," we would surely be correct in interpreting their
response as pain at the attempted success of their peers.
As in the case of the rival exorcist (9:38-41), Jesus responds by disengagement from
the whole world of honor. He effectively calls off the game of envy and declares the
entire pursuit of honor off limits for the members of his group. First, he describes elite
187

figures in his cultural world such as "great ones" (), that is, people of the highest
social value, whose status allows them to "lord it over" the rest. But Jesus rejects them
as models for the disciples: "It shall not be so among you" (10:43). He mocks the
fundamental notion of status hierarchy by reversing it. In his system, "Whoever
would be great (), must be your servant (), and whoever would be first () must be
slave of all ()" (10:43-44). In Jesus' world, no one would claim to be "servant" and
"slave," which were most inferior statuses. Such statuses carry only shame, and so no
one would be envious of them by thinking that "servants" and "slaves" had somehow
increased at one's own expense. Jesus casts himself in just such an honor-less role:
"The Son of man came not to be served but to serve" (10:45). Thus, according to
Mark, Jesus once more steps apart from the world of honor, which Cyprian astutely
interpreted as a prevention of envy.(105)
6. Shunning Honor and Avoiding Envy
After seeing how Jesus foreswore the pursuit of honor and thus precluded envy from
his disciples, we turn to other passages in Mark in which Jesus critically engages the
value of honor in his cultural world (8:31-9:1; 9:31-37). Although in these he does not
explicitly act to avoid envy, the new values and behavior which he enjoins will
perforce prevent it.(106) In the first instance, Jesus presents himself to his disciples in an
apparently shameful status, as the rejected and slain Son of man (8:31) -- hardly an
enviable position. But he demands of his disciples a comparable shameful status by
taking up their crosses to follow him and losing their lives for his sake (8:34-37). Let
us not think, however, that Jesus abandons the entire value world of honor and
shame; rather, he is reversing its polarities, indicating that "shame" in the eyes of
one's neighbors is "honor" in his and God's eyes. In any case, worth and value come
from an evaluating public, either one's village and kin or Jesus and his Father. He
goes so far as to declare "shameful" those who reject his reinterpretation of honor:
"Whoever is ashamed of me and my words. . .of him will the Son of man be ashamed"
(8:38). In this scheme of things, then, the criteria for honor as defined by the dominant
culture are no longer operative; nor will his disciples compete for it; nor will there be
envy at those who achieve "shame" for the sake of Jesus.
In the second instance (9:31-37), Jesus again presents himself to his disciples as a
shamed person (9:31), a status so foreign to the disciples' way of thinking that "they
did not understand the saying" (9:32). In contrast, they continue their old ways and
"discussed with one another who was the greatest" (9:34). The narrator thus has
juxtaposed Jesus' redefinition of honor and shame with the disciples' continuation of
the old code. To resolve the conflict, Mark narrates that Jesus both spoke directly to
the issue and illustrated his words appropriately. First Jesus reversed the typical
hierarchy of status which was the result of honor seeking: "If any one would be first
(), he must be last of all () and servant of all ()" (9:35). This does not cancel the
fundamental sense of ranking, but only challenges the current mode of evaluating
which statuses are truly honorable in Jesus' eyes. Then Jesus took a child into his
arms and made the outrageous statement that such a child had the same status as
himself: "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me" (9:37). In Jesus'
cultural world, young children(107) did not yet enjoy any particular social roles or
188

status; in fact, their role is to obey and submit, which are hardly behaviors which gain
honor. They do not serve as examples of "innocence" or "simplicity," which are
modern notions of what children are like. (108) Rather, according to the ancient world,
they were either selfish brats who needed disciplining or simply honorless people that
others do not have to regard or defer to. Again, Jesus is not destroying the system of
honor; he redefines what is honorable or shameful and he opts for "shame" or
worthlessness. Thus Jesus precludes all agonistic competition for honor as well as envy
at another's success.
7. Secrecy and Avoiding Envy
We have continually noted the bind in which people who love honor find themselves.
On the one hand, they passionately pursue the socially accepted paths to prestige and
fame. Yet in quest of this, they become vulnerable to envy, just as tall trees attract
lightning and tall poppies get severed. Hence, it is not surprising that Foster described
among his list of strategies for avoiding envy and the evil eye the practice
of concealment. (109) The same topic may be more readily recognized as "secrecy," as in
"the messianic secret."(110)
John Pilch's article on "Secrecy in the Mediterranean World" offers an apt
introduction to the topic.(111) He explains how in the ancient world, people generally
practiced a "formal, conscious, deliberate, and calculated concealment of information,
activities, or relationship which outsiders can gain only by espionage."(112) Why?
Information control registers distrust of how others will use the information, fears
embarrassment or harm from its leakage, and tries to avoide envy. Pilch cites an
anthropologist who defines secrecy in the competition for prestige as "the need to
conceal results from conflict and competition over such valued and scarce resources as
wealth, power and prestige."(113) Hence, people guard information about themselves,
which might provoke envy, theft, or honor challengees.
On several occasions, after Jesus performed some healing which will surely gain him
even greater fame, he commands the healed person to guard the secret (1:44; 7:36).
(114)
In light of Mark's presentation of a rising tide of fame and reputation for Jesus, we
suggest that the commands not to spread the news are part of a persistent strategy of
avoiding excessive attention which would result in envy from the scribes and
Pharisees.(115) It is noteworthy, moreover, that Jesus' commands here are not obeyed,
which in any other context would be shameful. The more Jesus protects himself from
excessive fame by a strategy of secrecy, the more the word goes out: "He charged
them to tell no one; but the more he charged them, the more zealously they
proclaimed it" (7:36). Furthermore, the narrator certainly approves of the
proclamation: "They were astonished beyond measure, saying, 'He has done all things
well; he even makes the deaf hear and the dumb speak'" (7:38). This acknowledgment
of Jesus' worth seems to be one of the main rhetorical aims of the gospel story. We
maintain, moreover, that this "secrecy" is most naturally understood as a common
strategy in the world of honor and shame. Jesus is portrayed as all the more
honorable by practicing a strategy of secrecy to avoid envy. Nevertheless Mark always
189

aims to secure honor and praise for Jesus by narrating how Jesus' commands to
secrecy were not obeyed and how his fame and reputation constantly grew.
8. Refusing Compliments
Foster notes that people regularly reject compliments as another way of escaping an
invidious glance.(116) One ancient informant tells us how dangerous praise could be.
Aulus Gellius discourses on certain people who work spells by voice and tongue: "For
if they should chance to bestow extravagant praise upon beautiful trees, plentiful
crops, charming children, fine horses, flocks that are well fed and in good condition,
suddently, for no other cause than this, all of these die" (Attic Nights 9.4.8, referring
to Pliny the Elder, N.H. 7.16). Since praise, however desirable in an honor-shame
culture, also kills, we would expect people to be wary of compliments and other marks
of commendation. In this vein, Mark reports that a rich man came up and addressed
Jesus, "Good Teacher, what must do to inherit eternal life?" (10:17). His polite
remark c;ompliments Jesus but is curtly rejected: "Why do you call me 'good'? No
one is good but God alone" (10:18).(117) This is a small point, but one utterly
transparent when seen in terms of the anatomy of envy in antiquity. Jesus simply
avoids envy by refusing this compliment.
9. The Evil Eye
Mark records that Jesus once listed vices that come from the heart. The narrative
context juxtaposes Pharisaic concern for externals which pollute with Jesus' insistence
that only internal things, such as vices, pollute. (118) Among the vices listed by Jesus is
"the evil eye" ( ), which is generally translated as "envy." It is not clear from the
Markan context whether mention of this particular vice is intended to expose the
actions of Jesus' critics to ridicule.(119) Thus we cannot claim it as another instance of
the "anatomy of envy" in the gospel. Nevertheless, its mere mention indicates Markan
awareness of the pervasive cultural phenomenon of envy, especially this sort of
strategy for harming the envied person. This mention of "evil eye" is not an oddity
which stand all by itself; rather, it represents another obvious clue to the awareness of
a full-blown pattern of envy in the gospel.
IV. Summary and Conclusions
We hope to have accomplished two things in this study: (1) to make modern readers
aware of the full "anatomy of envy," and (2) to indicate how pervasive and culturally
plausible envy is in a document of conflict such as Mark's gospel. In regard to the
former point, we return to our major metaphor: if a bone called "envy" is discovered,
it implies a complete skeleton of social values and interactions. It is hardly a linguistic
orphan, independent of any cultural scenario; it evokes a full anatomy. But if "envy"
does not itself always appear, the rest of the skeleton may nevertheless be in view,
which only a reader culturally sensitive to the "anatomy of envy" will recognize. The
"anatomy of envy," moreover, is particularly useful for interpretation in an age which
tends to divide and isolate complex phenomena for purposes of analysis. Knowledge of
the full "anatomy of envy" offers a systemic model of a common social phenomenon, a
190

way of seeing the intrinsic relationships of various items and a pattern of integrating
what might otherwise be fragmented. The mere mention of "envy" invites a culturally
sensitive reader to investigate the full social and cultural implications of that single
verbal clue.
In regard to Mark, it is surely presumptuous to claim that the evangelist consciously
selected "envy of Jesus" as a rhetorical focus. He was hardly a social scientist. As we
have seen, however, the "anatomy of envy" surfaces for careful study patterns of
social interaction which are the bones and sinews of the narrative of the gospel. We
prefer to claim that Mark was basically writing in praise of Jesus and honoring him as
Christ, Son of God and Lord. But "praise" in his cultural world itself implies a
complex system of values and social dynamics. It means recognition of fame and
reputation as paramount values held by all (Cynics excluded). But such values are
perceived by the ancients in terms of limited good, such that Jesus' gain in fame
means a corresponding loss to others, in particular alternate teachers, sages and
leaders. Their perceived loss prompts them, who are also motivated by love of honor
(), naturally to feel distress at Jesus' success and so to envy him. Their envy takes
shape according to recognized patterns typical of such a culture, patterns as
applicable to the aristocrats of classical Athens as to comparable elites and their
retainers in first-century Judea. Moreover, their envy of Jesus, finally identified as
such in 15:10, has been an integral part of the story from the first controversy in 2:112. To tell a story of the honor of Jesus would necessarily entail consideration of envy
of that honor, not simply a record of "conflict" or "controversy."
Yet why see this all too human and perhaps sordid side of the social dynamics in
Mark's narrative? It highlights Jesus' exalted worth and status, for to be envied is a
mark of honor. Walcot, commenting on the honor of being envied, cites Epicharmus:
"Who would not wish to become envied, friends? It is clear that the man who is not
envied is as nothing."(120) Jesus, of course, was hardly "as nothing" to Mark and the
Jesus movement group. Furthermore, examining the narrative about Jesus in terms of
his honor and the envy it provoked makes more salient the fundamental conflict which
all of the gospels indicate was part of Jesus' public career from start to finish. As such,
the "anatomy of envy" makes more culturally plausible why Jesus was handed over.
He was envied unto death, the fate of tall trees and prominent people. Although
reading the gospel in terms of honor and envy may not seem as theologically
interesting as tracing themes such as "messianic secret" or "theology of the cross," it
is culturally more accurate.

NOTES
1. M. W. Dickie, "Envy," ABD 2.528. Yet Dickie is no worse off than the commentators
on Mark 15:10 who simply ignore the mention of envy there.

191

2. Envy was credited by Judean and Christian authors as the cause of the primal sin:
"Through the devil's envy () death entered the world" (Wisdom 2:24). Similarly
Gregory of Nyssa says: "Envy is the passion which causes evil, the father of death, the
first entrance of sin, the root of wickedness, the birth of sorrow, the mother of
misfortune, the basis of disobedience, the beginning of shame. Envy banished us from
Paradise, having become a serpent to oppose Eve. Envy walled us off from the tree of
life, divested us of holy garments, and in shame led us away clothed with fig leaves"
(Life of Moses 2.256, trans. Abraham Malherbe and Everett Ferguson, The Life of
Moses [New York: Paulist Press, 1978] 120; S.C. 1, 282). See Andrew Louth, "Envy as
the Chief Sin in Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa," Studia Patristica 15 (Berlin:
Akademie Verlag, 1984) 458-60.
3. George M. Foster, "The Anatomy of Envy: A Study in Symbolic Behavior," Current
Anthropology 13 (1972) 165-86.
4. Important classical and Christian discussions of envy include Plutarch, On Envy
and Hate, Dio Chrysostom, Orations 67 & 68; Stobaeus, Ecl. 3.38; 1 Clem. 4; Gregory
of Nyssa, Life of Moses, 2.256-59 (S.C. 1, 282-284), Or. cat. 6 (P.G. 45.28-29) and De
beat. 7 (P.G. 44.1285-88); Cyprian "Jealousy and Envy" (CCSL 3A) and Basil,
"Concerning Envy" (P.G. 31.372-86).
5. Luke T. Johnson, "James 3:13-4:10 and the Topos ," NovT 25 (1983) 327-47.
6. Johnson, "James 3:13-4:10," 334-38. For a philosophical treatment of envy, see E.
Milobenski, Der Neid in der griechischen Philosophie (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz,
1964) and Theodoros Nikolaou, Der Neid bei Johannes Chrysostomus (Bonn: H.
Bouvier, 1969). On envy in modern philosophy, see Gabriele Taylor, "Envy and
Jealousy: Emotions and Vices," Midwest Studies in Philosophy 13 (1988) 233-49 and
Aaron Ben-Ze'ev, "Envy and Jealousy," Canadian Journal of Philosophy 20 (1990)
487-516.
7. George M. Foster, "The Anatomy of Envy," 165-86, who depends here on Helmut
Schoeck, Envy. A Theory of Social Behaviour ( New York: Harcourt, Brace and
World, 1969).
8. John H. Elliott ("Matthew 20:1-15: A Parable of Invidious Comparison and Evil
Eye Accusation," BTB 22 [1992] 58-59) presented many of the elements of a model of
envy, along with a collection of comments by the ancients on the topic. Whereas Elliott
focussed primarily on the evil eye, we give our full attention to the larger model of
envy.
9. The translation of Aristotle is by George A. Kennedy, Aristotle, On
Rhetoric (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991); other Greek and Latin authors are
cited from the Loeb Classical Library. Cicero defines envy as "distress incurred by
reason of a neighbour's prosperity" (Tusc. Disp. 4.8.17); Basil echoed this
commonplace, saying: "Envy is pain caused by our neighbor's prosperity"
192

("Concerning Envy," 1 [P.G. 31.377 (41)]); the translation used is that of M. Monica
Wagner, St. Basil. Ascetical Works (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1950) 463.
10. Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) 5.316.
Envy is often compared to rust which devours iron: "As oxide eats up iron, so is the
envious devoured by this passion" (Antisthenes, Frag. 82); see Cyprian's treatment,
"Jealousy and Envy," 7.119-21 (CCSL 3A, 78; the translation of Cyprian's homily is
that of Roy J. Defarrari, St. Cyprian, Treatises [New York: Fathers of the Church,
Inc., 1958] 298); Basil ("Concerning Envy," P.G. 31.379 [51]) expressed a similar idea
in his description of the effects of envy which cause a person to be "consumed and to
pine away." On the iconography of envy in ancient art, see Katherine M.D. Dunbabin
and M.W. Dicke, "Invidia Rumpantur Pectora. The Iconography of Phthonos/Invidia
in Graeco-Roman Art," JAC 26 (1983) 7-37.
11. In his treatment of envy, Foster distinguishes it from "jealousy," "The Anatomy of
Envy," 167-68; see also Helmut Schoeck, Envy. A Theory of Social Behavior, 12-22.
For a study of "jealousy" as emulation, see Richard H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy.
WUNT 63 (Tbingen: J.C.B Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1994).
12. Precisely this distinction is clearly made in the entries on "envy" and
"zeal/jealousy" in John J. Pilch and Bruce J. Malina, eds., Biblical Social Values and
Their Meanings. A Handbook(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993) 55-59 and 185-88.
For modern linguistic study of the differences between envy and jealousy, see W.
Gerrod Parrott and Richard H. Smith, "Distinguishing the Experiences of Envy and
Jealousy," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64 (1993) 906-20.
13. Oxford English Dictionary 8.207.
14. Cicero distinguishes envy (invidia), rivalry (aemulatio) and jealousy (obtrectatio):
"Envy is distress incurred by reason of a neighbor's prosperity. . .rivalry is for its part
used in a twofold way, so that it has both a good and a bad sense. For one thing,
rivalry is used of the imitation of virtue (but this sense we make no use of here, for it is
praiseworthy); and rivalry is distress, should another be in possession of the object
desired and one has to go without it oneself. Jealousy on the other hand is what I
understand to be the meaning of , distress arising from the fact that the thing one has
coveted oneself is in the possession of the other man as well as one's own" (Tusc. Disp.
4.7.17).
15. Peter Walcot (Envy and the Greeks. A Study in Human Behaviour [Warminster:
Aris and Phillips, Ltd., 1978] 8-10) notes how Hesiod describes two aspects of Strife,
which correspond exactly to envy and emulation: "There was not one kind of Strife
alone, but all over the earth there were two. As for the one, a man would praise her
when he came to understand her; but the other is blameworthy: and they are wholly
different in nature. For one fosters evil war and battle, being cruel: her no man loves;
but perforce, through the will of the deathless gods, many pay harsh Strife her honour
due. But the other is the elder daughter of dark Night, and the son of Cronos who sits
above and dwells in the aether, set her in the roots of the earth; and she is far kinder
193

to men. She stirs up even the shiftless to toil; for a man grows eager to work when he
considers his neighbour, a rich man who hastens to plough and plant and put his
house in good order; and neighbour vies with neighbour as he hurries after wealth.
This Strife is wholesome for men" (Works and Days 11-24).
16. means evil, hostile action against someone in Acts 5:17; 7:9; 13:45; Rom 13:13; 1
Cor 3:3; 13:4; 2 Cor 12:20; Gal 5:20; Jas 3:14, 16, but positive, defensive protection in
John 2:17. Within the same language set, , and mean good, competitive emulation in
Rom 10:19; 11:11 & 14; 1 Cor 12:31; 13:39, and defensiveness in 1 Cor 10:22 and 2
Cor 11:2. See Albrecht Stumpff, "," TDNT2.877-88.
17. Foster, "Anatomy of Envy," 168-69.
18. Foster, "Interpersonal Relations in Peasant Society," Human Organization 19
(1960) 175-177.
19. George M. Foster, "Peasant Society and the Image of Limited Good," American
Anthropologist 67 (1965) 293-315); see his "Interpersonal Relations in Peasant
Society," Human Organization19 (1960) 177 and "Cultural Responses to Expressions
of Envy in Tzintzuntzan," Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 21 (1965) 24-35.
Foster's concept was subsequently debated in the anthropological literature; see
"Brief Communications" in American Anthropologist 68 (1966) 202-14 and Steven
Piker, "'The Image of Limited Good': Comments on an Exercise in Description and
Interpretation," American Anthropologist 68 (1966) 1202-25.
20. Foster, "Image of Limited Good," 296; on the application of this notion to aspects
of ancient Greek culture, see Walcot, Envy and the Greeks 22; David Cohen, Law,
Sexuality, and Society: The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991) 183-98 and Law, Violence and Community in
Classical Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 26, 63-70; J. Elster,
"Norms of Revenge," Ethics 100 (1990) 862-85 and John J. Winkler, "Laying Down
the Law: The Oversight of Men's Sexual Behavior in Classical Athens," Before
Sexuality. The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World (David
M. Halperin, John J. Winkler, Froma I. Zeitlin, eds.; Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1990) 174.
21. Foster, "Anatomy of Envy," 169.
22. Foster, "Anatomy of Envy," 169.
23. Foster, "Anatomy of Envy," 169.
24. Students of the Hebrew Scriptures might consider Judges 7:2 equally classic: "The
Lord said to Gideon, 'The people with you are too many for me to give the Midianites
into their hand, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, 'My own hand has
delivered me.'" Thus even God is said to see things in terms of limited good. Similarly,
194

Philo explains the error of polytheism in terms of limited good: the more honor and
regard given to deified mortals, the less there is for the true Deity (Ebr 110; see
Josephus, Ant. 4.32).
25. Anonymus Iamblici in H. Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (5th edition; ed.,
W. Kranz; Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1935) 2.400.
26. Josephus reflects a sense of "limited good" in his account of Herod's decree for the
honoring of his sons: "...let the honours you award them be neither undeserved nor
unequal, but proportioned to the rank of each; for in paying deference to any beyond
the deserts of his age, you gratify him less than you grieve the one whom you slight"
(B.J. 1.459).
27. Foster, "Interpersonal Relations in Peasant Society," 174-78; he cites Ignazio
Silone, Fontamara (New York: McLeod, 1934) ix.
28. Foster, "Anatomy of Envy," 172.
29. See, for example, Jean-Pierre Vernant, Myth and Society in Ancient Greece (New
York: Zone Books, 1988) 29-56; Peter Walcot, Envy and the Greeks, 52-76; and Alvin
W. Gouldner, Enter Plato: Classical Greece and the Origins of Social Theory (New
York: Basic Books, 1965) 41-77.
30. Cohen, Law, Violence, and Community in Classical Athens, 70-75, 90-101, 128.
31. Christopher A. Faraone, "The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding
Spells," Magika Hiera. Ancient Greek Magic (C.A. Faraone and Dirk Obbink, eds.;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) 10-17.
32. See Malina, The New Testament World, 28-62; from the side of classical
scholarship, see Arthur W.H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility. A Study of Greek
Values (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960); Douglas L. Cairns, Aidos. The
Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1993); K.J. Dover, "Honor and Shame," Greek Popular Morality in
the Time of Plato and Aristotle.(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975) 22646; A. Klose, "Altrmische Wertbegriffe (honos und dignitas)," Neue Jahrbcher fr
Antike und deutsche Bildung 1 (1938) 268-78; Peter Walcot,"The Concepts of Shame
and Honour," Greek Peasants, Ancient and Modern. A Comparison of Social and
Moral Values. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1970) 57-76
33. See J.K. Campbell, Honour, Family, and Patronage (Oxford: Oxford University
Press) ; J.G. Peristiany, ed., Honor and Shame. The Values of Mediterranean
Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966); Julian Pitt-Rivers, The People
of the Sierra (2nd edition; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971) and The Fate
of Shechem or The Politics of Sex (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977;

195

and David D. Gilmore, ed., Honor and Shame and the Unity of the
Mediterranean (Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1987).
34. See Bruce J. Malina and Jerome 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) 26-28;
Cohen, Law, Sexuality, and Society, 36-37, 78-83.
35. Pitt-Rivers, The Fate of Shechem, 1.
36. E.R. Dodds (The Greeks and the Irrational [Boston: Beacon Press, 1957] 16-18, 2834) argued that a shift took place in the Hellenistic period from "shame" to "guilt";
for recent discussion of shame and guilt societies, see Douglas L.
Cairns, Aids (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993) 27-47. All cultures have both same and guilt,
but one predominates; see David W. Augsburger, Pastoral Counseling Across
Cultures (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986). For an excellent example of a shamebased culture, see Lyn M. Bechtel, "Shame as a Sanction of Social Control in Biblical
Israel: Judicial, Political, and Social Shaming," JSOT 49 (1991) 47-76.
37. Cohen, Law, Sexuality, and Society, 48-51, 54-69.
38. Isocrates describes how envy attacks success: "When I was indicted, I pondered
these matters, as any one of you would have done, and I reviewed my life and my
actions, dwelling longest on the things for which I thought I deserved approbation.
But one of my associates, hearing me, made bold to urge an objection which was
amazing in the extreme; he stated that while my life as I described it was worthy of
emulation ( ), yet he himself greatly feared that my story would irritate many of my
hearers. 'Some men,' he said, 'have been so brutalized by envy ( ) and are so hostile
that they wage war, not on depravity, but on prosperity; they hate not only the best
men but the noblest pursuits; and, in addition to their other faults, they take sides
with wrong-doers and are in sympathy with them, while the destroy, whenever they
have the power, those whom they have cause to envy (). They do these things, not
because they are ignorant of the issues on which they are to vote, but because they
intend to inflict injury and do not expect to be found out'" (Antidosis 141-142).
Sallust, speaking of the initial good fortunes of Rome, states the truism: "As is usual
with mortal affairs, prosperity gave birth to envy (invidia). As a result, neighboring
kings and peoples made war upon them" (War with Cataline 6.3).
39. The pattern of success breeding envy runs throughout Josephus' works; see Ant.
2.10, 254; 5.230; 6.213; 13.288; Life 189.
40. Cyprian, "Jealousy and Envy," 6.116-17 (CCSL 3A, 78).
41. Several early Christian writers commented on sibling rivalry as prime examples of
envy in the Scriptures; see Cyprian, "Jealousy and Envy," 5.67-80 (CCSL 3A, 77) and
Basil,"Concerning Envy," 3 and 4 (P.G. 31.376 [45] and 377 [48]); Gregory of
196

Nyssa, Life of Moses 2.257 (S.C.1, 282). Plutarch advises brothers to seek honor in
different fields as a way of preventing sibling envy (On Brotherly Love 486B).
42. "The parts of wealth are abundance of cash, land, possession of tracts
distinguished by number and size and beauty and so possession of implements and
slaves and cattle distinguished by number and beauty. . .All in all wealth consists more
in use than in possession" (Rhet. 1.5.7).
43. Plutarch provides an apt illustration of the ancient practice of conspicuous
consumption: "With no one to look on, wealth becomes sightless
indeed and bereft of radiance. For when the rich man dines with
his wife or intimates he lets his tables of citrus-wood and golden
beakers rest in peace and uses common furnishings, and his
wife attends it without her gold and purple and dressed in plain
attire. But when a banquet -- that is, a spectacle and a show -- is
got up and the drama of wealth brought on, "out of the ships he
fetches the urns and tripods," (Il. 23.259) the repositories of the
lamps are given no rest, the cups are changed, the cup-bearers
are made to put on new attire, nothing is left undisturbed, gold,
silver, or jewelled plate, the owners thus confessing that their
wealth is for others" (On Love of Wealth 528B).
44. See Frederick F. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a
Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis:
Clayton Publishing House, 1982).
45. Isaeus describes the "liturgies" or public works which honorseekers were expected to perform. "Our forefathers, who
acquired and bequeathed this property, performed every kind of
choregic office, contributed large sums for your expenses in war,
and never ceased acting as trierarchs" (On the Estate of
Dicaeogenes 5.41); see also Daniel J. Geagan, "Notes on the
Agonistic Institutions of Roman Corinth," GRBS 9 (1968) 69-80).
46. In one chariot race at Olympia, Alcibiades won first, second
and fourth places; Thucydides tells of the envy which this
success occasioned: "...I [Alcibiades] entered seven chariots, a
number that no private citizen had ever entered before, and
won the first prize and the second and the fourth, and provided
everything else in a style worthy of my victory. . .whatever
display I made in the city, by providing choruses or in any other
way, naturally causes envy () among my townsmen. . ." (6.16.23;
see
Isocrates, Team
of
Horses 16.32-34;
Plutarch, Alcibiades 11.1-2,
where
an
ode
by
Euripides
celebrates the victory).

197

47. On the competition in drama, see Arthur PickardCambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (2nd edition;
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988) 40-42, 79-84 and 97-99. And
Peter Walcot,Greek Drama in Its Theatrical and Social
Context (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1976) 2-3, 64-65.
See the discussion of the antiquity of poetry competition in
Plutarch's Table Talk 5.1 674D-675D.
48. Foster, "Anatomy of Envy," 170.
49. See Aristotle, Rhet 2.10.6; also 2.4.21.
50. Walcot (Envy among the Greeks, 26-27) calls attention to
family crises at the distribution of the father's estate; John Davis
(People of the Mediterranean. An Essay in Comparative Social
Anthropology [London: Routledge and Kegan Paul], 1977)
remarked ". . .sons are invariably reported as seeking equality
of division of the patrimony: this is partly a matter of basic
bilateral ideology; partly -- and more directly -- a matter of
jealousy if one brother should have a better start in life than
another" (179-80).
51. See Cyprian, "Jealousy and Envy," 5.66-87 (CCSL 3A, 77);
Basil, "Concerning Envy," 3-4 (P.G. 31.376 (45) - 377 (48).
52. Foster, "Anatomy of Envy," 170.
53. Foster, "Anatomy of Envy," 170-71.
54. Svend Ranulf, The Jealousy of the Gods and Criminal Law at
Athens.
A
Contribution
to
the
Sociology
of
Moral
Indignation (London: Williams and Norgate, 1933) 1.90-91.
55. Walcot (Envy and the Greeks, 25) cites Poseidon's fury in
building a safety wall without paying him his due sacrifice (Il.
7.446-53) and Artemis' anger at being neglected in Oeneus'
sacrifice (9.533-36) and Teucer's failure to promise Apollo his
appropriate offering (23.863ff). See also Herodotus 1.8-13.
56. Writing on Tyche, G.J.D. Aalders ("The Hellenistic Concept of
the Enviousness of Fate," Studies in Hellenistic Religion [M.J.
Vermaseren, ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1979] 2-3) described this
capricious mixture of good and evil as "compensation." His
study of the topic indicates how widespread in the time and
across social levels was this idea in the Hellenistic world and
early Christianity.
198

57. Ranulf, The Jealousy of the Gods, 63-84; see Walcot, Envy
Among the Greeks, 22-5; see . N.R.E. Fisher, Hybris. A Study in
the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece (Warminster:
Aris and Phillips, 1992) 2.
58. Foster, "Anatomy of Envy," 171.
59. Foster, "Anatomy of Envy," 174, citing Ranulf, The Jealousy of
the Gods, I.159. See also E.R. Dodds, The Greeks and the
Irrational (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1963) 2831).
60. Gouldner, Enter Plato, 28. See also Ranulf, The Jealousy of
the Gods 1.111-12; and Erwin Rohde, Kleine Schriften (Tbingen:
J.C.B. Mohr, 1901) II, 329.
61. Foster, "Anatomy of Envy," 171.
62. Fisher (Hybris, 1) defines hybris as: "Hybris is essentially the
serious assault on the honour of another, which is likely to cause
shame, and lead to anger and attempts at revenge. Hybris is
often, but by no means necessarily, an act of violence; it is
essentially deliberate activity, and the typical motive for such
infliction of dishonour is the pleasure of expressing a sense of
superiority, rather than compulsion, need or desire for
wealth. Hybris is often seen to be characteristic of the young,
and/or of the rich and/or upper classes."
63. In explaining Saul's corruption, Josephus describes how
monarchs slide into hybris: "But when they attain to power and
sovereignty, then, stripping off all those qualities and laying
aside their habits and ways as if they were stage masks, they
assume in their place audacity, recklessness, contempt for
things human and divine; and at the moment when they most
need piety and righteousness, being now within closest reach to
envy (). . .They first envy them the honours which they have
conferred; and, after promoting men to high distinction, they
deprive them not only of this, but on its very account, of life
itself, on malicious charges which their extravagance renders
incredible" (Ant 6.264-265, 267).
64. Plutarch says: "In states, the men who are not lovers of what
is noble, but merely who are lovers of honours and of office, do
not afford young men opportunities for public activities, but
through envy ( ) repress them and, to speak figuratively, wither

199

them up by depriving them of glory, their natural nourishment"

(Precepts of Statecraft 806E).
65. See Livy 1.54.6-10 and Diodor of Sicily 10.26.1.
66. Basil, "Concerning Envy," 2 (P.G. 31.374 [45]). On the relationship of envy and
pity, see Edward B. Stephens, "Some Attic Commonplaces on Pity," AJP 65 (1944) 125 and "Envy and Pity in Greek Philosophy," AJP 69 (1948) 171-89.
67. Cyprian, "Jealousy and Envy," 5.67-68 (CCSL 3A, 77) and 11.187-88 (CCSL 3A,
80); Basil, "Concerning Envy," 3 (P.G. 31.375 [45]).
68. Basil, "Concerning Envy," 3 (P.G. 31.376 [45]); other examples are the attempts
by Saul to kill David: Cyprian, "Jealousy and Envy," 5.80-87 (CCSL 3A, 77) and
Basil, "Concerning Envy," 3 (P.G 31.376 [46-47]).
69. Rudolf Hirzel, Themis, Dike and Verwandtes (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1966) 299301; Walcot, Envy and the Greeks, 52-58; see also D. Kagan, "The Origin and
Purposes of Ostracism,"Hesperia 30 (1961) 393-401; E. Vanderpool, "Ostracism at
Athens," in Lectures in Honor of Louise Taft Semple, 2nd series, 1966-70 (Norman,
OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1973) 215-70; Rudi Thomsen, The Origin of
Ostracism: A Synthesis (Gyldendal: Copenhagen, 1972).
70. Aristotle aptly described the process: "If there be some one person, or more than
one, although not enough to make up the full complement of the state, whose virtue is
so pre-eminent that the virtues or the political capacity of all the rest admit no
comparison with his or theirs, he or they can be no longer be regarded as part of a
state. . .And for this reason democratic states have instituted ostracism; equality is
above all things their aim, and therefore they ostracized and banished from the city
for a time those who seemed to predominate too much through their wealth, or the
number of their friends, or through any other political influence" (Pol. 3.13 1284a).
For a Jewish example, see Josephus, B.J. 1.31.
71. David D. Gilmore, "Varieties of Gossip in a Spanish Rural
Community," Ethnology 17 (1978) 92. On gossip, see John K. Campbell, Honour,
Family and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain
Community (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964) 291-92, 312-15; Max Gluckman, "Gossip and
Scandal," Current Anthropology 4 (1963) 307-16; Don Handelman, "Gossip in
Encounters: The Transmission of Information in a Bounded Social Setting," Man 8
(1973) 210-27; Robert Paine, "What is Gossip? An Alternative Hypothesis," Man 2
(1967) 278-85; "Gossip and Transaction," Man 3 (1968) 305-308; "Informal
Communication and Information Management," Canadian Review Social
Anthropology 7 (1970) 172-88; Sofka Zinovieff, "Inside Out and Outside In: Gossip,
Hospitality and the Greek Character," Journal of Mediterranean Studies 1 (1991)
120-34); Richard L. Rohrbaugh, "Gossip in the New Testament," unpublished paper,
delivered at the 1996 meeting of the Context Group, March 15, 1996.
200

72. See David Cohen, Law, Violence and Community in Classical Athens, 70-86. The
classic study of feuding remains that of Jacob Black-Michaud, Cohesive Force. Feud
in the Mediterranean and the Middle East (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1975).
73. Cohen (Law, Violence and Community, 87-118) exposes the pervasive use of the
Athenian law courts as forums to conduct endless feuding; he is very careful,
moreover, to indicate how so much of this feuding was motivated by envy.
74. On the anthropology of the evil eye, see Clarence Maloney, ed., The Evil Eye (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1976); on its prevalence in antiquity, see D. Noy,
"Evil Eye,"Encyclopedia Judaica (New York: Macmillan Co, 1972) 3.997-1000;
Marie-Louise Thomsen, "The Evil Eye in Mesopotamia," JNES 51 (1992) 19-32;
foremost among biblical scholars who research this is John Elliott, "The Fear of the
Leer, The Evil Eye from the Bible to Li'l Abner," Forum 4/4 (1988) 42-71; "Paul,
Galatians, and the Evil Eye," CurTM 17 (1990) 262-73; "The Evil Eye and the
Sermon on the Mount," Biblical Interpretation 2 (1994) 51-84 and "Matthew 20:1-15:
A Parable of Invidious Comparison and Evil Eye Accusation," 52-56.
75. Basil, "Concerning Envy," 4 (Ascetical Works , 469-70; P.G. 31.380 [53-55]). See
Vasiliki Limberis, "The Eyes Infected by Evil: Basil of Caesarea's Homily, On
Envy," HTR 84 (1991) 163-84.
76. Augustine (City of God 5.13) traces the love of praise through the writers who
articulated the great code of honor at Rome. Cicero, he noted, could not hide the fact
that Romans loved praise, "For in the books which he wrote On the Commonwealth,
when he spoke about training the leader of the state, he says that he should be
nurtured on glory" (Rep.5.7.9). See Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 1.2.4.
77. "It seems to me, Hiero, that in this man differs from other animals -- I mean, in
this craving for honour. In meat and drink and sleep and sex all creatures alike seem
to take pleasure; but love of honor () is rooted neither in the brute beasts nor in
every human being. But they in whom is implanted a passion for honour and praise,
these are they who differ most from the beasts of the field, these are accounted men
and not mere human beings" (Xenophon, Hiero 7.3).
78. See also Plutarch, Precepts of Statecraft 805F and Old Men in Public 788E.
79. Foster, "The Anatomy of Envy," 175-82.
80. See Friedrich Oertel, Die Liturgie. Studien zur ptolemischen und kaiserlichen
Verwaltung gyptens (Leipzig: Teubner, 1917); N. Lewis, The Compulsory Public
Services of Roman Egypt(Florence: Edizioni Gonnelli, 1983); S.R. Llewelyn, "The
Development of the System of Liturgies," New Documents Illustrating Early
Christianity 7 (1994) 93-111; David Whitehead, "Competitive Outlay and Community
Profit: in Democratic Athens," Classica et Mediaevalia 34 (1985) 55-74.

201

81. Concerning public liturgies, Aristotle constantly inveighed against requiring the
wealthy to "undertake expensive and useless public services" (Pol. 5.8; see 5.4); see
also Geagan, "Notes on the Agonistic Institutions of Roman Corinth,"69-80.
82. Diodor of Sicily, 9.10.1-4; Plutarch, Letter to Apollonius 116D-E, Dinner of the
Seven Wise Men 164B-C, Talkativeness 511A-B; see Helen North, Sophrosyne. SelfKnowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek Literature (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1966).
83. R.G.M. Nisbet, and Margaret Hubbard, A Commentary on Horace: Odes. Book
II (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978) 160-61. See also Kurt Scheidle, Modus Optumum. Die
Bedeutung des "Rechten Masses" in der rmischen Literatur (Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang, 1993).
84. For example, see Aeschylus, Agamemnon 456-58 and Herodotus, 7.10.
85. To our knowledge, only U. Sommer (Die Passionsgeschichte des
Markusevangeliums [WUNT II/58; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993] 169)
has both identified the reaction to Jesus in 11:18 as envy and linked it to the plottings
of the chief priests.
86. Very few commentators even bother to note Mark's mention of envy; see E.P.
Gould, The Gospel According to Mark (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1897) 286;
Lohmeyer (Das Evangeliums des Markus [MeyerK I/2; 11th ed.; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1951) 337-38) says that envy, presumably the very word ,
is not found elsewhere in Mark, although he recognizes the phenomenon in John
12:19, even when the term "envy" is not present. Rudolf Pesch (Das
Markusevangelium [HTK.NT II/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1977] 465) draws parallels with
T.Sim 2:1 and 1 Clem 5:2-5, but he inflates the cultural commonplace of envy into a
"martyriologisches Motiv." Most simply ignore the mention of envy, either because
they do not appreciate this pervasive aspect of ancient culture or think it as irrelevant
to a theological interpretation of Jesus' death;. Some interpret it in terms of conflict
between Jews and Christians; J. Schreiber (Die Markuspassion -- eine
redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung [BZNW 68; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1993]
178) mentions parallels with conflictual situations in Acts 6:9-14; 7:57; 9:23, 29; 13;45,
50; 14:2; 21:18-36; 22:22; 23:12-22, 27-29; 24:1-9; 25:7; 28:22-28.
87. "Why did they envy Him? -- because of His miracles. And what were these
miraculous works? -- the salvation of the needy. The poor were fed and war was
declared against him who fed them. The dead were restored to life and He who gave
them life was the object of envy. Devils were driven out and He who commanded them
to depart was the victim of treachery. Lepers were cleansed, the lame walked, the deaf
heard, the blind saw and their Benefactor was cast out. Finally, they awarded death to
the generous Giver of Life as His recompense. . .So all-pervading is the malice of
envy" (Basil, "Concerning Envy," 4 [Ascetical Works, 468; P.G. 31.377 (48)]).

202

88. "The Lord. . .when the disciples asked him who among them was the greatest,
said: 'He who will be the least among you, this one shall be the greatest' (Luke 9:48).
He cut off all envy by His reply; He eradicated and tore away every cause and basis
for envy. It is not permitted him to be envious" (Cyprian, "Jealousy and Envy,"
10.167-69 [CCSL 3A, 80]).
89. "If anything should go amiss, they publish it abroad and desire that this mistake
may become as a brand upon those who committed it. They are like incompetent
painters who show the identity of the figures in their drawings by a twisted nose, or a
scar, or some deformity due to nature or accident. Envious persons are skilled in
making what is praiseworthy seem despicable by means of unflattering distortions
and in slandering virtue through the vice that is neighbor to it" (Basil, "Concerning
Envy," 5 [Ascetical Works, 470-71; P.G. 31.381 [57-58]).
90. See Basil, "Concerning Envy," 6 (Ascetical Works, 474; P.G. 31.385 [73]).
91. For ancient rhetorical documents about chreia, see Ronald F. Hock and Edward N.
O'Neil, The Chreia in ancient Rhetoric. Volume I. The Progymnasmata (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1986); on Markan chreia, see Burton L. Mack and Vernon K.
Robbins, Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1989).
Both Mack and Robbins have contributed individual essays on the chreia: Burton
Mack, Anecdotes and Arguments: The Chreia in Antiquity and Early
Christianity (Occasional Papers 10. Claremont, CA: Institute for Antiquity and
Christianity, 1987); Vernon Robbins, "The Chreia," Greco-Roman Literature and the
New Testament (ed., David E. Aune; SBLSBS 21; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 1-23
and "Pronouncement Stories and Jesus' Blessing of the Children," Semeia 29 (1983)
43-74.
92. Aelius Theon 3.23; the text cited is that edited by James R. Butts, The
Progymnasmata
of
Theon.
A
New
Text
with
Translation
and
Commentary (unpublished dissertation: Claremont, 1986) 188.
93. "Chreia" is the new and more precise term for the literary genre identified earlier
as apothegm or pronouncement story; see Klaus Berger, "Hellenistische Gattungen im
Neuen Testament,"ANRW II 25.2 1092-1110 and Vernon K. Robbins, "Chreia and
Pronouncement Story in Synoptic Studies," Patterns of Persuasion in the
Gospels (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1989) 1-29.
94. Hock and O'Neil, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric, 4; in regard to rabbinic
literature, David Daube (The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism [New York: Arno
Press, 1973]141-69) described a similar form in which the scenario is initiated by a
hostile question.
95. See Pierre Bourdieu, "The Sentiment of Honour in Kabyle Society," Honour and
Shame. The Values of Mediterranean Society (J.G. Peristiany, ed.; Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1966) 191-241); his material was adapted for analysis of
gospel chreia by Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, "Honor and Shame in Luke203

Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World," 29-32, 49-52; see also Arland J.
Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979) 52-59.
96. See my article forthcoming from CBQ, "Questions, Chreiai and Honor
Challenges: The Interface of Rhetoric and Culture in Mark's Gospel."
97. In his account of the fate of the early disciples in Acts, Luke first narrates the great
success of the apostles, both in the signs and wonders they performed and in the great
public acclaim they enjoyed in the "portico of Solomon" (5:12); as a result "the people
held them in high honor" (). As a result, the high priests and their retainers were
immediately "filled with envy" () and arrested the apostles and put them in prison
(5:27-28) until they could bring them to trial, which is essentially a status degradation
ritual. Not surprisingly, all of the formal elements of envy which we identify in Mark
11-15 are likewise salient here.
98. On the literary craft of these stories, see Joanna Dewey, "The Literary Structure
of the Controversy Stories in Mark 2:1-3:6," JBL 92 (1973) 394-401; yet she had
nothing to say about the reasons for the controversy because she asked literary, not
social questions.
99. Foster, "Anatomy of Envy," 172-74.
100. Erich Grsser ("Jesus in Nazareth (Mark VI.1-6a)," NTS 16 [1969] 1-23) explains
the motivation for hostility to Jesus as "the ways of this world: people do not readily
acknowledge as an exceptional being one whom they have known from the days of his
childhood" (pp. 4-5). For a more culturally sensitive reading, see Bruce J. Malina and
Richard
Rohrbaugh, Social-Science
Commentary
on
the
Synoptic
Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992) 213-14; and Richard Rohrbaugh,
"Legitimating Sonship -- A Test of Honour. A Social-Scientific Reading of Luke 4:130," Modelling Early Christianity. Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in
Its Context (ed., Philip F. Esler; London: Routledge, 1995) 183-97.
101. For a recent treatment of this passage, see Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the
Exorcist (WUNT 2.54; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1993) 40-43; focussing
exclusively on the historical Jesus, Twelftree investigated background materials, but
not the social meaning of fear of rivalry.
102. Compare Mark 9:38-41 with John 3:25-30.
103. Oddly, commentators never think of this episode in terms of envy and rivalry;
rather they focus on either links between discipleship and suffering (e.g., David Hill,
"Request of Zebedee's Sons and the Johannine Doxa Theme [Mk 10:35ff]," NTS 13
[1967] 281-85) or service and Jesus' vicarious death (e.g., D.E. Nineham, St.
Mark [Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963] 280-81).

204

104. Not every instance of connotes envy; but when one finds "indignation" expressed
in situations where honor and reputation are at stake, then it probably should be
considered a synonym of . See 2 Clem. 19:2 and Isocrates, The Team of Horses 16.49.
105. Apropos of Mark 10:43-44, Cyprian remarked: "He cut off all jealousy by His
reply; He eradicated and tore away every cause and basis for envy. It is not permitted
him to be envious. There can be no contention among us for exaltation" ("Jealousy
and Envy," 10.166-73 [Treatises, 300-301; CCSL 3A, 80]).
106. While commentaries talk readily about discipleship and suffering, they do not
discuss the social implications of Jesus' demands, namely a loss of honor and status
which precludes envy; see J. Duncan M. Derrett, "Taking Up the Cross and Turning
the Cheek ," Alternative Approaches to New Testament Study (ed., A. E. Harvey;
London: SPCK, 1985) 61-78.
107. On the cultural meaning of "child" in antiquity, see Bruce J. Malina and Richard
L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1992) 237-38.
108. John Pilch ("'Beat His Ribs While He is Young' [Sir 30:12]. A Window on the
Mediterranean World," BTB 23 [1993] 101-13) described the ancient Mediterranean
style of parenting which presumed a selfish streak in children which demands as much
satisfaction and gratification as it can wrest from its parents; their task, then, is to be
ever vigilant in controlling and disciplining it.
109. Foster, "Anatomy of Envy," 175-176; see also Glenn W. Most, "The Stranger's
Stratagem: Self-Disclosure and Self-Sufficiency in Greek Culture," JHS 109 (1989)
125 and 130.
110. Discussions of the "messianic secret" are unaware of the common cultural
phenomenon of "secrecy" in the ancient world. Since Wrede, attempts to explain
"secrecy" follow either theological, historical or literary paths; see Christopher
Tuckett, The Messianic Secret (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). Even as he
dismantles the scholarly myth of a "messianic secret," H. Risnen (The Messianic
Secret [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990] ) keeps the discussion on the level of
theological ideology and pays no attention to cultural patterns of secrecy; likewise,
Gerd Theissen, "Die Pragmatische Bedeutung der Geheimnismotive im
Markusevangelium. Ein Wissenssoziologischer Versuch," Secrecy and Concealment.
Studies in the History of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religions (Hans
Kippenberg and Guy Strousma, eds.; SHR 56; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995) 225-45.
111. John J. Pilch, "Secrecy in the Mediterranean World: An Anthropological
Perspective," BTB 24 (1994) 151-57.
112. Pilch, "Secrecy in the Mediterranean World," 153, paraphrasing Stanton K.
Tefft, Secrecy: A Cross Cultural Perspective (New York: Human Sciences Press, 1980)
pp. 14 and 320.
205

113. Pilch, "Secrecy in the Mediterranean World," 153.

114. See Risnen, The Messianic Secret, 144-56. We must distinguish the command
not to spread the news from the silencing of demons (1:25, 34; 4:39). Since the latter is
an act of power to reduce an opponent to silence, silence is of itself honor producing.
Appeals to an apotropaic reason have been shown to be ill advised; see Risnen, The
Messianic Secret, 170.
115. David Rhoads and Donald Michie (Mark as Story. An Introduction to the
Narrative of a Gospel [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982] 57, 75, 85) identify this as a
literary strategy to avoid conflict.
116. Foster ("Anatomy of Envy," 176-77) quotes an anthropologist writing about the
Arab world: "Successful people greatly fear the vicious eye and often rich people
denounce the reality of their fortune to keep away the bad influence of envious eyes"
(Sania Hamady, Temperament and Character of the Arabs [New York: Twayne, 1960]
172).
117. The discussion of "good teacher" has been shaped by the early work of Wilhelm
Wagner, "In welchem Sinne hat Jesus das Prdikat C von sich abgewiesen?" ZNW 8
(1907) 143-61; he analyzed the remark in terms of its theological content. Some
commentators point out how common it was in antiquity to address someonw as or
(e.g., C.B.E. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark [Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1959] 326); others note how rare it is (e.g., Rolf Busemann, Die
Jngergemeinde nach Markus 10 [Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1983] 91). But none think of
it in terms of compliments or flattery; see M.J. Lagrange, vangile selon Saint
Marc (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1929) 264 and Ulrich Luck, "Die Frage nach dem guten: Zu
Mt 19,16-30 und Par. [Mk 10:17-22; Lk 18:18-23]," Studien zum Text und zur Ethik
des Neuen Testaments (Festschrift Heinrich Greeven; BZNW 47; ed. W. Schrage;
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986) 282-97.
118. For an extended analysis of the cultural background of the conflict in Mark 7, see
Jerome H. Neyrey, "A Symbolic Approach to Mark 7," Forum 4/3 (1988) 63-92.
119. See Elliott, "Matthew 20:1-15: A Parable of Invidious Comparison and Evil Eye
Accusation," 61.
120. Walcot, Envy and the Greeks, 39, citing Stobaeus 3.38.21.

206

Symbolic

Approach

to

Mark

Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J.

1.0.
Situating
Mark
7
2.0. Symbolic Anthropological Models.
2.1. Model One: Purity and Pollution
2.1.1. Purity Defined
2.1.2.
Purity
"Maps"
2.1.3.
Boundaries
2.1.4.
Structures
2.1.5. Margins
2.2. Model Two: The Body
2.2.1.
Boundaries
2.2.2.
Structures
2.2.3. Margins
3.0. Pharisees, the Jesus Group and Purity Systems
3.1.
The
Pharisees
and
Purity
3.2.
Jesus
Groups
and
Purity
3.3. Jesus and Israel's Traditions
4.0. Pharisees, Jesus Groups and Body Symbolism
4.1. Pharisees and Body Surfaces/Orifices
4.2. The Jesus Movement and the Heart
5.0. Purity and the Body: Replication in the Model
6.0. Works Consulted

1.0. Situating Mark 7

From a literary point of view, Mark 7 is part of a parallel chain of events in
chapters 6-8:
1) Feeding of the 5000 Feeding of the 4000
(6:31-44) (8:1-9)
2) Crossing the lake Crossing the lake
(6:45-52) (8:10a)
3) Landing at Gennesaret Landing at Dalmanutha
(6:53-56) (8:10b)
207

4) Controversy with Pharisees Controversy with Pharisees

(7:1-23) (8:11-13)
5) Dialogue with Syro- Dialogue with the disciples
Phoenician woman about about the bread miracle
bread (7:24-30) (8:14-21)
6) Cure of a deaf-mute Cure of a blind man
(7:31-37) (8:22-26) (Mally 42:38)

Going over the same ground from a slightly different perspective, one scholar
argued that behind Mark 6 -- 8 stood a primitive catena of miracle stories
arranged in parallel series (Achtemeier 1970). Our interest is in Mark 7, in the
material labelled "controversy" (7:1-23). Yet the critical question here is not that
of Mally or Achtemeier who focused on issues of redaction and form criticism in
their analysis of the origin and development of Mark 6 -- 8. Other questions have
been asked of Mark 6 -- 8, such as a question of literary motifs. It is often noted
how frequently Mark refers to "breads" in these chapters.
Multiplication of BREADS for 5000 (6:38-44)
Non-understanding of BREADS (6:52)
Eating BREADS with unwashed hands (7:2-5)
Children's BREAD and the dogs (7:27-28)
Multiplication of BREADS for 4000 (8:4-10)
Multiplication of BREADS recalled (8:16-21)
In Jewish wisdom literature, eating BREAD is linked with understanding (6:52;
8:18-21), just as food is linked with Torah (Feuillet 1965: 76-101).

208

There is another feature of Mark 7, however, which deserves attention. Bodily

parts are frequently mentioned in Mark 7, and mentioned in contrasting pairs:
1. hands (washed/unwashed), the occasion of the controversy (7:1-5)
2. in Jesus' response
with heart (7:6-13),

to

the

Pharisees'

challenge, lips are

contrasted

3. under the rubric of "things from without which enter and things from within
which go out," bodily surface is contrasted with bodily interior (7:14-16),
4. food is described as not entering the interior of the body, but only
the bowels (7:19),
5. things outside the body which enter it are contrasted with things within
which come from the heart (7:20-23).

Lips and mouth versus heart, outside of the body versus inside of the body, and
surface of the body versus core of the body are images central to the argument of
Mark 7. Inasmuch as 7:1-23 is a challenge-riposte exchange between Pharisees
and Jesus and his group, the body language symbolizes the differences between
the two groups.
PHARISEES
JESUS GROUP
1. Pharisees wash hands as well as cups, pots and bowls.
1. Jesus' disciples do not wash their hands or vessels.
2. Pharisees guard the tradition of the elders.
2. Jesus' disciples espouse the Ten Commandments ("Honor thy father and thy mother").
3. Pharisees honor God only with their lips, while their heart is far from God.
3. Jesus' group members honor God from the heart.
4. Pharisees are "surface people," worrying about surfaces only, hence are superficial,
hypocrites.
209

4. Jesus' group members are "core" people, concerned about what is within, hence authentic
God-fearers.
5. Pharisees guard their lips against non-kosher foods.
5. Jesus' disciples do not guard their lips against foods.

In some ways, Mark associates Pharisees with lips, mouth, bodily surface, and
things outside the body, but Jesus group members with heart, bodily core, and
things within. The association of certain people with specific parts of the body is
an ancient tradition even in New Testament times; for the physical body has
frequently been taken as a metaphor for the social body. Paul's distinction
between head/foot, eye/hand, and more important/less important members of the
group (1 Cor 12:15-16, 21) was a commonplace in classical rhetoric (Nestle
1927: 350-360).
The issue in Mark 7, however, is not politics but "purity and pollution." Jesus
group members are said to eat with polluted hands ("common...that is, unwashed
hands," 7:2), while the Pharisees purify hands as well as vessels for food and
drink (7:3-4). According to Mark, Jesus obviously differed from the Pharisees
over what constitutes a pollution: what comes out of a man versus what goes into
him (7:15,18). Piggybacking on his statement that nothing which comes into a
man from outside can make him polluted (7:18), Jesus "cleansed all foods"
(7:19), that is, made unclean foods non-polluting. Finally, Jesus stated that what
truly pollutes is that which comes out of man's heart (7:21-23), not what crosses
his lips.
Different questions and viewpoints focus on specific data or aspects of those
data. Besides questions of form (miracle catenae) or redaction (parallel
sequences) and besides literary questions (cf. "bread" motif) or background
issues (bread=torah; eating=understanding), there is the question of body imagery
and the issue of purity and pollution. Why is this controversy between Pharisees
and Jesus group members localized on bodily parts (lips versus heart) and
210

concerned with purity and pollution? Why is attention focused on the distinctions
of lips/heart, surface/interior, and outside the body/inside the body?
2.0. Symbolic Anthropological Models.
This set of questions calls for an investigation of Mark 7 from a new point of
view. I propose to study Mark 7:1-23 from the perspective of symbolic or
interpretive anthropology, using the works of Mary Douglas to suggest why and
how body issues serve to mediate meaning. For a basic question here is why and
how body issues are operative in the debate over purity and pollution between
Pharisees and Jesus group members. To understand this, we need cross-cultural
models to help us appreciate the symbolism of the body, in the context of purity
and pollution.

2.1. Model One: Purity and Pollution. The works of Mary Douglas offer a way to
understand the references in Mark 7 to clean/unclean through her model of purity
and pollution. The New Testament, of course, is not the first culture to concern
itself with issues of clean/unclean, sacred/profane, and pure/polluted. In
conceptualizing what underlies these cross-cultural distinctions, Douglas starts
with an analysis of pollution, which is summarily discussed as "dirt." The key
observation is that "dirt" is "matter out of place"; but this implies that there is
first a set of ordered relations and then a contravention of that order.
"The idea of dirt implies a structure of idea. For us dirt is a kind of compendium
category for all events which blur, smudge, contradict, or otherwise confuse
accepted classifications. The underlying feeling is that a system of values which
is habitually express in a given arrangement of things has been violated."
(Douglas 1975:51).
The labelling of something as "dirty" or polluted, then, implies that there is a
system whereby people classify, situate, or organize their world. "Purity" and
"pollution" are but the code names for system and its contravention.
2.1.1. Purity Defined. What is a purity system? Cultures embody and express
core values, such as "democracy" in the USA, which are structured in the cultural
life of group. The core value influences how things are classified and where they
are located. It is the overarching rationale for behavior, the principal justification
for the shape of the system. The core value, moreover, is replicated throughout
211

the system, giving it direction, clarity, and consistency. What accords with this
value and its structural expressions is "pure"; what contravenes it in any way is
"polluted."
The core value of Judaism was God's "holiness": "Ye shall be holy, for I the Lord
your God am holy" (Lev 19:2). This phrase, ". . .for I am holy," becomes a refrain
echoing through the bible (Lev 11:44,45; 19:2; 20:7,26; 21:28; see 1 Peter 1:16).
Douglas sees God's holiness as God's power to bless and to curse, that is, to
classify the world: "God's work through the blessing is essentially to create order,
through which men's affairs prosper" (1966: 50). When the blessing is
withdrawn, confusion occurs, along with barrenness and pestilence (see Deut
28:15-24). God's prime act of blessing occurred in the ordering of the world at its
creation:
(1) when time was structured into work days and sabbath rest,
(2) when animals, birds, and fish were created in their pure form (no hybrids,
no unclean creatures) and situated in their proper locale (fish: water; birds: air;
animals: land),
(3) when the proper diet was assigned each creature,
(4) when the hierarchy of creation was established, with Adam at the top.
Creation, the premier act of ordering and classifying the world, constitutes the
original map of holiness; the holy God expressed His holiness through this
arrangement. And so subsequent holiness among God's creatures involves
"keeping distinct the categories of creation." Holiness, then, expresses God's act
of definition, discrimination, and order (Soler 1976: 24-30).
"Be ye holy, as I am holy" becomes the norm which indicates how things in
creation should replicate and express the divine order of classification,
discrimination, and order. This "holiness" was embodied especially in the central
symbol of Israel's culture, the temple system, where specific maps were made to
indicate:
1. what animals may be offered: only "holy" animals, viz., those which accord
with the definition of a clean animals and which are physically perfect;
2. who may offer them: a "holy" priest, who has the right blood lines, who is in
perfect physical condition, and who is in a state of purity;

212

3. where the offering should be made: in Jerusalem's temple, which is a

microcosm of creation;
4. when the offering is to be made: what offering is appropriate for what
occasion;
5. who may participate in the sacrifice: only Israelites and only those with
whole bodies (Fennelly 1983: 274-75).
The Temple and its sacrificial system became the concrete expression of ordering
and so of holiness; after the monarchy was abolished, it became the central and
dominant symbol of Israel's culture, religion, and politics.

2.1.2. Purity "Maps". The order of creation served as a blueprint not only for the
shape of the temple system, but led to maps for structuring most aspects of
Jewish life apart from the Temple. It becomes the task of the observer to search
out the structural expressions of this core value in the "maps" which the Jews of
Jesus' time made to give shape and clarity to their world. By "map" we mean the
concrete and systematic patterns of organizing, locating, and classifying persons,
places, times, actions, etc. Turning to first-century Judaism, we are aided in our
task of investigating its maps by Douglas's discussion of the map of dietary rules
(1966: 41-57) and by Malina's description of purity in the Judaism of Jesus' time
(1981: 131-137).
We can recover specific maps which illustrate how Jews in Jesus' time had "a
place for everything and everything in its place." For example, there are maps of
places:
"There are ten degrees of holiness:
1. The Land of Israel is holier than any other land...
2. The walled cities (of the land of Israel) are still more holy...
3. Within the walls (of Jerusalem) is still more holy...
4. The Temple Mount is still more holy...
5. The Rampart is still more holy...
213

6. The Court of the Women is still more holy...

7. The Court of the Israelites is still more holy...
8. The Court of the Priests is still more holy...
9. Between the Porch and the Altar is still more holy...
10. The Sanctuary is still more holy...
The Holy of Holies is still more holy..." (m. Kelim I.6-9).
Since Gentiles are not God's people, they are not on the map at all. Yet Israel is
"holy," separated from the nations as God's own people. The map of
places reflects a classifying hierarchy. There are ten progressive degrees of
"holiness": one moves upward and inward to the center, from non-Temple to
Temple, from outer courts to the Holy of Holies where God is enthroned on the
cherubim. The principle of classification (and hence, of "holiness") is proximity
to the center of the Temple.
People can also be mapped, as the following list indicates. A list of people who
may be present for the reading of the Scroll of Esther is given, which list ranks
them in a certain hierarchical order:
1. Priests
2. Levites
3. Israelites
4. Converts
5. Freed Slaves
6. Disqualified priests
7. Netzins (temple slaves)
8. Mamzers (bastards)
9. Those with damaged testicles
10. Those without a penis (t. Meg. 2.7).
214

Two principles of classification are operative here.

(a) "Holiness" means wholeness, and so people with damaged bodies are ranked
last, and people with damaged family lines (slaves, bastards) are ranked second
to last.
(b) The ranking of people on this map replicates the map of places, for one's
rank corresponds to one's proximity to the center of the Temple, with Priests first
because they enter the Holy of Holies, Levites next because they enter the
sanctuary, Israelites next because they stand in the Courts, and so forth.
The map of places and the map of people contain a hierarchical ranking of one's
purity standing. It is not only possible, but necessary to know exactly where
people stand, which is expressed in clear and easily recognized external criteria.
As holiness can be externally gauged, so can pollution, and so we find maps of
uncleanness which indicate a corresponding hierarchy of pollution.
1. There are things which convey uncleanness by contact
(e.g. a dead creeping thing, male semen).
2. They are exceeded by carrion...
3. They are exceeded by him that has connection with a menstruant...
4. They are exceeded by the issue of him that has a flux, by his
spittle, his semen, and his urine...
5. They are exceeded by <the uncleanness of> what is ridden upon
<by him that has a flux>...
6. <The uncleanness of> what is ridden upon <by him that has a flux>
is exceeded by what he lies upon...
7. <The uncleanness of> what he lies upon is exceeded by the
uncleanness of him that has a flux...(m. Kelim I,3)
Such a map indicates how unclean some person or thing is, suggesting a
corresponding strategy for dealing with it.
215

Times may be mapped as well. The Mishnah tractate, Moed,

contains an index of special, classified times, with list of appropriate
rules for observing these times:
m. Moed......................Special Times
1. Shabbat & Erubin..........(Sabbath)
2. Pesahim...................(Feast of Passover)
3. Yoma......................(Day of Atonement)
4. Sukkoth...................(Feast of Tabernacles)
5. Yom Tob...................(Festival Days)
6. Rosh ha-Shana.............(Feast of New Years)
7. Taanith...................(Days of Fasting)
8. Megillah..................(Feast of Purim)
9. Moed Katan................(Mid-Festival Days)
Persons, places, things, and times, then, can all be classified and ranked in some
order or hierarchy. A person, place, thing, or time is "pure" insofar as it has a
specific place and stays in that place. These are but four examples of the kind of
maps one finds structuring Jewish life in Jesus' time. but these suffice to illustrate
the basic working of a purity system.
Where purity concerns are strong, one would expect a proliferation of maps. And
this seems to be the case in the Judaism of Jesus' time. There is a celebrated text
which speaks of "fences" around the Law:
"The tradition is a fence around the Law; tithes are a fence around riches; vows
are a fence around abstinence; a fence around wisdom is silence"
(m. Aboth III,14).
"Fences" might be called "the tradition of the elders" (Mark 7:4,5), for they are
the continued mapping of life, the extended impulse to order, classify and define.
New "fences" are either new maps or further refinement of old maps.
216

These maps, moreover, express the principle of "a place for everything and
everything in its place." It follows, according to Douglas, that there will be
considerable attention paid by a purity-conscious group to its lines, boundaries,
and structure, which indicate just where each thing belongs. "The image of
society," Douglas says," has form; it has external boundaries, margins, internal
lines" (Douglas 1966:114).

2.1.3. Boundaries. Boundary lines indicate who's "in" and who's "out," or what
belongs and what doesn't. For example, there are clear and specific boundary
lines separating members and non-members of God's covenant people (Lev
20:26); the practice of circumcision, kosher diet, and Sabbath observance
indicate that one is an insider to the covenant (Smallwood 1976:123), just as
uniforms and id badges separate soldiers from civilians and doctors from
patients.

2.1.4. Structures. The very maps we studied earlier are Jewish attempts to
classify and locate all times, places, persons, etc. As they classify, they indicate
the hierarchical structure of Jewish culture, just as religious and military
hierarchy of officers structures church and army.

2.1.5. Margins. Since "purity" means exact classification of persons, places,

things, etc., there is great concern over things which do not fit the definition or
find an exact place on the map. Something too much or too little creates a
problem. Things, persons, places, etc are "pure" when fully within their allotted
category or location; but when they straddle a line or blur a definition, they are
moving out of place, and so are "impure."
"Pollution," the opposite of purity, refers to what is out of place, what does not
belong, what crosses lines, what is defective, or what is marginal. 1. Consecrated
covenant people belong in the realm of God's holy land. Gentiles, Romans
especially, are not covenant members and so are out of place in the holy land of
217

Israel, especially in its sacred city and more so in its Temple (see Acts 21:28). 2.
The dead do not belong in the realm of the living but in their own realm of
graveyards. The worst aspect of the possessed man in Mark 5:5 was the fact that
he left the realm of the living to dwell among tombs; his cure permitted him to
leave the realm of the dead and to be properly dressed and seated again among
the living (5:15). 3. The sick do not belong in the realm of the healthy; lepers
should dwell apart and cry "Unclean!" (1:40-45). To a certain extent, so should
paralytics, and so what a surprise to hear of a paralytic being lowered through the
roof into Jesus' "home" (2:1-4). It is not incidental that Jesus tends to encounter
the sick out of doors (see 1:33). 4. Inasmuch as wholeness is related to holiness
(one must be completely what one is), people with defective bodies (e.g.
eunuchs) are unclean; a man with crushed testicles, for example, may not enter
the Temple area to offer sacrifice (Lev 21:20). 5. Sinners, likewise, do not belong
in the same space as observant Jews, which occasions criticism when Jesus eats
at the table of Levi, a tax collector (2:15). 6. Certain foods do not fit the full
definition of what it means to be a sky, earth, or sea creature (Douglas 1966:5157), and so they are marginal, unclean, and polluting. 7. Since there is a specific
time for everything, especially a time for "work" and a time for "rest," if "work"
is done at the wrong time, that is, on the Sabbath, it is out of place. 8. There is a
general prohibition against mixing kinds:
a) in clothing, wool and linen should never be mixed,
b) in agriculture, plowing should be done by either ox or ass,
but never by the two yolked together,
c) in terms of crops sown, only one kind of seed should be sown
in a given field at any one time,
d) in husbandry, cattle should not be bred with that of another
kind (Lev 19:19; Deut 22:9-11).
Since each thing has its proper place, the mixing of two kinds blurs distinctions
and creates hybrids, and so is unclean.
"Purity," then, has to do with system, order, and classification. It attends to
correct labels and accurate definitions; it assigns appropriate physical space to
things and people as well as their proper social location; it is concerned with
completeness and wholeness. The prerequisite of such a system is clarity, the
218

ability to know exactly what something is and where it belongs. This need for
clarity requires precise criteria which can be easily observed, and so expresses
itself in a concern for external and observable phenomena.
This first model serves two important functions. It gives some framework in
which to evaluate the language of clean/unclean in the conflict in Mark 7, for
clean/unclean express the same sense of system as do pure/polluted and
sacred/profane. Second we are informed that, while the surface issue of
contention is washed/unwashed hands, the controversy in Mark 7 is possibly a
clash of two definitions of purity. The issue of washed/unwashed hands is by
synecdoche a sign for the thing signified, viz. the purity system.

2.2. Model Two: The Body

Besides issues of clean/unclean, Mark 7 contains a controversy over the body,
viz. hands and hearts. Douglas offers us another model for assessing this material
in her remarks on the relationship of the physical and social body. We are all
familiar with the classical comparisons of the social body-politic with the
physical human body (Conzelmann 1975: 211). From her own studies, Douglas
takes up this comparison in a more thorough and inductive way. The human body
is a replica of the social body, a symbol of it:
"The body is a model which can stand for any bounded
system. Its boundaries can represent any boundaries
which are threatened or precarious" (Douglas 1966:115).
There is, then, a map of the body, which replicates the map of society. The same
norms which govern the "purity" of the social body are applicable to the physical
body as well. Just as the social body draws boundary lines around itself, restricts
admission (e.g. passports), expels foreign or unclean objects, guards its gates and
entrances, so this tendency to order, classify, and locate is replicated in the
physical body. "Body control is an expression of social control," says Douglas;
conversely, "abandonment of bodily control in ritual responds to the requirements
of a social experience which is being expressed" (Douglas 1982a:70-71). "The
physical experience of body...sustains a particular view of society" (Douglas
1982a:65).
219

This means that in a given culture with a strong classification system and with
high "purity" concerns, we would expect there to be clear rules for the map of
the body concerning: 1) boundaries, 2) structure, and 3) margins.

2.2.1. Boundaries. Boundaries include bodily surfaces as well as the orifices of

the body. As society is ordered and guarded, so is the physical body. The
boundary of the physical body is its skin, and by synecdoche clothing, which
replicates that boundary. Since clothing denotes gender classification, women
should wear women's clothing and men men's (Deut 22:5). Certain clothing,
moreover, indicates social location, such as priestly garments (Ex 28), which
must be made of one kind of stuff, not a mixture of wool and linen (Lev 19:19).
Observant people, for example, wear clothing which tells of this concern for
observance, phylacteries (Matt 23:5). Nudity--the absence of clothing--removes
the classification system and blurs the map and all lines on it. Nudity, then, is
pollution and shame (see Gen 3:10-11; Ezek 16:39).
The true boundary of the body, its skin, is punctuated by certain orifices which
are gateways to the body interior, just as walled cities have gates, and countries
have ports of entry and customs checkpoints. These orifices are the object of
great scrutiny; for, since they are the gates to the interior, they must screen out
what does not belong and guard against a pollutant entering within. The guarded
orifices tend to be the eyes, mouth, ears, genitals, and anus. The eye, for example,
is the "lamp of the body"; if your eye is sound, your whole body will be sound; if
it is not, your whole body will be filled with darkness (Matt 6:22-23). The mouth
is guarded against unkosher foods enter into the body; for unclean foods will
pollute a pure body (Acts 10:14). As regards the sexual orifices, we find rules for
intermarriage which prescribe who may cross the sexual orifice and marry whom.
There are rules prohibiting exogamous marriages (Neh 13:23-28). And there are
rules even for Israelites regulating who may marry whom:
"The priestly, levitic and Israelitish stocks may intermarry; impaired priestly
stocks, proselyte and freedman stocks may intermarry; the proselyte, freedman,
bastard, Nathin, sketuki, and asufi stocks may intermarry" (m. Kid. IV,1).
It follows that where classification systems are strong and purity concerns are
high, there will be considerably more attention given to bodily surfaces and
orifices than to bodily interior. When maps are drawn and lines are clear, one
knows exactly where things belong.
220

The reader is reminded of the earlier remark about "fences" around the Law.
This, too, is a concern for boundaries. For "fences" not only map territory, but
serve also as a defense for what is hedged in. Making a fence around the Law
means setting up a perimeter which guards selected aspects of the Law; if the
fence holds, the Law is safe. Of course, this translates into intense concern for
surfaces and boundaries, which such "fences" symbolize. The bodily equivalent
of "fences" is the surface of the body and its orifices. If one can guard these
adequately according to clear and precise criteria, then there will be little danger
of pollutants entering the body. If the fence holds, the interior is safe.

2.2.2. Structures. In a well-regulated society, where roles and classifications are

clear, there will be a corresponding replication of this in the physical body. A
hierarchy of social roles is mirrored in the hierarchy of bodily organs: eyes over
hands, head over feet (1 Cor 12); right is preferred to left (Needham 1973);
higher is preferred to lower (Schwartz 1981). As well as there is a structural
hierarchy of bodily parts, there is a corresponding concern to supervise the parts
of the body which are in dangerous contact with the outside world. Hands, feet,
eyes, which are the external provinces of the body, are singled out for special
scrutiny (Mark 9:42-48).

2.2.3. Margins. Since lines should be clear and things, persons, places, and times
should be fully in their right place, there should not be too much or too little.
"Too much" means that something spills over into other areas
where it does not belong; "too little" suggests that something is incompletely in
its place or unsettled in it. As regards the body, "too
much" is polluting, as in the case of a hermaphrodite which is both male and
female. In this vein effeminate males and masculine females are "too much,"
being both male and female (Murphy-O'Connor 1980: 482-500).
Bodies might have "too little" and so be defective and unclean. Eunuch, those
with damaged testicles, and those without a penis lack adequate sexual organs;
they are deficient in what it means to be male (see map of people, t. Meg. 2:7
221

above). Those with bodily defects such as the lame, the blind, and the deaf are
lacking something according to Lev 21:16-20. Lacking bodily wholeness, they
lack holiness; such may not be priests nor may they bring offerings into the holy
temple. As we can see, the concern is with externals, the surface of the body, and
areas which are easily observed.

3.0. Pharisees, the Jesus Group and Purity Systems

3.1. The Pharisees and Purity. Turning back to Mark 7, we now want to apply
Douglas' models of "purity" and "body" to the conflict expressed in that textsegment. As a starting point, we recall that the controversy in Mark 7 is between
Pharisees and followers of Jesus; on this point, Douglas' model of "purity" is
most helpful in assessing the symbolic world of these two groups.
The writings of Jacob Neusner are of considerable help in understanding the
Pharisees and their concerns, especially the pre-70 Pharisees who are the referent
of the statements in Mark 7. Neusner's remarks on these Pharisees may be
summarized as follows:
1. The Pharisees were a sect of pious laymen who nevertheless sought to extend
into the day-to-day living of ordinary Jews the concerns of ritual purity usually
associated only with priests and Temple.
2. Pharisees were especially known for their ritual purity rules which organized
and classified times, persons, and things. It was integral to their sense of
separateness to know or determine what was permissible or proscribed, clean or
unclean.
3. Pharisaic purity concerns were especially focused on agricultural rules, which
specified not only what one may eat, but out of which dish or vessel, and with
whom one might eat.

222

4. Pharisees developed traditions which either clarified and specified the Old
Testament laws or which amplified the law's principles, making them applicable
to new situations. Their tradition extended a hedge around the Law.
Neusner's remarks are important. In describing the first-century Pharisees, he
concentrated most of his efforts on Jewish traditions about them, not the New
Testament. He sees, moreover, a coherence in the traditions
attributed to the early Pharisees:
"The Houses' rulings pertaining either immediately or ultimately to tablefellowship involve preparation of food, ritual purity relating directly to food or
indirectly to the need to keep food ritually clean, and agricultural rules
concerning the proper growing, tithing, and preparation of agricultural produce
for table use. The agricultural laws relate to producing or preparing food for
consumption, assuring either that tithes and offerings have been set aside as the
law requires, or that conditions for the nurture of crops have conformed to
biblical taboos. Of the 341 individual Houses' legal pericopae, no fewer than 229,
approximately 67 per cent of the whole, directly or indirectly concern tablefellowship. . . The Houses' laws of ritual cleanness apply in the main to the ritual
cleanness of foods, and of people, dishes, and implements involved in its
preparation. Pharisaic laws regarding Sabbath and festivals, moreover, involve in
large measure the preparation and preservation of food" (Neusner 1973a: 86).
Neusner's profile takes on specificity when placed alongside remarks about the
Pharisees in the Synoptic Gospels.
A. Mark
1. 2:16-17 Pharisees object to Jesus' eating with sinners.
2. 2:18-20 Pharisees object to Jesus' non-eating (not fasting).
3. 2:23-24 Pharisees object to Jesus' disciples husking grain
and eating on the Sabbath
4. 7:1-5 Pharisees object to Jesus' disciples eating without
washing. They are criticized for preferring traditions
to the commandments of God.
223

5. 10:2-9 Pharisees and the Jesus groups divide over divorce rules.
6. 12:13-14 Pharisees test Jesus over taxes to Caesar.
B. Matthew
7. 23:13,15 Jesus criticizes Pharisees as "hypocrites."
8. 23:16-22 Jesus criticizes Pharisees for their oaths.
9. 23:23-24 Jesus criticizes Pharisees for their concern over
agricultural tithes.
10. 23:25-26 Jesus criticizes Pharisees for concern for surfaces
and exteriors.
Neusner indicated that, according to Jewish sources, the focus of the
Pharisaic system of ordering and classifying was on foods and their
consumption. This is confirmed in Christian sources, where Pharisees are
noted for their controversy with Jesus and/or his followers over foods and eating
(#s 1,2,3,4,9), over surfaces, whether of vessels (#s 4,10) or external activity (#
9) or "hypocrisy" (# 7). Their hedge about the law may be reflected in their
concern over traditions (# 4). As I hope to show, all of these items are closely
related. The Pharisees, then, had a strong and comprehensive set of purity rules,
which is what Mary Douglas would call a strong purity system.
The model of purity from Mary Douglas offers considerable help in
understanding these remarks about the Pharisees, and so understanding them
in the controversy of Mark 7. Without forcing the evidence, we could easily say
that the Pharisees showed strong purity concerns in the sense that express a
comprehensive classification system which sought to order and label all the
aspects of their world. Even from the restricted data which we are using, we
know of many maps which they made to order their world. (1) There were maps
of time which laid down rules for keeping the Sabbath holy, when to say the
Shema in the course of the day, whether circumcision could be performed on the
Sabbath, whether children should observe Sukkoth and the Day of Atonement.
224

(2) Their maps of persons concerned who may marry whom, what constitutes
ground for divorce, as well as who may eat together, touch, and enjoy social
commerce. (3) Maps of things involved them in settling the cleanness of Heave
offerings, when a fleece is due as an offering, whether locusts, certain liquids,
and fish are unclean, whether glass can contract uncleanness, etc. (4) Yet from
our data on Pharisees' concern for food and agriculture, perhaps it is fair to say
that their primary map was a map of meals. They specified what may be
eaten, how it is grown, how it is prepared, in what vessels it is
served, when and where it is eaten, and with whom it may be consumed. As
Neusner observed, we know about Pharisees primarily as they are engaged in
laying down laws of classification or as these laws of theirs are criticized by
others. But make clear, firm, comprehensive laws they did! Such is the nature of
strong purity concerns.
Within the general purity framework of classifying a place for everything and everything in its place, we can discern the more specific norm of purity
of the Pharisees. As they sought to extend the priestly and Temple system beyond
that place, the Pharisees evaluated and classified things as clean/unclean
according to what befits priest and Temple. The Old Testament with its ritual
purity rules provided the specific basis for Pharisaic evaluation of clean/unclean.
Hence things relating to the Temple are normative for daily living, such as tithes
on agriculture (what makes an offering acceptable in the Temple), cleanness of
vessels and animals (appropriate for Temple use), the priority of Temple support
over parental support (Mark 7:11).
The Pharisees, who classify so extensively and who norm the world in terms of
temple appropriateness, engaged in a process of making a "fence" around the
Law, extending a perimeter around the Law and guarding that outer fence
zealously. This means an interest in boundaries and surfaces, for this is what a
"fence" means. They are, then, expected to be concerned with the washing of
pots, vessels, hands, etc.; for if the outside is kept clean, nothing unclean can
enter. Surfaces are important; it matters what surfaces can contract uncleanness
(glass, pottery, etc). The "externals" of the law as regards tithes are
understandably important, for if the proper offerings are made, purity is
maintained (Matt 23:23-24). Concern with tradition (a "fence" around the Law)
replicates concern for externals and surfaces, and suggests a strong importance
given to activity over attitude, to performance over intention. The Pharisaic
purity system, then, gave special attention to surfaces, exteriors, and observable
actions. The concern is with the lines and boundaries of the map. This is
replicated in extensive fence building and the development of traditions which
extended and defended the perimeter of the system.
225

Yet we should not simply equate Pharisaism with the Jewish purity system, for
the system as explained earlier is not exclusively theirs. They are but one voice,
one interpretation of the general system in the first century. The fact of the matter
is that Judaism consisted of many sects and many voices (Simon 1967). For
example, Josephus frequently discourses on three "sects" in his exposition of
Judaism in his time (B.J. II.119-66; Ant. XIII.297-98; XVIII.14-25). He
accentuates their differences, presenting them as Jewish counterparts to the
competing philosophies of the Graeco-Roman world: Essenes = Pythagorians,
Sadducees = Epicureans, and Pharisees = Stoics. Each "sect" claimed to have the
truth about Israel's traditional religion, and so we hear divergent voices
competing for leadership. From historical studies, however, we know that these
groups had much in common, for they were basically in competition for control
of the priesthood and the Temple, and so for power to govern the central symbol
of Israel's life. The rivalry between these three groups was based also on differing
social standing. The Sadducees belonged to the priestly families, the urban,
wealthy group which controlled the Temple. The Essenes were also of priestly
stock, but apparently withdrew from the city and its temple to their own desert
community. Yet they claimed to be the only pure priestly clan as to blood lines;
they alone had correct knowledge of the temple calendar and other issues
pertinent to the Temple. The Pharisees were not from priestly families; inasmuch
as the New Testament speaks of Pharisees in Galilee, they appear to be non-urban
people, perhaps the village elite. Tannaitic literature presents the Pharisees
distinguished from the priests but also from the am ha-aretz (Rivkin 1970: 206207). The critical posture of the Pharisees toward Christian practices suggests
that this group was already asserting its claim to articulate the shape of the purity
system of Israel even in the first century, especially in the non-urban areas of
Galilee, where their competition for leadership would not be the Sadducees or
priests, but Jesus and his followers.
The Pharisees in the first century could not control the Temple or its priesthood,
but not for want of trying (see Josephus, Ant. XIII.289-296). They did not speak
for the central symbol of Israel's religion, the Temple, at least before the war of
70 A.D. Rivkin (1970:205-49) noted the numerous bitter conflicts between
Pharisees and Sadducees over temple matters in the second-century tannaitic
literature, which material indicates that the true battles over leadership took place
later than the conflicts recorded in the New Testament. Yet according to the
Gospels, Pharisees are claiming to speak for the replication of holiness: (1) in
non-temple situations, (2) for ordinary (non-priestly) people, (3) who live apart
from the sacred place. Tactically they claimed influence over other territory. As
we saw, their focus came to rest on the ordinary, but necessary daily activity of
eating. And so, in speaking about meals they claimed authority over a highly
226

visible, external activity, around which they built many hedges from the tradition
of the elders.
Several conclusions can be drawn from this material. (1) The situation in Mark 7
reflects a typical conflict of competing claims to speak for the system. (2) The
parties in conflict are both rural non-elites, the Pharisees and Jesus; they are not
competing over Temple procedure but over how the basic system should be
interpreted in terms of ordinary living. (3) It is by no means clear that the
Pharisees spoke for all the Jews in Galilee, although they would like to. Yet
Pharisees might be perceived as championing the main values of Jewish culture;
they seem to stand closer to the mainstream of Jewish life than Jesus and his
followers do. It is a question of point of view. In conflicts with Jesus, they claim
to represent the established system. (4) They would label the behavior of Jesus
and his followers as unclean and polluted, according to their perspective of what
purity means. Yet their label did not necessarily stick, nor could they evidently
mobilize public opinion against Jesus and his followers. They are but one among
many competing voices in a conflict which spans several centuries.

3.2. Jesus Groups and Purity. The Pharisees observed Jesus and his followers
through their lens of what constitutes the purity system of Israel. They look to
boundaries and surfaces to see if things fit or if they are in place. They perceive
in the behavior of Jesus' followers a total violation of the system which they
equate with Judaism. Jesus group members do not observe the map of times,
violating the Sabbath (2:23) and not fasting (2:18-20). Nor do they observe
the map of people, as Jesus chooses sinners for his intimates (2:13-14), eats with
tax collectors (2:16-17), touches lepers (1:41), menstruating women (5:24-28),
and even corpses (5:41); he had regular commerce with unclean Gentiles (3:7-8;
7:31). Jesus group members do not observe the map of places, as Jesus profanes
the Temple (11:15-16; 13:2), nor the map of things as they do not wash hands or
vessels before eating (7:1-5). Finally, Jesus and his followers do not observe the
Pharisees' special map, the map of meals, as the conflict in Mark 7 indicates.
According to this logic, the Pharisees would conclude that Jesus and his
followers purposely rejected the God-given maps and lines that structured their
worship and life. The followers of Jesus made no attempt to respect the accepted
structures or classifications, nor do they build or guard fences around the system.
In doing "what is not lawful" (2:24; 3:4; 12:15; see 2:7), Jesus faction members
were perceived by the Pharisees as sinning. The Pharisees, then, saw them (1) as
227

becoming "unclean" and sinful in God's sight, and so (2) as abandoning the purity
system of classification and order. The whole system seems threatened when one
aspect of it is disregarded.
3.3. Jesus and Israel's Traditions. The gospel of Mark is by and large an
apologetic response to charges that Jesus and his followers are not observing the
traditional purity system. The shape of the apology is mixed, for it stresses at
times Jesus' observance of the rules of the system, but celebrates at other times
his departure from them, even his abrogation of them. At times Mark suggests
great continuity between Jesus and traditions of Israel's religion, but at other
times discontinuity.
Let us examine first Mark's sense of Jesus' difference from the traditional system.
We do this by comparing and contrasting the core values of the Pharisees and
Jesus, the structures which flow from them, and the strategy in which they issue.
First, as regards the core value of their respective systems, the Pharisees promote
God's holiness, especially as this is encoded in the theologoumenon: "Be ye holy,
as I am holy" (Lev 11:44). I suggest that Mark sees the core value more as
God's mercy, that is, God's forgiveness of sinners (see 1:4-5; 2:5-10) and God's
concern for outcasts (hybrids as well as Gentiles). Second, instead of Lev 11:44,
the slogan best expressing this core value might be "I will have mercy on whom I
will have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion"
(Ex 33:19; see Rom 9:15) or "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" (Hos 6:6; see Matt
9:13 & 12:7). Third, the core value of holiness was expressed in God's creationas-ordering, whereas mercy would be linked with God's election of a covenant
group and with God's unpredictable grace (Deut 7:7-8).

PHARISEES
JESUS AND FOLLOWERS
Core Value
God's Holiness (Lev 11:44)
228

God's Mercy (Exod 33:19; Hos 6:6)

Symbolized in
Creation-as-ordering
Election and Grace
Structural
Implications
Strong Purity System
Exclusivist Tendency
Weaker Purity System
Inclusivist Tendency
Strategy
Defense
Mission, Hospitality
Legitimation in Scripture
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
Genesis and Prophets

Fourth, the respective core values suggest different structures for society.
Creation suggests an orderly system of exact definitions and discriminations; it
suggests a certain exclusivity as to what belongs and does not belong and where
each object is to be located. But election suggests a more fluid view of
boundaries and classifications; it suggests a certain inclusivity where labels are
less precise and boundary lines are less clear (Donahue 1982). Fifth, the
respective strategies flowing from the two core values will differ considerably. If
holiness is replicated in order and exact classification, then a defensive strategy
seems appropriate to guard the lines and definitions. Yet a strategy of mission and
hospitality (Senior 1984) seems to follow where mercy means inclusive election.
Finally, Mark's gospel indicates that different parts of the Old Testament
Scriptures might be appealed to as the justification for these two views of the
system. Holiness as order, especially as this is structured in the Temple, is found
229

primarily in Moses' books, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. According to

Mark, however, Jesus seems to favor pre-Mosaic traditions such as the Genesis
version of marriage (10:6-9) as well as prophetic traditions which embody
criticism of the system. Christians and Pharisees, then, would both claim to be
faithful to Israel's God; they both appeal to the Scriptures for validation of their
viewpoint; they both proclaim concern for holiness, forgiveness of sin, etc. But
they are construing their systems on different core values, which imply different
structures, and which prompt different strategies.
Mark, moreover, is conscious of the differences between Jesus and other
exponents of Israel's religion. He records Jesus speaking about a radical newness
which prohibits the kind of mixing of old and new practices, which the kashrut
laws of Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:9-11 proscribe. A new patch is not put on old
cloth; nor is new wine put in old skins (2:21-22). According to Mark, two
different articulations of the purity system are present, and should not be mixed,
but kept separate and distinct.
Yet according to Mark, Jesus worships the God of Israel, accepts God's word in
the Scriptures, and observes many traditions stemming from those Scriptures.
Mark is at pains that Jesus avoid the label of anam ha-aretz who neither knows
nor observes the faith of Israel (see Acts 4:13). Let us look more closely at the
shape of Mark's argument about Jesus' continuity with Israel's faith.
To the charge that they do "what is not lawful," they respond that they indeed
know and respect the basic maps. But they debate over where the lines should be
drawn, over the right classification, and over the correct interpretation. For
example, as regards the map of times, Jesus does not simply abolish the Sabbath
observance, but contests how it is to be understood and kept. He enunciates
principles for his actions which affirm the map of time in principle, but classify
certain acts as permissible and hence clean.
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (2:27).
"Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" (3:4)
Sabbath rest stems from creation, but Jesus does not claim to see in it so much a
principle for ordering times of work and rest as a principle of mercy, viz. "doing
good," "saving life," and giving "rest" even on that day. Concerning maps of
places, Jesus objects to the Temple becoming "a den of thieves" (11:17), while he
affirms it as "house of prayer" and as an inclusive place "for all the nations."
Concerningmaps of people, Jesus declares that he was formally authorized by
God to treat with people whom others should shun. God gave him "authority"
230

(exousia) to heal (1:22,27) and to forgive sins (2:10); God sent him precisely as
"physician to those in need" (2:17). As regards maps of things, while Christians
do not wash cups, vessels, or hands, they are deeply concerned with cleanness
and uncleanness in terms of virtue and vice (Mark 7:15-20).
In regard to the map of meals, however, Jesus and his followers in Mark are
consistent with the general thrust of the New Testament which presents (1)
Christian abrogation of dietary rules (Mark 7:19; Acts 10-11), (2) an open table
for Jews and Gentiles alike (Mark 6:35-44; 8:1-10; Gal 2:12), (3) table
fellowship with the "unclean" (Mark 2:15; Luke 15:1-2), and with the lame,
blind, and maimed (Luke 14:13). By denying that there is a map of meals,
Christians are challenging an essential part of the tradition. In this regard they
were clearly in discontinuity with the established traditions.
A useful way of grasping the Christian attitude to the principle of a purity system
is to observe how Jesus and his followers appealed to the Old Testament as a
guide to where lines really should be drawn and to how things truly should be
classified. The Old Testament, of course, is the eternally valid expression of the
holiness of Israel's God; but what do the Scriptures say? As regards the Sabbath,
appeal is made to the scriptural example of David, the great saint and king.
David, a non-priest, entered priestly space and ate food reserved exclusively for
priests (1 Sam 21:1-6). The interest here is in David's motive, not his actions ("he
was in need and was hungry"). His example is precedent that certain behavior on
the Sabbath is non-polluting, according to the core reason for the Sabbath: "The
Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (2:27). The issue as
formulated centers around motive and principle, not external action or traditional
norm. Concerning the Temple, Jesus' attitude and actions are in accord with
traditional prophetic criticism of Israel's cult, in this case citations from Isa 56:7
and Jer 7:11 about the true purpose of the Temple as a place of "prayer," not
sacrifice, which is "for all the nations," not just Jews. About specific purity rules,
appeal is made to the Ten Commandments, as they constitute the substance of the
list of vices censured in Mark 7:21-23.

10 COMMANDMENTS VICES IN Mark 7:21-23

Do not kill........................murder,
Do not commit adultery.............fornication, adultery,
231

licentiousness
Do not steal.......................theft,
Do not bear false witness..........envy, slander,
Do not defraud.....................coveting,
Honor your father & mother.........see Mark 7:9-13
Christians know and appeal to the Old Testament Scriptures as evidence of their
acceptance of a Jewish purity system, yet debate with the Pharisees and others
about which text was normative.
On this point, it is useful to recall that Mark portrays the Christians as concerned
with the Old Testament law -- they are not "lawless". Jesus proclaims the Ten
Commandments as the way "to inherit eternal life" (Mark 10:19); when asked
about the greatest law, Jesus responds with the Shema (Mark 12:29-30/Deut 6:45), a sacred text which distinguishes Jews from all other peoples in the ancient
world. When asked about the legality of divorce laws, he cites Gen 1:27 and 2:24
(Mark 10:6-7). Neither knowledge nor acceptance of the Old Testament law as
foundation for a system is lacking in Mark's presentation of Jesus. But in each
case, Mark establishes a priority in the Christian choice of laws for structuring
their system, promoting one text over another according to different core values.
When asked about the greatest law, Jesus rightly promotes the Shema (Deut 6:45) and love of neighbor (Lev 19:18). According to the text, Mark indicates that
these "are worth more than all whole-burnt offerings and sacrifices" (12:33). A
core or primary law (the Shema) is promoted over Temple and cultic laws. When
the Temple is cleansed, it is proclaimed not as a place of sacrifice for Jews only,
but as 1) "a house of prayer," 2) "for all the nations." Isa 56:7 is promoted over
the cultic legislation of Exodus and Leviticus. When divorce is discussed, the
original law of God in Gen 1-2 is preferred to the law of Moses which this mere
man wrote "because of the hardness of your hearts" (Mark 10:4-5/Deut 24:1,3).
The direction of these priorities regarding Old Testament texts coincides with the
thrust of the motives and principles which governed the discussion of Sabbath
observance. In his selection of relevant texts, Jesus can be said to have a "canon
within a canon"; he attends to interior issues: (1) motives for actions, (2)
principles, not norms, of law, (3) core over peripheral issues, and (4) original
laws over later traditions.
The Pharisees are not entirely correct when they say that Christians are unlawful
and reject the traditional system. Rather, their criticism is indicative of conflicts
232

in determining who draws what lines and who selects which text of Scripture as
normative. Mark, moreover, has presented Jesus' doctrine as both different and
similar to the traditional system. Jesus articulates a different purity system than
the Pharisees, yet in many ways one which is in continuity with the Old
Testament--at least according to his "canon within a canon." sacred text.
We turn now to Mark 7 and note that the focus of the conflict there is over
clean/unclean. The Pharisees wash hands as well as foods and vessels before
eating; Jesus and his followers eat with common, unwashed hands. The issue is
purity and pollution, but it is hotly contested what constitutes purity and
pollution. As we noted earlier, the conflict spreads out to embrace issues about
(1) norms (tradition of the elders about korban versus the Commandment to
"Honor father and mother"), (2) principles of pollution (what goes into a
man versus what comes out of him), and (3) polluted actions (eating non-kosher
foods versus vices from the heart).
The differences in Mark 7 lie in the conflicting approaches of the Pharisees and
Jesus to purity. The Pharisees may be said to have a stronger sense of order and
classification than Christians; they label more things more strictly than
Christians. Correspondingly they have more and higher fences around objects of
concern than Christians. Such a strong sense of order and such an urge to erect
hedges around the law would lead Pharisees to attend to specific, observable
actions and criteria to determine the purity rating of persons, places, things, etc.
As regards Mark 7, concern for clean hands is a symbol of concern for a strong
purity system. Concern for external boundaries requires concern for observable
criteria, such as washing of hands and vessels. Concern for the washing of hands,
moreover, is but one of the "traditions of the elders" which form a hedge around
the Torah. Such "traditions" serve to continue the correct mapping of life
according to the purity system.
On the other hand, Jesus and his followers in Mark's gospel have a weaker purity
system than the Pharisees. It is incorrect to say that they have no purity concerns
or that they stand apart from the Old Testament Scriptures. Purity for Christians
is a matter of debate and re-definition. It has less to do with external actions and
more to do with internal issues, such as mercy, faith, and right confession. People
with weaker purity concerns will make fewer maps, build fewer fences, and
dispute the ones that exist. Christians will label the "traditions of the elders" as
distortions of the true, ancient law; that original law was modest in size but
sufficient, and so the proliferation of fences is unnecessary and even wrong.
Since the purpose of God's law was not to separate covenant from non-covenant
members but to gather all peoples in God's mysterious election, the particularistic
kosher laws are judged abrogated. And so the issue of clean/unclean in Mark 7
233

may be focused on the question of washing hands and vessels, but these are but
symbols of the larger discussion of purity and pollution. The issue of clean hands,
then, symbolizes the issue of purity systems. A lot rides on a little.

4.0. Pharisees, Jesus Groups and Body Symbolism.

As Douglas suggests, the physical body can serve as a symbol of society. We
would expect that where there is a purity system structuring the larger social
body, this would be replicated in the way the physical body is treated. Inasmuch
as the Pharisees are in substantial agreement with the accepted symbol of Israel's
culture, they would be concerned with numerous and high fences around objects
to be kept pure for Temple-standard purity and with traditions to guard the basic
rules. As this is replicated in the physical body, Pharisees may be said to exercise
strong control over the physical body with concern over the exterior of the body,
its surfaces and orifices.

4.1. Pharisees and Body Surfaces/Orifices. We recall that Pharisaic concern with
the washing of pots, dishes, and vessels and with the porosity of surfaces of
vessels. If porosity of surfaces is important, then orifices on the surface of the
body should receive comparable attention. They are the weak link in the chain:
the place where unclean things might enter. The orifice that received most
attention was the mouth, especially in regard to eating: attention to kosher foods,
whether they are properly tithed, and correctly prepared for eating. The "washing
of hands" in Mark 7 is but an extension of this concern with orifices; hands must
be washed before meals, indicating a concern that the organs for preparing food
and for putting it in the mouth must be clean (recall Mark 9:43 and concern for a
scandalizing hand). Concern for hands is a "fence" around the mouth.
Other examples of Pharisaic concern with bodily orifices come readily to mind.
For example, Mark 10:2-9 indicates another Pharisaic concern with orifices, viz.
the genitals. The issue debated is divorce, but the guarding of the sexual orifice is
the bodily focus. Divorce rules permit the crossing of a sexual orifice after
legitimate divorce proceedings, a crossing which would otherwise be unlawful
and polluting. Confirmation of Pharisaic concerns for bodily orifices comes from
234

synoptic remarks about the Pharisees. 1. They are accused of concern over
surfaces in Matt 23 -- they cleanse "the outside of the cup and of the plate"
(23:25); they "outwardly appear beautiful" (23:27). 2. They are accused of
misguided rules for the orifice of the mouth, as regards oaths (23:16-22).
Turning to Jesus and his followers, we recall that their purity system is
considerably less strict and extensive than that of the Pharisees. According to
Douglas' hypothesis, where there is a weaker classification system and less
pressure to conform, the physical body will correspondingly be less controlled.
This lack of control of the body can be readily observed from several examples in
Mark's narrative. (1) Jesus puts his spit on the tongue of a dumb man (7:33b) and
on the eyes of a blind man (8:23). He puts his fingers in a man's ears (7:33a). (2)
Jesus regularly eats at the table of sinners (2:15). (3) He is credited with
abolishing dietary laws (7:19), indicating that the mouth is not an area of purity
concern and so of control. (4) His followers do not wash their hands before
eating, further indicating a weak concern for bodily control and purity. In all of
these instances, bodily orifices are expressly not the object of control.

4.2. The Jesus Movement and the Heart. If the body's surface and its orifices are
not the object of Christian control in the gospel of Mark, the body's heart most
emphatically is, as the following list indicates:
1. As regards forgiveness of sins, Jesus perceived the Scribes' interior (their
heart), that they were not thinking correctly: "...questioning in their hearts" (2:6),
"Why do you question in your hearts?" (2:8).
2. When criticizing his own disciples, Jesus accuses them of hardness of heart:
"...they did not understand, their hearts were hardened" (6:52); "Do you not
perceive or understand are your hearts hardened?" (8:17).
3. Concerning prayer, Jesus indicates that a correct heart is of paramount
importance: "Whoever says to this mountain...and does not doubt in his heart but
believes..." (11:23).
4. Love of God is located in interior human sites: "You shall love the Lord your
God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with
all your strength" (12:30,33).

235

5. Membership does not seem to depend on external criteria such as blood lines
or circumcision. A distinction is made between Jesus' physical family and his real
family which is made up of believers (3:31-35).
In this context we can more readily appreciate the basis for Jesus' criticism of the
Pharisees as "honoring God with their lips but their heart is far from me" (7:6/Isa
29:13LXX), for heart is more important than bodily surface or orifices. Again, in
regard to foods, Christians assert that "there is nothing outside a man which by
going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what
defile him" (7:15). This is so because "whatever goes into a man from outside
cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach and so passes on"
(7:18-19). As regards purity norms, then, it is not what goes into a man that can
defile him, but what comes "from within, from the heart" (7:21)..."they defile a
man" (7:23). Not foods, but vices such as evil thoughts, fornications, adultery,
coveting, etc.--"all these evil things come from within, and they defile a man"
(7:23). Jesus' concern, therefore, lies not with bodily surfaces and orifices, but
with bodily interior and heart. Hence, lips and mouth do not need to be guarded,
but the heart should be constantly examined.

5.0. Purity and the Body: Replication in the Model.

We can now note two sets of correlations. First, as regards the Pharisees, strong
purity concerns imply strong bodily control, which is expressed in scrutiny of
bodily surfaces and orifices. Second, as regards Jesus and his followers, weaker
purity concerns imply weaker bodily control, which shows itself in concern for
the body's heart, rather than its orifices and surface.
Strong purity concerns Weaker purity concerns
Strong bodily control Weaker bodily control
Actions, surfaces, and Motives, principles,
orifices the heart

236

As Jesus and his followers found themselves challenging the established system,
part of their strategy was a process of self-definition in which they took positions
which were dialectically opposite those of the exponents of the traditional
system. In a state of constant controversy with the local exponents of the Jewish
system, the Christian position is one of dialectical contrast, viz., the grid factor is
rather low. Whereas the Pharisees (et al.) maintain a proliferation of fences and
rules, Christians argue for a restricted core of key rules. Whereas the Pharisees
concern themselves with surfaces, Christians assert that interiors are the places
deserving attention. Whereas bodily surfaces and orifices become the focus of
Pharisees' attention, Christians concern themselves with bodily interiors, the
heart, not the lips. Whereas Pharisees worry over what goes into the body from
the outside, Christians worry over what comes out of the heart or interior of the
body. As disputants, Christians will tend to couch their positions in antithetical
language: not lips, but heart; not exteriors, but interiors; not surface but heart.
This structuralist explanation is of some help, but it does not address the question
of a nexus between strong purity concerns and strong bodily control.
Douglas provides the basis of an explanation for this in her exposition of the
variables of group and grid (1982b:182-254) in locating and describing social
groups. Pressure to conform to the norms of a social body is called group, which
may be strong group when pressure is great or weak group when pressure is
weak. Yet there may be conflict in the social body, for while some may agree
with the norms and classifications of the group and find a match between them
and their own experience (= high grid), others may contest the norms and
classifications and feel a lack of fit between the group's explanation of reality and
their own experience (= low grid). Needless to say, there was very strong
pressure (strong group) in the Judaism of Jesus' time to accept the classifications
and norms of the traditional religion as it was expressed in the Temple system. As
we noted, however, the plethora of competing sects manifest disagreement over
certain classifications and norms, as well as a lack of fit between the stated aims
of Jewish faith and personal experience, and so the grid factor of the groups not
in control was either falling or low. It is not clear that the Sadducees experienced
a conflict with the system or a misfit between expectations and experience.
Their grid factor was very high. But such was not the case with Essenes,
Pharisees, and the rest. The Pharisees seem more to the center of Jewish social
and religious life than Jesus and his followers; their grid can be said to be higher
than that of the Christians yet somewhat lower than that of the Sadducees. Jesus
and his followers, on the contrary, experienced a constant, deep disagreement
with the system. They challenged its core value, structures and strategy. Their
grid was very low at times.

237

high
. Sadducees
.
. Pharisees
.
GRID
.
.
. Christians
.
.
low
It belongs, moreover, to strong group/high grid to be clear, precise, and
concerned with externals, for strong purity systems require such criteria to
determine with exactness where persons, places, things, etc. belong. Where
classification is strong, boundaries are the focus of attention, to determine who is
in/out and what is fully according to its definition. It follows that there will be a
proliferation of fences or traditions guarding these boundaries and definitions. On
the level of the physical body, strong group/high grid would necessarily be
concerned with: (1) bodily surface and bodily orifices, (2) with bodily actions
238

which can be observed, and (3) with bodily wholeness which is judged by
external criteria.

STRONG GROUP/HIGH GRID

Strong purity concerns :: Strong bodily control
Exact classification :: Bodily wholeness
& definition
Precise boundaries :: Bodily surface, orifices
Clear criteria :: External bodily actions
But where the grid factor drops, clarity is harder to determine, precision gives
way to debate, and external criteria are challenged as the classification system
and its norms become the object of dispute.Strong group/low grid is the place of
competition and rivalry, where the clarity and external precision of the strong
group/high grid situation are challenged. As regards the physical body, it follows
that there will be less attention given to surfaces and orifices, for their function in
determining classification is disputed and their role in guarding purity is
contested. External actions and observable phenomena likewise are not judged to
determine value or social location, and so appeal is made to new definitions and
principles, which means concern for heart or core. Motivation, a matter of the
heart, counts more than objective actions. And so bodily wholeness, an external
phenomenon, is less important than the body's heart, which is the new locus of
definition and classification.

239

STRONG GROUP/LOW GRID

Weaker purity concerns :: Weaker bodily control
Classifications disputed :: Bodily wholeness no longer
& definitions contested an issue
Boundaries porous :: Not orifices, surfaces,
but bodily heart
Less exacting criteria :: Interior attitudes, motives
and operations.

*****

6.0. Works Consulted

Achtemeier, Paul
1970 "Toward the Isolation of Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae," Journal of Biblical
Literature 89: 265-291.

240

Alter, Robert
1979 "A New Theory of Kashrut," Commentary 68: 46-52.

Barkan, Leonard
1975 Nature's Work of Art. The Human Body as Image of the World. New
Haven: Yale University Press.

Berger, Klaus
1972 Die Gesetzauslegung Jesu. I. Markus und Parallelen. Neukirchen.

Bossmann, David
1979 "Ezra's Marriage Reform: Israel Redefined," Biblical Theology Bulletin 9:
32-38.

Bowker, John
1973 Jesus and the Pharisees. Cambridge: University Press.

241

Buchanan, George W.
1963 "The Role of Purity in the Structure of the Essene Sect," Revue de
Qumran 4: 397-406.

Carlston, Charles
1968 "Things That Defile (Mark vii.14) and the Law in Matthew and
Mark," New Testament Studies 15: 75-96.

Conzelmann, Hans
1975 1 Corinthians. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Cook, Michael J.
1978 "Jesus and the Pharisees--The Problem as It Stands Today," Journal of
Ecumenical Studies 15: 441-460.

Donahue, John R.
1982 "A Neglected Factor in the Theology of Mark," Journal of Biblical
Literature 101: 563-594.
242

Douglas, Mary T.
1966 Purity and Danger. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
1968 "Pollution," International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences 12: 336-342.
1975 Implicit Meanings. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
1982a Natural Symbols. New York: Pantheon.
1982b In the Active Voice. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Feeley-Harnik, Gillian
1981 The Lord's Supper. Philadelphia: University Press.

Feuillet, Andr
1965 Johannine Studies. Staten Island: Alba House.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A.
1971 "The Aramaic qorban Inscription form Jebel Halletet-Turi and Mark
7:11/Matt 15:5," Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament.
London: Geoffrey Chapman, 93-100.

243

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva
1983 "Pollution, Purification and Purgation in Biblical Israel," The Word of the
Lord Shall Go Forth. Carol Meyers and M. O'Connor, eds., Winona Lake, IN:
published for the American Schools of Oriental Research by Eisenbrauns, 399414.

Hubner, H.
1976 "Mark 7:1-23 und das 'judisch-hellenistiche' Gesetz-verstandnis," New
Testament Studies 22: 319-45.

Lambrecht, Jan
1977 "Jesus and the Law: an Interpretation of Mk 7,1-23," Ephemerides
Theologicae Lovaniensis 53: 24-82.

Leach, Edmund
1976 Culture and Communication. The Logic by Which Symbols are Connected.
Cambridge: University Press.

Malina, Bruce
244

1978 "The Social World Implied in the Letters of the Christian Bishop-Martyr
(named Ignatius of Antioch)," Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers
1978, II, 71-119.
1981 The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta:
John Knox.

Mally, Edward
1968 "The Gospel according to Mark," Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 42:1-100.

Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome
1980 "Sex and Logic in 1 Cor 11:2-16," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42: 482-500.

Needham, Rodney (ed.)

1973 Right and Left. Essays on Dual Symbolic Classification. Chicago:
University Press.

Nestle, W.
1927 "Die Fabel des Menenius Agrippa," Klio 21: 350-360.

245

Neusner, Jacob
1971 The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees before 70. 3 volumes; Leiden:
Brill.
1973a From Politics to Piety. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
1973b The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism. Leiden: Brill.
1975 "The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism," Journal of the American Academy
of Religion 43: 15-26.
1976 "'First Cleanse the Inside' The 'Halakhic' Background of a Controversy
Saying," New Testament Studies 22: 486-95.
1978 "History and Purity in First-Century Judaism," History of Religions 18: 117.
1979 "Map Without Territory: Mishnah's
Sanctuary," History of Religions 19: 103-127.

System

of

Sacrifice

and

Pilch, John
1981 "Biblical Leprosy and Body Symbolism," Biblical Theology Bulletin 11:
108-113.

Polhemus, T. (ed.)
1978 The Body Reader. Social Aspects of the Human Body. New York:
Pantheon.

246

Quesnell, Quentin
1969 The Mind of Mark. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.

Raisanen, Heikki
1982 "Jesus and Food Laws: Reflections on Mark 7:15," Journal for the Study of
the New Testament 16: 79-100.

Rivkin, Ellis,
1970 "Defining the Pharisees: The Tannaitic Sources," Hebrew Union College
Annual 41: 205-249.
1978 A Hidden Revolution. Nashville: Abingdon.

Sanders, E.P.
1983 "Jesus and the Sinners," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 19: 536.

Schwartz, Barry
247

1981 Vertical Classification. A Study in Structuralism and the Sociology of

Knowledge. Chicago: University Press.

Senior, Donald
1984 "The Struggle to Be Universal: Mission as Vantage Point for New
Testament Investigation," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 46: 63-81.

Simon, Marcel
1967 Jewish Sects at the Time of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Smallwood, Mary
1976 The Jews Under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill.

Soler, Jean
1979 "The Dietary Prohibitions of the Hebrews," New York Review of
Books June 14, 24-30.

Stern, M.
248

1976 "Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and Other Classes," The Jewish
People in the First Century. Philadelphia: Fortress, II, 561-612.

THE IDEA OF PURITY IN MARK'S GOSPEL

Jerome H. Neyrey
University of Notre Dame
ABSTRACT
Mary Douglas' "idea of purity" refers to the systematic structures, classifications
and evaluations which shape social groups. "There is a place for everything and everything
in its place"-a saying applicable to people, places, times, things, etc. What is "in place" is
pure, what is not is a pollution. In Mark, Jesus appears to be out of place most of the time,
dealing with people he should avoid, doing unconventional things and not observing
customs about places and times. While Mark presents Jesus challenging the Jewish purity
system, he also describes him as reforming it in favor of other core values. He is "the Holy
One of God" and agent of God's reform: he is authorized to cross lines and to blur
classifications as a strategy for a reformed covenant community which is more inclusive
than the sectarian synagogue. As God's agent of holiness, Jesus makes sinners holy and the
sick whole. Yet he draws clear lines between those in his group and those outside, setting
up distinguishing criteria for membership and for exclusion in the reformed covenant
community.
INTRODUCTION
This essay takes its inspiration from a series of studies which are becoming increasingly
influential in New Testament research. In 1966 British anthropologist Mary Douglas
published her groundbreaking book, Purity and Danger. This and her subsequent
work, Natural Symbols (1973), formulated anthropological concepts which would have
important implications for students of the Bible. In these two works, Douglas spoke as a
cultural anthropologist on how societies classified and arranged their worlds. The process
of ordering a sociocultural system was called "purity," in contrast to "pollution," which
stands for the violation of the classification system, its lines and boundaries. The term
"purity" became a jargon word for the general principle that all peoples tend to structure
their worlds according to some system of order and classification. The study of "purity,"
then, is the study of symbolic systems (Douglas, 1966:34). This concept was employed
with considerable success by Jacob Neusner first in The Idea of Purity in Ancient
Judaism (1973) and then in a series of articles (1975, 1978, 1979). Among New Testament
writers, Bruce Malina applied Douglas' model of purity in ch. 6 of his New Testament
World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (1981).[1]
While "purity" refers to the general principle of classifying and structuring a society,
it has another meaning. One may speak of the specific purity rules and norms of a given
group. Ancient Jews, for example, had specific purity rules which classified foods as clean
249

or unclean, which ranked objects according to degrees of uncleanness, which identified

people as fit or unfit to enter Israel's temple, etc. As well as one might ask to what degree a
group has a general system of purity, it is also fair to inquire into .the more immediate
norms whereby specific persons, objects, etc. are declared sacred/profane, clean/unclean or
pure/polluted. "Purity," then, is used in two senses in this essay:
1. the general, abstract system of ordering and classifying;
2. the specific purity rules whereby persons, objects, places etc. are labelled
pure or polluted in a given social group.
PART ONE: THE IDEA OF PURITY
A.
"Purity"
What is meant by "purity"? It is an abstract way of interpreting data. Purity is best
understood in terms of its binary opposite, "dirt." When something is out of place or when
it violates the classification system in which it is set (Douglas, 1966:35), it is "dirt." A
farmer working in his field is covered with dust and chaff, his shoes caked with mud and
dung. this is appropriate to the outdoors work of farming during the day; it is what is
expected of fields and barns. But should that farmer come inside after the day's work,
wearing those same dirt-covered overalls and those same dung-covered shoes, and sit in his
wife's living room, his farm dirtiness, so appropriate outside, is impurity inside. The
wrong thing appears in the wrong place at the wrong time. Smoking is socially permitted in
most places at most time; but it is thoroughly inappropriate to light up in a church pew
during the sermon on Sunday morning. Children go to movies; but a child at an adult film
at midnight is out of place.
The idea of "dirt" is pivotal to Douglas' exposition of "purity" for two reasons:
It (dirt) implies two conditions: a set of ordered relations and a contravention
of that order. Dirt, then, is never a unique isolated event. Where there is dirt
there is a system. Dirt is the by-product of a systematic ordering and
classification of matter, in so far as ordering involves rejecting inappropriate
elements (Douglas, 1966;35).
Let us speak more about the system of ordering and classifying, the system of
purity. We all draw lines in our world relative to things, persons, places, activities and
times. These lines tell us whatand who belong when and where, The old saw summed it
up: A place for everything and everything in its place." Because these lines help us to
classify and arrange our world according to some dominant principle, they convey through
their structural arrangement the abstract values of the social world of which we are a part
(Malina, 1981:25-27, 124-26). Our culture is intelligible to us in virtue of our classification
system, the lines we draw, and the boundaries we erect.
Purity refers to the cultural system and to the organizing principle of a group.
Douglas notes that "culture, in the sense of public standardized values of a community,
250

mediates the experience of individuals. It provides in advance some basic categories, a

positive pattern in which ideas and values are tidily ordered" (1966:38-39). "Purity," then,
is an abstract way of dealing with the values, maps and structures of a given social group
(1966:34-35). It provides a map or series of maps which diagram the group's cultural
system and locate "a place for everything and everything in its place."
B.
The Principle of Purity and its Rules in Judaism
In the Old Testament, we regularly come across statements such as "You shall be
holy, for I the Lord your God am holy" (Lev 19:2) and "Their flesh you shall not eat, their
carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you" (Lev 11:8). There is no doubt that
ancient Israel had a keen sense of purity and pollution. While it is beyond the scope of this
essay to present a detailed investigation of the genesis and development of Jewish notions
of "holy" and "unclean," Mary Douglas makes several general suggestions (1966:48-57)
apropos of the idea of purity in the Old Testament.
"Be ye holy, as I am holy." Holiness, an attribute of God, resides in God's power to
bless and to curse. "God's work through the blessing is essentially to create order, through
which men's affairs prosper" (Douglas, 1966:50), When the blessing is withdrawn,
confusion occurs, with barrenness and pestilence (Deut 28:15-24), God's premier blessing
act was the ordering of creation, when time was structured into work and rest days, when
creatures were created in their pure forms (no hybrids, no unclean animals), when all
creatures were assigned their proper foods, as well as their proper place in creation,
Creation, the ultimate act of ordering and classifying the world, was the original map.
Holiness in turn involves "keeping distinct the categories of creation"; it involves correct
definition, discrimination, and order (Soler, 1976:24-30).
Creation's expression of ordering the world is an abstract concept, buried in the
cultural history of Israel. But it was mediated to the Jews of the post-biblical period through
the specific rules surrounding Israel's temple (Neusner, 1979:103-127). The abstract order
of creation determined specific purity rules for the temple system:
1. what animals may be offered:
only "holy" animals, viz., those which accord with the definition of a clean
animal and which are physically perfect;
2. who may offer them:
a "holy" priest, who has perfect blood lines, who is in perfect physical
condition, and who is in a state of purity;
3. who may participate in the sacrifice:
only Israelites, and only those with whole bodies (Lev 21:16-20);
4. where the offering is to be made: in Jerusalem's temple, which is a
microcosm of creation
5. when the offerings are to be made and what offering is appropriate on
which occasion.

251

The temple system, then, is a major mediation or replication of the idea of order and purity
established in creation.
Although only priests need observe the specific rules of purity, there were Jews in
Jesus' time who would extend them to the people of Israel at large, so that all people may
be holy, even as temple and priests are holy (Neusner, 1973a:82--83; Fennelly, 1983:277283). We turn now to investigate some of the concrete examples of how all persons, places,
things, activities, and times were ordered and set apart. For as these are mapped, they
embody and express the idea of purity.
C.
Specific Jewish Purity Maps
I said above that "purity" is a map of a social system which coordinates and
classifies things according to their appropriate place. In the Judaism of Jesus' time, there
were many such maps; for things, places, persons, and times can all be mapped. We began
with a map of places. M. Kelim provides an example of how places, i.e. the Land of Israel,
are mapped according to a purity system.
There are ten degrees of holiness:
1. The Land of Israel is holier than any other land...
2. the walled cities (of the land of Israel) are still more holy...
3. Within the walls (of Jerusalem) is still more holy...
4. The Temple Mount is still more holy...
5. The Rampart is still more holy...
6. The Court of the Women is still more holy...
7. The Court of the Israelites is still more holy...
8. The Court of the Priests is still more holy. ..
9. Between the Porch and the Altar is still more holy...
10. The sanctuary is still more holy...The Holy of Holies is still more holy(m.
Kelim 1.6-9).
The list is very informative. It indicates direction: one moves from the outside toward the
center. Gentile territory is outside of Israel and is not holy at all; it is off the map entirely.
But all of Israel is holy; it is on the map. As though one were ascending a series of
concentric circles, one travels upward and inward toward the center of holiness, the
Temple. The center of the Temple is the Holy of Holies, God's altar and throne, wherein
God is "enthroned above the cherubim." It is, then, the center of the universe, the navel of
the world. The direction of the map suggests the principle of classification: holiness (or
"purity") is measured in terms of proximity to the Temple, the center of the map.
Everything else is classified and rated as "holy" in proximity to that center.
The Mishnah and Tosefta offer a map of persons which classifies and ranks the
people of Israel according to a purity system. T. Megillah gives the following map of the
people of Israel:
1. Priests
252

2. Levites
3. Israelites
4. Converts
5. Freed slaves
6. Disqualified priests (illegitimate children of priests)
7. Netins (temple slaves)
8. Mamzers (bastards)
9. Eunuchs
10. Those with damaged testicles
11. Those without a penis (t. Meg 2.7).
The clue to this map of people lies in what holiness (or "purity") means. First, holiness
means wholeness. And so people with damaged bodies are ranked last; their lack of
wholeness signals a corresponding lack of holiness. People with damaged family lines are
ranked second-to-last, for their wholeness is also defective. Second, the ranking according
to holiness also has to do with one's standing vis-a-vis the Temple. People defective either
in body or family lines are on the perimeter of the Temple; converts may stand closer; still
closer to the center are full Israelites, and closest of all are Levites and priests. Thismap of
people, then, replicates the map of places which we just observed. This classification list,
while most
complete in t. Meg, is
found in
a number of other
places (m.Kid. 4.1; m.Hor. 3.8; t.Rosh Has 4.1) (Jeremias, 1969: 271-212).
The map of persons classified them in a very practical way, for it determines who
may marry whom. Marriage within one's own rank was very important. One's social
position is determined by it, and hence, one's place on the map of Israel. It is not surprising,
then, that we have marriage maps which indicate ranking and permissible/impermissible
unions (Malina, 1981:110-113, 131-133).
Ten family stocks came up from Babylon: the priestly, levitic, and Israelitish
stocks, the impaired priestly stocks, the proselyte, freedman, bastard
and Nathin stocks, and the shetuki and asufistocks. The priestly, levitic and
Israelitish stocks may intermarry; impaired priestly stocks, proselyte and
freedman stocks may intermarry; the proselyte, freeman, bastard, Nathin,
shetuki, and asufi stocks may intermarry (m. Kid. 41 emphasis added).
There are three main circles of society mapped out here: a) full Israelites (priests, Levites,
Israelites), b) slightly blemished Israelites (impaired priestly stock, proselytes and
freedmen), and c) gravely blemished Israelites (bastards, Nathin, shetuki, asufi).
One's social status in Israel was ascribed through birth and blood. And so one
married within one's rank and above, if possible. But one never married below. The priests
must marry priestly stock: a completely closed system. Levites may marry full Israelites
and maintain full status. But their marriage to proselytes, freeman or priestly bastards was a
lowering of pedigree and social status. Below even these folk are the temple
slaves (Nathin), the fatherless (shetuki) and the foundlings (asufi) (Malina, 1981:131-35).

253

While intermarriage is the reason for classification, the operative principle is the
degree of purity or holiness attributed to these specific families and groups. Without great
violence to the marriage maps above, one may put them alongside the maps of places and
persons and note the following correlations. Only priests may enter the sanctuary and the
Holy of Holies; they are a people set apart for a space set apart. They may marry only
within a clan which is set apart. Levites attend the outer parts of the sanctuary area; they too
are a group set apart for a space set apart. As a spatially restricted people, they have
restricted marriage opportunities. Full Israelites may stand in the general Court of the
Israelites; their marriage partners are less restricted. But those of genealogical deficiency
(Gentiles, foundlings, bastards, fatherless) are situated still further away from the holy
place. Eunuchs, hermaphrodites, and sexually deformed people are still further away from
the center of the temple. Marriage for enuchs and sexually deformed people is impossible;
and with this impotency goes restricted membership in the clan. And so the marriage
map replicates the maps of place and people in Israel. According to a purity system, it
ascribes them their appropriate social status in proximity to the Temple, the yardstick of
purity. Geography replicates social structure.
Although the lists in the Mishnah and Tosefta indicate that "Israelites" constitute an
undifferentiated block of people in Israel, that block may be further broken down and
classified. A more detailedmap of persons can be drawn of Jewish society. After all, "a
place for everything and everything in its place." First, we know of a basic distinction made
in the first century between observant or non-observant Jews. In Acts 4:13, Peter and John
are classified by the observant elite as "uneducated, common men," that is amme
haretz (Oppenheimer) who neither knew the Law and its purity concerns nor cared about
them. Acts 22:3 and 26:5-6, on the other hand, insist that Paul be understood as an urban,
knowledgeable and serious observer of the Law: "I was brought up in this city at the feet of
Gamaliel, educated according to the strict manner of law of our fathers, being zealous for
God" (22:3) ...'According to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee"
(26:5). The same distinction between observant and non-observant Jews is found in John 7.
The chief priests and Pharisees distinguish themselves from the officers and crowds who
are impressed by Jesus. "Are you led astray, you also? Have any of the authorities or of the
Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd, who does not know the law, are accursed" (7:4748). The distinction between observant and non-observant Israelites is conceived
geographically. Those in Jerusalem (i.e. those close to the temple) are perceived as
concerned with Jerusalem's temple and with purity. The "people of the land" (am
haaretz) are just that, people who live apart from the city and its temple; they live in the
countryside, in villages, even in Galilee of the Gentiles, which is far removed from the
temple and its purity concerns (Meyers 1981:31-47).
Second, even among observant Israelites further classification was possible. 1. We
know of Qumran covenanters who considered the present priesthood of the temple to be
impure and invalid, Their sense of the lines and boundaries of purity was very strict; they
could not abide living in a polluted city, worshipping in a polluted temple, which was
administered by unclean priests. They moved out of this polluted space to a new place
where purity concerns could be strictly observed. They were positively revered by many in
Israel Gosephus, War 2, 119-161). 2. Pharisees also were concerned with purity lines and
boundaries. While not part of the priestly urban elite, they kept the same purity codes as the
254

priests and so would rank, at least in their own eyes, as above the masses and in some way
equal to the priests in purity, if not in blood. As their name signifies, they "set themselves
apart" from the masses of Israel (Safrai/Stern: 11.612). 3. Notice should also be given to
the scribes or sages of Israel at this time. These non-priestly people were charged with the
promotion of the Torah and its dominance in all aspects of life. Although some sages were
Pharisees (Gamaliel the Elder, Simeon ben Gamaliel, Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai), not all
were nor need be. They founded houses of study in Israel and so developed into a special
class which was passionately concerned with purity.
Third, full Israelites who are non-observant may be further distinguished. Public
sinners, such as tax collectors and prostitutes, can be distinguished from the masses. They
are, at best, on the margins of the covenant map. Also on the margins are physically unclean
folk such as lepers, menstruating women, the blind, and the lame. According to the Law,
these last people are unclean and may "not approach to offer the bread of his God": "For no
one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated
face or a limb too long, or a man with an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback, or
a dwarf, or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed
testicles" (Lev 21:16-20). There are, then, those who have put themselves on the perimeter
of the purity map (sinners) and those who find themselves put there because of their
physical lack of wholeness (sick, deformed).
Fourth, even observant Israelites may pass through stages of purity and uncleanness.
One can and should know one's place in the purity system at all times, but for this one
needs a specific map of impurities. M. Kelim 1.5 lists "ten degrees of uncleanness in men,"
which classifies the contaminant, how long he is contaminated, and what must be done to
remove the respective degree of contamination. In that same tractate, a formal hierarchy of
uncleanness is mapped:
1. There are things which convey uncleanness by contact (e.g. a dead creeping thing,
male semen)...
2. They are exceeded by carrion...
3. They are exceeded by him that has connexion with a menstruant...
4. They are exceeded by the issue of him that has a flux, by his spittle, his semen, and
his urine
5. They are exceeded by (the uncleanness of) what is ridden upon (by him that has a
flux)...
6. (The uncleanness of) that is ridden upon (by him that has a flux) is exceeded by
what he lies upon...
7. (The uncleanness of) what he lies upon is exceeded by the uncleanness of him that
has a flux(m. Kelim 1.3).
The uncleanness of a man is exceeded by the uncleanness of a woman, whose uncleanness
is exceeded by that of a leper, then by that of a corpse (m. Kelim 1.4). It is safe to say that
Israel was both intensely concerned with purity and with the appropriate lines and
boundaries which classified everything in its proper place--even uncleanness.

255

Times may be mapped as well. The second division of the Mishnah, Moed, contains
a list of sacred times, a list which suggests a hierarchy of those times:
1. Shabbath & Erubin
2. Pesahim
3. Yoma
4. Sukkoth
5. YomTob
6. Rosh ha-Shana
7. Taanith
8. Megillah
9. Moed Katan.

(Sabbath)
(Feast of Passover)
(Day of Atonement)
(Feast of Tabernacles)
(Festival Days)
(Feast of New Years)
(Days of Fasting)
(Feast of Purim)
(Mid-Festival Days)

Sabbath goes back to creation, when God himself rested; it is the most holy of times.
Passover is the feast commemorating the creation of Israel, when God led them out of
Egypt; it ranks next in sacredness. Then follow other major holy days, Yom Kippur and
Sukkoth and Rosh ha-Shana. These are followed in turn by lesser holy days and festivals
(Yom Tob, Purim, etc.). The Mishnah gives specific rules governing these times, when they
begin, what one mayor must do, what one may not do, etc. Times, then, may be classified
and mapped.
D.
Purity Means Boundaries
If purity means maps and classification systems which locate things where they
ought to be, it follows that considerable attention will be given to the lines and boundaries
of these maps. The prime activity of a group with a strong purity system will be the making
and maintenance of these lines and boundaries (Douglas, 1966:chs 7-8). "The image of
society," says Douglas, "has form; it has external boundaries, margins, internal
structure" (Douglas 1966:114).
The external boundaries which distinguish the Jews of Jesus' time from other
peoples can be clearly identified. We are all familiar with the Jewish insistence on 1) kosher
diet, 2) circumcision, and 3) observance of the Sabbath. Jews could be identified by
special times (Sabbath), special things (diet) and special bodily marks (circumcision). These
three observances serve as lines, for they distinguish Jews from non-Jews. They indicate
who is "in" the covenant group and who is "out." By making such things important, Jews
reinforced their own group identity and built the boundaries which distinguished them from
non-Jews (see Lev 20:24-26). Outsiders regularly regarded Jews as unsociable and antisocial because of these customs, for they recognized them for what they are, the boundaries
of a map (Smallwood: 123).
Students of biblical literature are well aware of the particularistic character of
Judaism. Acts 10:28 makes it clear: "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to
associate with or to visit anyone of another nation." Jubilees confirms this: "Separate
yourselves from the nations, and eat not with them. And do not according to their works,
256

and become not their associate. For all their works are unclean, and all their ways are a
pollution and an abomination and uncleanness" (22:16).
Jews are also concerned with things on the margins of lines and boundaries.
Because of lack of bodily wholeness, lepers, the blind, the lame, eunuchs, etc., are not
whole or holy Israelites (see Lev 21:16-20). They are marginal to the covenant people,
residing on the fringes or borders of Jewish society. According to Douglas, this concern
with margins is replicated in the Jewish classification of certain animals and foods as
unclean. The world map is clearly composed of air, earth and water. To be clean (i.e. within
one's proper boundary), an animal must fit completely within the concept of what it means
to be an air or sea or earth animal. On earth, for example, four-legged creatures hop, jump
or walk. Any creature which is not so equipped for the right kind of locomotion violates the
classification system; it is out of place, marginal, and so unclean (Douglas 1966:55). Earth
animals which may be eaten are those which have a cloven hoof and which chew the cud;
they satisfy the definition of what constitutes a genuine earth creature. But the camel, the
pig, the hare and the hyrax either do not chew the cud or do not have cloven hooves; they
are defective, marginal, hence unclean (Douglas 1966:39). Sea creatures are fish which
have scales. But sea creatures which do not have scales (shell fish) are defective, marginal,
hence unclean. According to Douglas, "to be holy is to be whole, to be one; holiness is
unity, integrity, perfection of the individual and of the kind" (1966:54). And so, what
does not fully fit a determined definition is not within its proper lines; it is a hybrid, an
ambiguous thing and ambiguity is dangerous and polluting. (1966:94-98)
This fear of margins is replicated in concern over the margins of the physical body
(Douglas 1966:115, 120-121). What seeps out of the body passes over its boundaries,
whether urine, faeces, semen or menses. According to m. Kelim uncleanness extends to "the
issue of him that has a flux, by his spittle, his semen, and his urine" (1.3). Such marginal
substances are unclean. Flaking skin indicates a marginal disorder,
whether it be "leprosy," scabs or a skin disease (Pilch 1981:111). The person who suffers an
involuntary "marginal emission" (i.e. nocturnal emission for men, menstruation for women)
is unclean. Marginal effluviae are themselves unclean and contaminating; they render the
person with the flux unclean as well as people who come in contact with that person or
his/her effluviae.
We mentioned above the strong sense of internal lines and boundaries, which
describe the social structure of Jewish society at this time. I offer the following map from
the New Testament as an illustration of how Israelites are internally ranked according to a
purity system. This map should be seen as supplementing the map of persons discussed
above. Of course, Gentiles are not on the map of God's covenant people (see Acts 10:28;
11:3), nor are Samaritans (John 4:9).
1. Dead Israelites:
concern over Jesus' dead body (John 19:31);
2. Morally unclean Israelites:
tax collectors & sinners (Luke 15:1-2; Matt 9:10-13);
3. Bodily unclean Israelites:
lepers (Mark 1:400-45; Luke 17:11-14),
257

poor, lame, maimed, blind (Luke 14:13; see Lev 21:18-21),

menstruants (Mark 5:24-34);
4. Unobservant Israelites:
Peter and John (Acts 4:13),
Jesus (John 7:15, 49);
5. Observant Israelites:
the rich young man (Mark 23:50-51),
Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 2:25-38);
6. Pharisees (Mark 7:3-5; Luke 18:11-12);
7. Scribes and Priests (Luke 10:31-32);
8. Chief Priests (John 18:28; Heb 7:18-28).
This map is very important. Since one can and should know one's purity rating at all times
(see maps of impurities, m. Kelim 1.3-5, above), one needs a code for classifying people to
know where they stand in the system.
Observant Jews will be concerned that the proper lines and boundaries be
maintained. Marginal objects as well as people are to be shunned and kept away from the
space of full and holy Israelites. Persons of lesser purity rank should not intrude on the
space of those of higher purity status; this would apply in the case of intermarriage and
other forms of social intercourse. It is not surprising, then, that a group like the Pharisees
built a "fence" around its life. To keep the core clean and pure, one extended the boundary
around that core, put a fence on the perimeter, and guarded that outer "fence." Hence the
chief rule was "Make a fence around the Law" (m. Aboth 1.1). And if a fence was
appropriate around the Law as a whole, it was appropriate around individual aspects of the
Law. Hence a proliferation of fences might be expected:
"The tradition is a fence around the Law;
tithes are a fence around riches;
vows are a fence around abstinence;
a fence around wisdom is silence" (m. Aboth 3.14).
E.
Body and Boundaries
We have seen how purity boundaries are fixed on the map of places (see the "10
degree of holiness," m. Kelim 1.6-9), which locates in ever-narrowing, concentric circles
the geographical degrees of purity in Israel. That map was followed by a map of
people which classified Israelites according to purity ranking (t. Meg. 2.7). There is still
another map where lines and boundaries are drawn, viz., the personal human body.
[2]
According to Douglas, the human body is a replica of the social body, a symbol of
society:
The body is a model which can stand for any bounded system.
Its boundaries can represent any boundaries which are threatened or
precarious (Douglas, 1966:115).
258

The map of the body, then, replicates the map of the social body. A principle can be drawn
from this insight: as the social body draws lines, restricts admission, expels undesirables
and guards its entrances and exits, so this tends to be replicated in the control of the
physical body. "Body control," says Douglas, "is an expression of social control"; and
conversely, "abandonment of bodily control in ritual responds to the requirements of a
social experience which is being expressed" (Douglas 1973:98-100). "The physical
experience of the body...sustains a particular view of society" (Douglas 1973:93). We must
be prepared to see in the human body a map of society.
This means that in a culture where there are strong purity concerns and clear lines
and boundaries, we should be sensitive to the map of the body, especially how certain
following bodily features are treated: 1) nudity & clothing; 2) orifices of the body (genitals,
anus, mouth, nose, eyes); 3) the surfaces of the body and the head.
1. Before the first sin, nudity was not unclean or shameful (Gen 2:25). But after that
sin, it was equated with shame (Gen 3:10-11; see also Isa 20:4; 47:3; Rev 3:18 & 16:15).
Nudity is cited by Adam as the reason why he hid from God. Nudity, then, means
uncleanness and separation from God; to be naked is in some way to be apart from God's
covenant, favor, and protection (Lam 4:21; Ezek 16:39; 23:29; Hos 2:3; Nah 3:5). Nudity,
then, means impurity.[3] This is reflected in Ex 20:26: "You shall not go up by steps to my
altar, that your nakedness be not exposed on it." Nudity violates that place's sacredness (see
Luke 10:30; John 21:7). Alternately, a clothed body is presumed holy. God drew near to the
naked maiden, Israel, and clothed her (Ezek 16:7-8), thus making her God's holy and
chosen one. The principle is clear: clothing replicates the boundaries or fences defining
what is holy. A body without boundaries or fences is a body with no clear place on the map
and a body open to penetration by one and all.
These cultural values were quite alive and well in the first century. For example,
according to Josephus the Essenes, whose purity concerns were very strict, wore clothing
when taking their baths(War 2,161). Even when going to the privy, they never exposed their
nakedness (War 2,148; lQS 7:13). Concern for purity lines, then, is replicated in the
demand for a clothed body.
2. It is expected that when purity concerns are very strong, this will be evident in the
care given to the entrances and exits of the social body. Who is an Israelite? how does one
become such? who is an apostate? are all important questions. This is replicated in concern
for who may enter what court or room in the temple (2 Chron 23:19). Entrances, gates, and
doors become significant places. This in turn is replicated in the concern given to the
orifices of the body. The genitals, anus, ears, and the mouth are all carefully guarded and
great attention is paid to what passes in or out of them.
For example, a) the genital orifices are of great concern. Semen and menses are
unclean (Lev 15:16,19). A priest must abstain from sexual intercourse the night before he
offers sacrifice (Lev 22:4). A male nocturnal emission will render the emitter unclean; a
menstruating woman is very unclean. Also in this line, we noticed earlier the great concern
for rules for intermarriage (m. Kid. 4.1), which are rules governing the valid and invalid
crossing of the genital orifice. Circumcision should be understood in this framework; it is a
259

way of denoting a male genital orifice as one which is set apart, and therefore holy. b)
Excretory orifices are also carefully guarded, and what crosses them (urine and faeces) is
unclean and polluting. c) The orifice of the mouth is also carefully regulated. The dietary
laws make quite explicit what mayor may not pass through the orifice. In line with this, it
matters who eats with whom; holy people eat holy food together, but an unclean person at
such a table is unclean and polluting (Neusner, 1973a:86).
3. The surface of the body is also a focus of purity concerns. As regards the head,
loose and dishevelled hair is not permitted; rather, braided hair, which is carefully wrapped
around the head, is the rule (Murphy-O'Connor: 484). The head must have a clear and tidy
surface, viz., fixed boundaries. What is loose is unclean (see Luke 7:38). Concern for the
surface is shown in the horror displayed toward skin diseases and leprosy in the Bible.
Flaking skin, scabs, eruptions on the skin, and "leprosy" are all unclean and render the
sufferer unclean. Smooth, whole skin is considered pure and clean.
F.
Purity, Boundaries and Pollution
If purity means clear lines and firm borders, then pollution refers to what crosses
those boundaries or what resides in the margins and has no clear place in the system. In
previous discussions we identified unclean persons and things as:
a) people who are not physically whole in body or family lines,
b) people who either experience emissions from bodily margins or who come in
contact with these emissions or with the emitter,
c) foods and animals which do not fit clearly within definition boundaries.
A person, then, begins in a given state of purity, but that can be lost either because s/he
crossed a boundary and entered space more holy than s/he is permitted to enter (FrymerKensky, 1983:405) or because something else less holy crossed over and entered his/her
space (Douglas, 1966:122). Crossing of boundaries, then, means pollution. The maps of
places, persons, things, and times are important for knowing just where the boundary lines
are.
The appropriate strategy in this type of world is defensive. What is called for is: a)
avoidance of contact with what is either too holy or marginal or unclean (see Luke 10:3132; Acts 10:14 & 28) or b) reinforcement of boundaries and purity concerns (see Mark 7:14 and the rabbis' "fences"). People who continually have even passing contact with sinners,
lepers, blind, lame, menstruants, corpses and the like are perceived as spurning the map of
persons. People who show no respect for holy places such as the temple (see Mark 11:1517) are crossing dangerous lines on the map of places. People who "do what is not lawful
on the Sabbath" disregard the map of times, and would be judged in some way as rejecting
the system. Such people would be rated as unclean. Not only are they themselves polluted,
they become a source of pollution to others.
PART TWO: PURITY IN MARK
260

According to Jewish religion and culture, Jesus would be expected to be a defensive

person and avoid all contact with uncleanness. He would be expected to respect the lines
and boundaries of Jewish observance, which are indicated in the maps of places, persons,
things, and times. "Holiness," defined as separateness from all things unclean, defective, or
marginal, is indicated in behavior which keeps one separate from uncleanness and which
maintains the classification system. Yet in Mark's gospel, we find a description of Jesus
who seems to trample on all the lines and boundaries of the culture of his day. It would be
erroneous to assert that Mark portrays Jesus as abrogating the general purity system or that
Mark was himself unconcerned with purity issues. The situation is far more complicated
than that. It is incumbent on us to make a careful presentation of all Mark's texts which deal
with purity concerns and then to see what Mark's Jesus says about purity as a structuring
value in Christian life.
A.
Mark 1:21-28
During Jesus' first miracle in 1:21-28, a demon which possessed a man in the local
synagogue was confronted by Jesus. He acknowledged Jesus as his mortal enemy:
"Have you come to destroy us?" and he attested to Jesus' purity: "I know who you are, the
Holy One of God" (1:24). Jesus' exorcism and the special title given him, "the Holy One of
God," are important aspects of Mark's Christology. At a minimum, Jesus is linked with
other holy figures close to God, such as the priest Aaron ("Aaron, the holy one of the Lord,"
Ps 106:16) and the prophet Elisha ("this is a holy man of God," 2 Kgs 4:9). Functionally the
exorcism and the title of Jesus serve several purposes: 1) they associate Jesus with the holy
God, not Satan; 2) they underscore Jesus' authorization by God (1:22,27); 3) they
emphasize that Jesus was himself uniquely' holy and pure; and 4) they indicate that Jesus
engages in mortal conflict with "unclean spirits." The exorcism is Jesus' first public action,
and so can be considered programmatic for Mark's presentation of him. In the exorcism,
Mark establishes a fundamental set of contrasts which suggest Jesus' purity rating:
JESUS
1. God's Servant
2. Agent of God's kingdom.
3. Jesus: holy & pure

THE DEMON
1. Servant of Satan
2. Agent of Satan's kingdom
3. The Demon: unclean

What does it mean to emphasize Jesus' purity? Why is it important that this be done
in Jesus' first public act? From the first half of this study we know that purity is the premier
structuring value of Jewish religion and culture: "Be ye holy as I am holy" (Lev 11:44). If
this is the structuring value, Jesus is proclaimed from the very beginning of his career as
fully within the religious matrices of the Jewish system. It is not accidental that this
narrative situates Jesus in the right place (synagogue), at the right time (on the Sabbath),
and with the right people (observant Jews). Jesus, then, is holy, close to God, and enemy of
uncleanness. He was no maverick, no am haaretz, no heterodox figure.
B.
Mark 1:1-13
261

If purity is the structuring value of Jewish social experience, it is extremely

important for Mark to announce Jesus' purity rating from the very beginning of his gospel.
Mark's prologue intentionally contains multiple attestations of Jesus' purity from witnesses
whose testimony must be taken seriously.
1. John the Baptizer testifies to Jesus' purity. John, although a holy prophet himself,
is not worthy to touch Jesus' feet, implying Jesus' special status as a holy figure
(1:7). John testifies that Jesus will baptize (make pure) with a baptism of the Holy
Spirit, thus making Jesus' purificatory actions better than John's own water
washings (1:8). Jesus, then, is ranked holier than the holy prophet John.
2. The Holiest of Beings, God, testifies to Jesus' purity. Jesus receives a theophany
in the Jordan, as the Holy God draws near to Jesus and reveals himself to him (1:910). This same God, who is pleased to have Jesus in his holy presence, delights in
him and calls him: "Thou art my beloved Son, with you I am well pleased" (1:11).
Jesus is thoroughly known by the all-seeing God and God sees no uncleanness in
him. And God sends upon Jesus Holiness par excellence, the Holy Spirit (1:10).
Jesus, then, is an intimate of God, fully within God's circle, even if this center is not
in the Temple.
3. Another figure appears in 1:12-13 who indirectly testifies to Jesus' radical
holiness. Satan, enemy of God and Uncleanness itself, attacks Jesus and tries to
make him unclean; he fails. 'Angels came and ministered to him" (1:13), thus
showing that Jesus did not lose God's holiness or favor through satan's temptations.
Jesus, therefore, is shown in the company of the holy God, a holy prophet, and holy angels.
Mark is not unconcerned with Jesus' purity rating, but affirms at the very beginning of the
gospel that Jesus is radically pure and close to God. Jesus's first words, "The kingdom of
God is at hand; repent..."(1:15), are a call to purity; for he demands that sinner turn from
the realm of sin and seek the circle of God's favor and holiness. But this is all happening in
Galilee, far from the Temple and its system.
C.
Conflict over Jesus' Purity
As we noted above, pure and holy Jews would maintain a defensive posture
regarding their purity. Concern for purity translated into distancing oneself from all that is
unclean, viz., maintenance of proper boundaries and lines. In Mark's gospel, people with
ostensibly excellent purity ratings are Jesus' most dogged critics. Mark may maintain that
Jesus is God's "Holy One," but not so Jesus' critics who observe him crossing lines he ought
not to cross and allowing people to cross into his space who ought to be kept at a distance.
What would purity-minded people object to about Jesus in Mark's gospel? Just about
everything Jesus did! Jesus did not observe any of the maps so important to the Judaism of
his day.
A. As regards the map of people to be avoided and shunned,
262

1) Jesus came in contact with unclean people: he voluntarily touched a leper

("and he touched him" 1:41); he took a corpse by the hand (5:41).
2) He was touched by a menstruating woman, a traditionally unclean person
(5:24-28).
3) Jesus called a public sinner to be an intimate: to Levi, sitting in his tax
booth, he said "Follow me!" (2:13-14).
4) Jesus travelled extensively in Gentile territory, thus crossing boundaries
he ought not to cross and exposing himself to pollution on every side. He
regularly crossed the Sea of Galilee into non-kosher territory (4:35-42); he
toured the "region of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee,
through the region of the Decapolis" (7:31).
5) While on this journey, Jesus had commerce with unclean people such as
the Syro-phoenician woman (7:24-30).
6) Jesus regularly was in contact with the possessed, the blind, the lame, and
the deaf-all figures who are unclean in some way according to Lev 21:16-24.
B. As regards the map of the body, Jesus seems not to have guarded his bodily
orifices or their emissions in ways that befit purity-minded people.
7) He broke one of the strictest purity laws in Israel as he disregarded all
dietary restrictions: "Thus he declared all foods clean" (7:19).
8) Contrary to all purity rules, Jesus shared meals with unclean sinners: "He
sat at table in Levi's house and many tax collectors and sinners were sitting
with Jesus" (2:15).
9) Nor did Jesus' disciples have regard for the surface of the body; they did
not wash their hands before eating, showing unconcern for what passed
through their mouths: "The Pharisees saw that some of his disciples ate with
hands defiled, that is, unwashed" (7:2).
10) In what must have been shocking to Mark's ancient audience, Jesus
applied his own spittle to the eyes of a blind man (8:23) and to the tongue of
a dumb person (7:33), showing disregard for bodily orifices and bodily
emissions.[4]
11) In the mass feedings in 6:37-44 and 8:1-10, Jesus apparently showed no
concern for the purity of the folk with whom he ate or for any of the rituals
to be practiced prior to eating. Common food was shared with common folk
on common ground.
C. Nor did Jesus observe the maps of time which structured Jewish life.
12) His disciples plucked grain on the Sabbath, "doing what is not lawful to
do on the Sabbath" (2:24). Jesus himself healed on the Sabbath (3:1-6).
D. Nor did Jesus respect the maps of places which classified Jewish space.
13) Jesus thoroughly disrupted the temple system. He halted worshippers
from their holy rites by chasing away those who facilitated the payment of
temple tithes and the offering of gifts (11:15). It is even said that he "would
not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple" (11:16), which may
263

refer to Jesus' supposed interruption of the carrying of sacrificial vessels and

offerings from the people's court into the altar area.
14) Jesus' negative attitude to temple space is clarified when it is linked with
a later statement that love of God and neighbor is "worth more than all
whole burnt offerings" (12:33).
15) Jesus' enemies, at least, perceive him as speaking against the holy place
(14:58; 15:29), a perception with which Mark apparently agreed (see 13:2).
Since the temple is the chief expression of the purity system of first-century
Judaism, Jesus' "pollution" of the temple (11:15-19) and his prediction of its
destruction (13:1-2) should surface as the major charges against him by the
temple elite in Jerusalem (14:58; 15:29). From their perspective, in showing
such contempt for its chief symbol, Jesus was rejecting the whole system.
In Galilee, moreover, Jesus' critics noted how often he transgressed all the purity
maps of his culture regarding persons, things, places, and times. They saw how often he
had commerce with unclean spirits and unclean persons. And they concluded that Jesus
could not be "the Holy one of God." Since he showed such flagrant disregard for purity
rules, he did not merit a high purity rating. On the contrary, he must be of Satan's camp.
Jesus' fundamental authority as prophet and leader of God's covenant people was called into
question by critics "who came down from Jerusalem and said, 'He is possessed by
Beelzebul and by the prince of demons he casts out demons'" (3:22). The text also indicates
that Jesus' own family thought that "he is beside himself" (3:21), that is, out of line and
dangerous. The initial claims of Mark (1:1-13, 21-28) are thus disputed by Jesus' very
behavior. An apology is called for.
D.
Mark 3:23-27
In response to the attack on Jesus' purity rating in 3:21-22, Mark summarizes the
significance of Jesus' exorcisms. The exorcisms in particular prove that Jesus is indeed
pure, "the Holy One of God." First, Jesus makes an incontrovertible statement: "How can
Satan cast out Satan?" (3:23). Where war exists, the warring partners are not allies, but
mortal enemies. This self-evident statement, then, is supported by three parallel analogies
which draw out the conclusion of 3:23.
If a kingdom is divided against itself,
that kingdom cannot stand.
If a house is divided against itself,
that house cannot stand.
If Satan is risen up against himself and is divided,
he cannot stand, but is coming to an end (3:24-26).
The exorcisms, then, prove that Jesus is the enemy of Satan, not his servant or ally. And so
the testimony of the demon was correct: "Have you come to destroy us? I know that you are
the Holy One of God" (1:24).
Mark climaxes the apology in 3:27 with a parabolic statement about how it takes a
"stronger one" to bind up a "strong" man to despoil his possessions. When the hearer of
264

3:27 gets the insight that Jesus is the "stronger one" and that Satan is only the "strong man,"
then one remembers that John the Baptizer spoke earlier of Jesus as "the Stronger One"
(1:7). The hearer then realizes that Jesus, the Stronger One, has in fact "bound the strong
man" in his victory over Satan in the temptations in the desert (1:12-13). With Satan thus
bound, Jesus can then "plunder his house" through successive exorcisms (1:21-18, 34, 39;
3:11-12, 15). Jesus' purity rating is defended:
1. He is God's ally and Satan's mortal enemy;
2. He belongs to God's kingdom and liberates those imprisoned in Satan's realm.
3. He has total power over Satan; he is not subject to him in any way.
And so Jesus is completely in God's camp, fully within the circle of God's associates, and
therefore holy.
Mark's readers understandably see striking similarities between 1:1-15 and 3:22-31.
A careful re-reading of both passages indicates the extent of these parallels and how they
function in the argument of the gospel.
Prologue (1:1-15)

Apology (3:22-31)

The Stronger One

"The Stronger One is coming"
"No one enters a strong man's
(1:7)
house (except a stronger man) ...
(3:27)
Conflict
"Jesus was tempted by Satan...
(1:13)

"How can Satan cast out Satan"

(3:23-26)

Jesus' Spirit
holy or unclean?
"He will baptize with the Holy
Whoever blasphemes against the
Spirit" (1:8)
Holy Spirit never has forgiveness
(3:29)
Whose Kingdom:
Gods or Satans?
"The kingdom of God is at hand"
(1:15)

"If a kingdom is divided against

itself, that kingdom cannot stand"
(3:24)

Against the claims that Jesus is unclean and so cannot function as God's agent, Mark
mounts a spirited defense of Jesus' purity rating by showing that the very evidence against
Jesus is precisely the positive proof that Jesus must be God's "Holy One" and not Satan's
servant.

265

It is important to note that while the normal term for the Satanic powers which
possess humans is "demons," Mark insists on calling them "unclean spirits" (1:23,26-27;
3:11; 5:2, 8, 13; 6:7; 7:25; 9:25). Thus Mark sharpens the distinction between Jesus, the
Holy One of God who had the Holy Spirit, and Satan and demons who are "unclean
spirits." The distinction is based on purity concerns.
E.
Jesus: Agent of Purity & Cleanness
Jesus is further vindicated as a holy figure when Mark shows that in all of his
contacts with unclean people, Jesus does not incur pollution but imparts cleanness or
wholeness to them instead. Recall that holiness is replicated in bodily wholeness.
1. In touching the leper, Jesus is not made unclean; rather he proclaims cleanness:
"'Be clean.' And immediately the leprosy left him and he was made clean" (1:41).
2. In dealing with the paralytic, Jesus cleansed the man of his sins ("Your sins are
forgiven," 2:5), as well as his paralysis (2:11). Jesus made him both whole and holy.
3. In calling Levi as a disciple and in eating with sinners, Jesus acts precisely as one
who restores wholeness and cleanness to God's people, viz. "a physician": "Those
who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call
the righteous, but sinners" (2:17).
4. In transgressing Sabbath laws, he provided food for the hungry (2:23-28) and
wholeness for a man with a withered limb (3:1-6).
5, His exorcisms liberate people bound in slavery to Satan. For example, one naked,
violent, and solitary possessed man lived in a most unclean place, a graveyard (5:5).
Jesus' exorcism rehabilitated him so that, when exorcised, he is found "clothed, in
his right mind" and seated comfortably in a social group once more (5:15).
6. The menstruating woman who touched Jesus is healed of her hemorrhage (5:2829).
7. The corpse which Jesus touched is made alive again (5:41-42).
8. The blind man and the dumb man upon whom Jesus put his spittle are restored to
sight and speech respectively (8:25; 7:35).
The Markan response to the charge that Jesus violated all of the maps of purity is
very complex. First, on the level of the narrative, Jesus extends bodily wholeness,
forgiveness of sins, and even life by his contact with the unclean, sinners, and the dead. He
is a giver of wholeness and holiness, but is never rendered unholy himself. Second, a
warrant is given in Mark for this activity. Full treatment of this would engage us in a
discussion of "limit breakers," people who are authorized to break taboos and cross
prohibited boundaries.[5] In his own way, Mark indicates that Jesus was so authorized as a
"limit breaker":
1. God gave Jesus the Holy Spirit (1:10), which led him into the desert to be
tempted by Satan (1:12-13). Jesus' subsequent conflict with unclean spirits" is
authorized here (see "teaching withauthority," 1:22, 27).

266

2. Jesus argued that he "has authority on earth to forgive sins" (2:10), which
legitimates his dealings with sinners (2:1-17). He is God's "physician" to them
(2:17).
3. Jesus has authority over the Sabbath, because "the Son of Man is Lord even of
the Sabbath" (2:8).
Third, according to Mark, Jesus was perceived by others as totally rejecting the idea of
purity by his repeated and widespread violations of the maps of purity. In Mark 7, however,
the evangelist indicates that, while Jesus does not wash before eating (7:2) or keep dietary
laws (7:19), he has a purity system which is expressed in rules of purity which differ from
those of the Pharisees.
Whereas the Pharisees' concern is with externals and surfaces (washings of hands,
pot, cups, and vessels, 7:2-4), Jesus' concern is with the interior and the heart:
There is nothing which by going into a man can defile him; but the things which
come out of a man are what defile him (7:15).
The Pharisees guarded the external fences which had been made around the Torah, that is,
"the tradition of the elders," which extended the concerns of purity to outer or external
things. In Mark, Jesus was concerned with the core or heart of the Law, the Ten
Commandments (see 7:10; 10:19). Jesus, moreover, declares that their purity system is
wrong and his is right:
This people (the Pharisees, in particular) honors me with their lips, but their heart is
far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men
(7:6-7).
According to Jesus, purity does not reside on the lips or hands, but in the heart; purity is
measured by the keeping of the core law of God, not the traditional "fences" of men.
Alternately, pollution comes not by violation of washing or dietary rules (7:18-19), which
deal only with surfaces, but with sin and vice which come from within, from the heart
(7:21-22). "All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man" (7:23).
No, according to Mark, Jesus is not abrogating the idea of purity when he violates
the rules of purity. On the contrary, Jesus is reforming the rules of purity current in his day,
offering his interpretation of what God wants and what makes one whole, clean, and holy.
F.
God's Verdict on Jesus' Purity
Mark's basic concern to affirm the purity of Jesus affects other aspects of his
presentation of Jesus. For a Jew of Jesus' time, purity would be intimately bound up with
obedience. Since the laws of Israel comprehensively order one's life according to that
particular system, obedience to them would indicate one's standing before God, one's
holiness. Such is the import of Paul's boast: "As to the law, a Pharisee...as to righteousness
under the law, blameless" (Phil 3:5-6). Although Jesus is portrayed as not obeying some of
267

the traditional purity laws, he is presented, as we shall see, as a figure who is fundamentally
obedient to God.
Since God is ultimately the final reference point and arbiter of purity, it matters
greatly how God evaluates Jesus. If, as Mark states, Jesus is fundamentally obedient to
God, this holiness should be expressed by God's judgment about Jesus.
1. In the baptismal theophany (1:10-11), God declared Jesus uniquely holy and pure.
God, moreover, gave Jesus' his own purity, the Holy Spirit. 2. In the transfiguration
theophany (9:2-8), not only do the holiest figures of Israel's past, Moses and Elijah, appear
to Jesus and share his company, but God once more affirms Jesus' holiness: "This is my
beloved Son, listen to him" (9:7). Far from separating Himself from what is unclean, God
repeatedly draws near to Jesus. 3. Jesus figures as the Beloved Son in the parable of the
vineyard, the Son whom the owner of the vineyard sent (12:6), thus signaling once more
Jesus' intimacy with the holy God. 4. Jesus is the person whom God will bring into God's
own presence: "The Lord said to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand'" (12:36). For Jesus is
indeed the person whom God will vindicate and bring to himself. Jesus is no sinner, no
unclean corpse, no impure figure; for God will make him holy and make him alive when he
is "seated at the right hand of the Power" (14:62). 5. There God will make the holy angels
his servants (8:38; 13:27). Through Jesus' resurrection and enthronement, then, God makes
clear his verdict of Jesus' purity rating, viz., that Jesus was and is "the Holy One of God."
Death is the ultimate sign of the power of sin and Satan. It means irrevocable
uncleanness (Frymer-Kensky 1983:400). But death does not affect Jesus. Jesus undeniably
dies, not because he sinned or because Satan proved to have power over him, but because
of his holiness, i.e. his obedience to God. When Mark says "The Son of Man must suffer
and die..." (8:31), he is saying that Jesus is called in obedience, hence in holiness, to
undergo death's uncleanness. And Jesus is obedient, as the prayer in the Garden shows:
"Not what I will, but what you will" (14:36). Knowing God's plan through the Scriptures,
Jesus obediently submits: "The Son of Man goes as it is written" (14:21)..."but let the
Scriptures be fulfilled" (14:49). Jesus' death is not polluting for it comes from obedience to
God, not from the power of sin. By raising Jesus from the dead, God vindicates him,
testifying that he is indeed "Son of God" (see 15:39) and proving that he fully deserved his
high purity rating. Jesus then enters the very circle of God's presence and sits on God's
throne, a thing unthinkable for a corpse.
The crucified Jesus was not unclean (despite Deut 21:23; see Gal 3:13). Death did
not pollute him because God rescued him from death and brought him into God's own
presence. Jesus, therefore, can speak of death to his followers as non-polluting. He can tell
them to "take up the cross and follow me" (8:34) and to "lose one's life for my sake and so
save it" (8:35). Far from Jesus' death being a pollution or his crucified body being impure,
it is a source of purity. The Son of Man "gives his life as ransom for many" (10:45). His
blood is "covenant blood" which binds God and the covenant people; it does not pollute
them and separate them from God. His blood is atonement blood which is "poured out for
many" (14:24); it takes away uncleanness. The final irony is that death, the ultimate
pollution, serves as the very source of purity for Jesus' followers.
268

The gospel claims, moreover, that with Jesus as the cornerstone, a new and holy
temple will be built where members of the true covenant can come into contact with the
holy God. Not like the old, material temple, made by human hands! Not like the old temple
with its inadequate cultic sacrifices (11:16; 12:33)! The new temple will be made by God,
"a temple not made by human hands" (14:58) Juel 1977:144-153). It will be a different kind
of temple entirely, for it will be Jesus' risen body. And so holiness and purity can only be
had by being in contact with Jesus ("This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our
eyes," 12:11).[6] As the Jews measured holiness in terms of proximity to the temple, so
Christians now measure it in terms of proximity to Jesus. For it is in Jesus that one finds
genuine covenant and atonement sacrifices (14:24) which bind to God and makes pure. To
be in contact with Jesus is to be in contact with the Holy God of Israel. Yet this new holy
space is not fixed on a mountain in Jerusalem, but is a fluid space as yet without a map.
PART THREE: THE NEW PURITY SYSTEM OF JESUS
The idea of purity is an important anthropological concept for understanding Mark's
gospel. It facilitates a sympathetic appreciation of the criticism of Jesus by the Pharisees
and other purity-conscious Jews. According to the cultural and religious norms of the times,
Jesus was crossing forbidden boundaries and coming into contact with unclean people.
Although Jesus disregarded the maps of Judaism, Mark does not state that Jesus abrogated
the idea of purity as the structuring value of his world. On the contrary, Mark portrays him
as revising the maps according to a new principle. Let us review the ways in which Jesus
reforms the system of purity according to new rules. This in turn will assist us in
understanding the purpose and strategy of the new purity rules according to Mark.
A.
Jesus' Reform of the Purity Rules
We recall that, according to Mark 7, Jesus offered a reform of the purity rules of his
culture. While critizing existing maps of purity, Mark's Jesus offered other maps and rules.
[7]
From the gospel we can summarize the disagreements between the Pharisees and Jesus
over the classifications, definitions and evaluations that make up the purity system of Israel.
Pharisees et aI.
1. Purity rules are extended to 613
laws, the tradition of "fence" around the Law.

Jesus & His Followers

1. Purity rules are concentrated in the
core law, the Ten Commandments.

2. Purity concerns focus on the washing

of hands, cups, pots, vesselsexternal & surface areas.

2. Purity concerns are focussed on

the heart- interior & core areas.

3. Purity rules prevent uncleanness

from entering.
coming out.

3. Purity rules guard against uncleanness which is within from

4. Purity resides in specific external

actions relating to hands and

4. Purity resides in a persons

interior, in faith & right
269

mouths.

confession of Jesus.

5. Purity rules are particularistic,

separating Israel from its unclean
neighbor.

5. Purity rules are inclusive,

allowing Gentiles and the
unclean to enter God's kingdom.

This chart shows how completely Jesus and the Pharisees differ, not over whether there
should be purity rules and a purity system, but on what the rules are and what areas of life
are affected.
Douglas offers further suggestions on how to assess the differences between Jesus
and the mainstream system which structured Jewish life in the first century through the
plotting out of two variables for locating and explaining diverse groups. In her jargon she
calls these two variables group and grid (1973:77-92). Group refers to the degree of societal pressure exerted upon individuals or subgroups to conform to the purity system, its
symbols and rules. This pressure to conform may be strong (as was the case with firstcentury Judaism) or weak (as in contemporary USA). Sadducees, Pharisees, even Jesus and
his followers experienced strong pressure to accept and conform to the central values of
Judaism as outlined in Gen 1-3 and replicated in the Temple.
Douglas' second variable, grid, refers to the degree of assent that people give to the
symbol system which is enjoined on them, its classifications, definitions and evaluations.
People may experience a fit between their personal experience and the stated aims and
values of the system, which is called high grid. Or they may feel a discrepancy between the
aims of the system and their experience, and to give diminished assent to it, which is
low grid. The Sadducees, as guardians and exponents of the mainstream Jewish purity
system, experienced a strong fit between the system's aims and their life: they are described
as high grid. But other Jews seem not to have accepted so fully the articulation of Israel's
religion as handed down by the priestly Sadducees. The Pharisees, for example, contested
many aspects of the system, especially the claim that purity is the concern of priests only;
and so, they attempted to extend the system to non-priests as well, with themselves as its
definers and spokesmen. In this conflict with the system, they represent a lower grid than
the Sadducees. Mark, however, portrays Jesus as a reforming figure who saw the system in
need of considerable repairs, as he contests many of the basic classifications, definitions
and evaluations of the system. Since Jesus' degree of dissent from the main aspects of the
system is greater than that of the Pharisees, his grid is correspondingly lower.
GRID VARIABLE: degree of assent to the purity system
HIGH GRID
Sadducees
Pharisees
Jesus & his followers
270

LOW GRID
Jesus, then, stands within the system of Israel's faith (strong group). He confesses faith in
Israel's one, true God (12:29-33) and accepts the Scriptures as God's authoritative word. Yet
he does not seem to agree with the way the Pharisees, for example, would describe God or
with their reading of the Scriptures (low grid).
The differences between mainstream Jewish system and Jesus can be briefly
sketched. (1) The core value of the Jewish system is God's "holiness": "Be ye holy as I am
holy" (Lev 11:44). But Jesus points to God's "mercy" as the core value: "The Lord, the
Lord, merciful and kind..." (Exod 34:6-7). (2) For the mainstream, God's holiness is symbolized in God's act of creation, especially as this is perceived as a fundamental act of
ordering. For Jesus, however, God's mercy is symbolized in God's free election and God's
unpredictable gift of covenant grace ((see Deut 7:7-8; Exod 33:19). (3) Thestructural
implications of God's holiness-as-ordering lead the Sadducees et al. to a strong purity
system with a particularistic tendency, whereas God's mercy-as-election leads to a weaker
purity system with an inclusive tendency. (4) A defensive strategy flows from holiness-asorder, whereas a strategy of mission, hospitality and inclusiveness represent the appropriate
strategy where mercy-as-election constitutes the core value. (5) Finally, the Scriptural
legitimation for holiness-as-order is found primarily in the Pentateuch, whereas election
and covenant (as in the case of Abraham) is found both in pre-Mosaic traditions as well as
in prophetic criticisms of Israel's cult.
PHARISEES
core value

JESUS & FOLLOWERS

God's holiness (Lev 11;44)

God's mercy (Exod 33:19)

symbolized in

creation-as-ordering

election and grace

structural
implications

strong purity system, with

particularistic tendency

weaker purity system,

with inclusive tendency

strategy

defense

mission, hospitality

legitimation
in Scripture

Pentateuch

pre-Mosaic as well as
prophetic criticisms

Jesus would seem to be trying to reform the Judaism of his time, suggesting as his
controlling value God's free and unpredictable act of covenant election. He still worships
Israel's God and accepts God's word in the Scriptures (strong group), but he strongly
contests the classifications, definitions and evaluations of the mainstream articulation of the
system (low grid). In this Jesus claims to have the true notion of God and the correct
expression of that in the symbols of mercy, inclusiveness and election. To the Sadducees
and Pharisees, Jesus appears as a maverick who is stepping outside the system entirely. But
Jesus and his followers would claim to be reformers of the system. Sadducees and
Pharisees would conclude that Jesus had no purity system, because he did not completely
271

share theirs; but Jesus and followers would emphatically claim to have a genuine system
which is the reformed, authentic system truly given in the Scriptures. But the two
conflicting views of Judaism will clash in terms of the degree of particularity or
inclusiveness. According to Douglas' model, these are differences of grid, not group.
B.
Jesus: Defender of the Idea of Purity
Mark's Jesus criticizes Pharisaic purity rules-laws based on Israel's Scriptures. But
according to Mark, Jesus bases his own reform on those same Scriptures, but viewed from a
different perspective. Nevertheless, Jesus' reformed rules are grounded on Cod's word
(strong group). For example,
1. In justifying the breaking of the Sabbath for food-consumption purposes, Jesus
appealed to the example of David in 1 Sam 21:7.
2. In criticizing Pharisaic divorce laws, Jesus appealed to God's original law in Gen
1-2, not to what "Moses wrote because of the hardness of your hearts" (10:5; see
Deut 24:1-4).
3. In reforming the temple system, Jesus appealed to traditional prophetic criticisms
of Israel's system in Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11.
4. In commenting on the Pharisees' tradition of korban, he insisted on the primacy
of one of the Ten Commandments, "Honor your father and mother" (7:10), as well
as Isaiah's critical remarks (Isa 29:13 LXX).
According to Mark, moreover, Jesus knows the Law. In 12:29-31, he proclaims as the core
of the Law both the Shema (Deut 6:4-5) and love of neighbor (Lev 19:18). He enjoins the
Ten Commandments on the man who asked what was necessary to "inherit eternal life"
(10:19). Jesus, then, is neither ignorant of the Law nor disrespectful of it. He bases his
reform of the purity rules precisely on the Scriptures, but on aspects of it different from
those celebrated by the Pharisees.
Besides defending the essential Law of God as the substance of his reform of purity,
Jesus is portrayed as setting down purity rules to cover many of the same items which were
the object of Pharisaic purity rules: entrance requirements, sin, and judgment. As regards
entrance requirements, Jesus demands "repentance" to enter the kingdom of God which is
at hand (1:14-15). Acceptance of Jesus as God's agent becomes a prime requirement (8:38).
Obedience to the basic covenant law is the way to inherit eternal life (10:19). In short,
acceptance of Jesus and his version of what God requires is the basic boundary between
insiders and outsiders (see Mk 4:10-12).
As regards sin, Jesus deals vigorously with sinners who may not otherwise come
into God's holy presence. "Sin" is redefined by Jesus. First, inasmuch as obedience to God's
law is the way to eternal life, conversely sin is disobedience to these laws, which alone
renders a person "unclean". The list of vices which "defile a man" (7:21-22) are formally
based on the Ten Commandments:
The Ten Commandments

Vices in Mk 7:21-22
272

1. Do not kill
2. Do not commit adultery.
3. Do not steal
4. Do not bear false witness.
5. Do not defraud.
6. Honor your father & mother...

1. murder,
2. fornication, adultery, licentiousness,
3. theft,
4. envy, slander,
5. covetousness,
6. see Mk 7:9-13

These sins are "impurity" in Jesus' system, for they are what "defile a man." A premier sin
is identified by Jesus: those who "blaspheme against the Holy Spirit" never have
forgiveness (3:29). That sin is to call Jesus "unclean": "for they said, 'He has an unclean
spirit'" (3:30). Jesus, of course, has God's "authority on earth to forgive sins" (2:10), an
authority which directly challenges the temple system for dealing with sins (12:33). He is
God's designated "physician" to sinners (2:17).
As regards judgment, Mark portrays Jesus as the judge who erects boundaries
around God's kingdom and firmly defends them. Jesus as judge guards the gates and admits
or excludes; he will strictly determine who gets in and who stays out. When he comes with
his angels, he will render judgment: 1) against unbelievers who reject him ("Whoever is
ashamed of me and my words...of him will the Son of Man be ashamed," 8:38) and b) on
behalf of believers ("He will gather his elect from the four winds," 13:27). Jesus, then, can
be said to accept the same concerns and issues as observant Jews of his day (strong group).
It is not true, as his opponents claim, that he has no purity concerns and no system.
C.
Jesus and Covenant Boundaries: New Rules
It hardly went unnoticed that Jesus constantly crossed lines and boundaries. But as
we noted above, Mark portrays him as an authorized "limit breaker." To what purpose,
however, did Jesus violate the maps of persons and places? I suggest that according to
Mark, a Christian missionary strategy is validated by Jesus' activity; for Mark is intent on
showing that Jesus' mission was an inclusive one to preach to all peoples, Gentiles
included, and to offer full membership in God's kingdom to all peoples, Gentiles included.
For example, in following the geographical references in the gospel, one gets a clear
view of the audiences to whom Jesus preached, which is a view of the world, and not just of
the Holy Land. A new map is being drawn.
1. The crowds which followed Jesus came from "Galilee, also from Judea and
Jerusalem and Idumea and from beyond the Jordan and from about Tyre and Sidon"
(3:7-8).
2. Jesus himself crossed over into Gentile territory (4:35).
3. The dispossessed man preached Jesus "in the Decapolis" (5:20).
4. Jesus "went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon" (7:24), where he granted
covenant blessings to a Syrophoenician woman (7:25-30).
5. He "returned from the region of Tyre and went through Sidon, to the Sea of
Galilee, through the region of the Decapolis" (7:31).
273

6. Peter's great confession was made in the non-Jewish town with the Hellenistic
name of Caesarea Philippi (8:27).
7. Jesus said that "the gospel must be preached to all the nations" (13:10).
Ethnic boundaries are being crossed; or to put it more clearly, the boundaries of Jesus'
covenant people are more porous than those of the parent synagogue covenant. But this is
an intentional strategy appropriate to the missionary effort of Jesus' followers and
consonant with Jesus' image of God as a merciful God of gracious election. According to
Mark, it does not mean a rejection of purity concerns, but a conscious relaxation of purity
rules during a missionary phase of the community's formation.
Besides Gentiles, the marginal and unclean people in the villages of Israel are also
ministered to by Jesus. This replicates the lowering of purity boundaries and speaks again
to the inclusive membership of Mark's community. This inclusiveness is evident in the
parable of the sower in 4:3-9, where the prodigal sower throws seed in the most improbable
places: on the path, on the rocks, and among thornbrakes. No pre-judgment is made on
potential membership in God's covenant community on the basis of ethnic status or purity
rating. Thus one important function of the change of purity rules in Mark is the issue of
inclusive membership in God's covenant. Jesus' crossing of the purity boundaries of his day
is a functional statement in Mark of the inclusiveness of the membership of the Markan
community.
D.
Purity Lines and Self-Definition
As we saw in the case of Jewish customs such as circumcision, dietary laws and
Sabbath observance, temporal and spatial maps pertain to self-identity and to selfdefinition. For example, Josephus describes the particularistic purpose of a custom like
circumcision: "To the intent that his posterity should be kept from mixing with others, God
charged Abraham to have them circumcised and to perform the rite on the eighth day after
birth" (Ant. 1,192; see Philo, Moses 1,278). If Jesus is said, for instance, to abolish Jewish
dietary rules, this serves as a way of defining the Christian covenant group as a group
which does not keep those rules, viz. a less particularistic and more inclusive group. So by
redrawing lines or by erasing them, Mark and his group are engaged in the process of self
definition.
Each of Jesus' critiques of the Pharisees or Jewish purity customs enables the new
Christian group to know precisely where it stands in relation to the parent synagogue. They
do X and we don't do X; they don't do Y but we do Y. In the controversy stories of Mark's
Gospel, we find the Christian non-keeping of certain purity customs functioning as
boundary lines defining the Christian group and distinguishing it from the synagogue. And
so a new map is drawn. For example:
Synagogue
Dietary Laws.
Wash Hands Before Meals.
Strict Sabbath observance.

Church
no dietary laws
no washing of hands before meals
no strict Sabbath observance
274

Temple & Sacrifices.

no sacrifice in the old temple.

If these Jewish customs served a particularistic function to separate Israel from the nations,
then the systematic abrogation of them should also be seen vis-a-vis Mark's sense of an
inclusive or open covenant community. The church is not only not the synagogue; its
reform of the particularistic purity rules suggests a more open group than the synagogue.
Although in one sense Jesus abrogates purity rules which "set apart" God's people in
a particularistic way, Mark still portrays Jesus as setting his group apart from all others.
[8]
Jesus establishes clear lines and boundaries for his group, which unmistakably separate
insiders from outsiders. Faith in Jesus is the chief distinguishing criterion. Confession of
Jesus, acceptance of him as God's Holy One, acclamation of him as Son of David, Christ,
or any other symbol of God's agency means that one is an insider. Objection to his teaching
(2:7), to his practice (3:2), or to his customs (7:1-4) denotes an outsider. For example, the
"unbelief" of the people in Jesus' own country means that these people are clearly outsiders
(6:3-6). This is repeated in 3:31-35 where the biological family of Jesus is "standing
outside" and calling him to come out to them (3:32). They are in contrast to the group
which is inside listening to Jesus' teaching. They are Jesus' real family: "Here are my
mother and my brothers!" (3:34). The criteria for status as an insider differ from those of
the synagogue where blood, physical or genealogical concerns determine membership in
God's "chosen people." In keeping with Jesus' new purity rules in Mark 7, the criterion for
membership is a matter of the interior, the heart-faith in Jesus.
Similarly, it would be expected that Jesus would give special private instruction to
his disciples when they are "inside," for they are "insiders" (4:10-13; 34; 7:17-23; 9:28-29;
10:10-12). It is possible and necessary, then, to tell insiders from outsiders. Jesus' followers
positively need these boundaries and lines in their endeavor to define themselves over
against the parent synagogue.
CONCLUSION
We have seen that understanding the idea of purity is important for understanding
Mark's presentation of Jesus and the Christian community. To repeat a third time, it would
be simply erroneous to say that Mark repudiates the system of purity, just because he
presents Jesus disregarding or contesting certain purity rules. Rather Mark portrays Jesus
according to a reformed idea of purity, in which lines are being redrawn and boundaries
loosened. Douglas' model of group/grid allows us to locate Jesus' basic allegiance to
Israel's God and his Scriptures (strong group), while accounting for Jesus' reforming
suggestions about God's mercy and how this structures a more inclusive group with a
weaker purity system less particularistic than that of mainstream first-century Judaism
(weak grid). Mark, a gentile writing for a gentile church, portrays Jesus as the legitimate,
reforming prophet who disputes the classifications, definitions and evaluations of a system
in dire need of correction. Jesus' reforms in turn legitimate Mark and his community as
authentic worshipers of the one, true God, but according to a system, structure, and strategy
different from the mainstream of Judaism.
The functions of the idea of purity in Mark may be summarized.
275

1. The basic presentation of Jesus in Mark's gospel is done in terms of purity. It

matters whether Jesus has the Holy Spirit or an unclean spirity, whether his closest
company is holy (John the Baptizer, God, angels, Moses and Elijah), and whether
his death is polluting. Jesus' purity rating is always of great importance in the
gospel, for his legitimation rests on a high rating.
2. Jesus is constantly presented as the physician who brings cleanness, forgiveness
of sins, and wholeness to God's covenant people. Even though Jesus may be in
contact with unclean people, he gives wholeness and purity to them; he never loses
it as a result of that contact. In fact, he is the one who gives them the Holy Spirit
(1:8).
3. When Jesus crosses boundaries and when he allows unclean people to contact
him, this "polluting" activity functions in Mark vis-a-vis the inclusive membership
of Mark's church. Marginal and unclean Israelites as well as Gentiles are welcome
in God's new covenant group. Inclusive membership, then, will initially mean that
certain purity lines be crossed and that boundaries be made porous. And so, the new
posture of Jesus to social boundaries is coherent with the view of the covenant
community proposed by Mark.
4. The crossing of boundaries and lines also serves to define the Christian group visa-vis the synagogue. Self-identity is found in the redrawing of these lines.
5. Although boundaries may be porous in terms of mission and membership,
they become quite firm and clear in terms of Mark's perception of who is in/out of
the group. Believers are in and unbelievers are out.
6. While Jesus breaks certain boundaries, he erects and guards other lines and
boundaries. For Jesus can forgive sins or retain them. He can admit or dismiss
people from God's presence.
WORKS CONSULTED
Achtemeier, Paul
1970 "Toward the Isolation of Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae." ]BL 89:265-91.
Alexander, Philip S.
1982 "Notes on the 'Imago Mundi' of the Book of Jubilees." JJS 33:197-213.
Alter, R.
1979 "A New Theory of Kashrut." Commentary 68:46-52.
Baumgarten, Joseph M.
1982 "Exclusions from the Temple: Proselytes and Agrippa I." JJS 33:215-25.
Best, Ernest
1965 The Temptation and the Passion: the Markan Soteriology. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Buchanan, George W.
276

1963 "The Role of Purity in the Structure of the Essene Sect." RQ 4:397-406.
Carlston, Charles
1968 "Things that Defile (Mark VII.14) and the Law in Matthew and
Mark." NTS 15:75-96.
Cohn, Robert L.
1980 The Shape of Sacred Space. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.
Daube, David
1938 "Exousia in Mk 1.22 & 27," ]TS 39:45-59.
Donahue, John
1982 "A Neglected Factor in the Theology of Mark." ]BL 101:563-94.
Douglas, Mary
1966 Purity and Danger. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
1968 "Pollution," International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences 12:336-42.
1973 Natural Symbols. New York: Vintage Books.
1982 In the Active Voice. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Elliott, John H.
1981 A Home for the Homeless. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Fennelly, James M.
1938 "The Jerusalem Community and Kashrut
in SBL 1983 Seminar Papers. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.

Shatnes." Pp.

273-88

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva
1983 "Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel." Pp. 399-414 in The
Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. Carol L. Meyers and M. O'Connor, eds. Published
for the American Schools of Oriental Research by Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN.
Gordon, B. L.
1971 "Sacred Directions, Orientation, and the Top of the Map." HR 10:211-27.
Helgeland, John
1975 "Roman Army Religion." Vol 2, pp. 199-205 in SBL 1975 Seminar Papers. 2
vols. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.
1980 "Time and Space: Christian and Roman." ANRW II.23.2:1285-1305.
Isenberg, Sheldon and Dennis Owen
1977 "Bodies, Natural and Contrived: the Work of Mary Douglas." Religious
Studies Review 3:1-17.
Jeremias, Joachim
1969 Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
277

Juel, Donald
1977 Messiah and Temple. SBLDS 31. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.
Keck, Leander E.
1965 "The Introduction to Mark's Gospel." NTS 12:352-70.
Kee, Howard C.
1968 "The Terminology of Mark's Exorcism Stories." NTS 14:232-46.
1977 Community of the New Age. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Klimkeit, H. J.
1975 "Spatial Orientation in Mythical Thinking as Exemplified in Ancient Egypt:
Considerations toward a Geography of Religions." HR 14:269-81.
Lambrecht, Jan
1977 "Jesus and the Law: An Interpretation of Mk 7,1-23." ETL 53:24-82.
Malina, Bruce
1978 "The Social World Implied in the Letters of the Christian Bishop-Martyr
(Named Ignatius of Antioch)." Vol. 2, pp. 71-119 in SBL 1978 Seminar Papers. 2
vols. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.
1981 The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta, GA:
John Knox.
Martin, Ralph
1972 Mark Evangelist and Theologian. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Mauser, V. W.
1963 Christ in the Wilderness. London: SCM Press.
Meeks, Wayne A.
1983 The First Urban Christians. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Meyers, Eric
1981 "The Cultural Setting of Galilee: the Case of Regionalism and Early
Palestinian Judaism." Pp. 31-47 in Archeology, the Rabbis and Early
Christianity. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.
Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome
1980 "Sex and Logic in 1 Cor 11:2-16." CBQ 42:482-500.
Neusner, Jacob
1973a From Politics to Piety. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
1973b The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism. Leiden: Brill.
1975 "The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism." JAAR 43:15-26.
278

1976 "'First Cleanse the Inside' The 'Halakhic' Background of a Controversy

Saying." NTS 22:486-95.
1978 "History and Purity in First-Century Judaism." HR 18:1-17.
1979 "Map Without Territory: Mishnah's System of Sacrifices and Sanctuary." HR
19:103-27.
Nineham, D. E.
1963 Saint Mark. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books.
Oppenheimer, Aharon
1977 The Am Ha-Aretz. Leiden: Brill.
Pilch, John
1981 "Biblical Leprosy and Body Symbolism." BTB 11:108-13.
Pocock, D. E.
1975 "North and South in the Book of Genesis." Pp. 273-84 in Studies in Social
Anthropology: Essays in Memory of E. E. Evans-Pritchard. J. H. M. Beatie and R.
G. Lienhardt (eds.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, James M.
1951 The Problem of History in Mark. London: SCM Press.
Safrai, S. and Stern, M.
1976 The Jewish People in the First Century. Vol. II. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum.
Sanders, E. P. (ed.)
1980 Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Volume One: The Shaping of
Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Senior, Donald
1984 "The Struggle to be Universal: Mission as Vantage Point for New Testament
Investigation." CBQ 46:63-81.
Smallwood, Mary
1976 The Jews Under Roman Rule. Leiden: Brill.
Smith, Jonathan Z.
1978 Map is Not Territory. Leiden: Brill.
Soler, Jean
1979 "The Dietary Prohibitions of the Hebrews," The New York Review of
Books 26/10 (June 14) 24-30.
Theissen, Gerd
1983 The Miracle Stories in the Early Christian Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press.
279

NOTES
[1]

See also Isenberg and Owens, 1977; Feeley-Hamik, 1981; and Pilch, 1981.
My next essay, "Body Language in 1 Corinthians... will more fully develop the
symbolism of the physical body and how it is guarded with purity concerns.
[3]
Richard Horsley (" 'How can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?'
Spiritual Elitism in Corinth," NTS 20 [1978J 224) indicates that even the dead must "put on
immortality," for they may not come "naked" into God's presence.
[4]
In general, spittle is linked by Douglas (1966:121) with other bodily exuviae as
dangerous. although she admits of instances where "the spittle of persons in key positions is
thought effective to bless" (1966:120). Yet see b. Eru. 99a; Hag. 23a; Yoma 47a; Yeb. 104b105a 'and l06b.
[5]
In private conversations, Bruce Malina communicated to me his important ideas on
figures who are regularly permitted to cross forbidden lines, which figures he calls "limit
breakers." See his forthcoming Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology: Practical
Models for Biblical Interpretation.
[6]
Jesus as the new Temple becomes a common theme in the New Testament, explaining
how Christians are holy in proportion to their closeness to Jesus, as the Jews estimated
holiness by proximity to Jerusalem's temple; for examples of this, see 1 Cor 3:18;
Eph 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:4-9.
[7]
This material may be found more completely argued in my essay "Symbolism in Mark
Seven," presented at the 1984 SBL convention,
[8]
Similar observations on the role of purity as boundary-making mechanism can be found
apropos of (1) 1 Peter (Elliott, 1981:118-148) and (2) 1 Corinthians (Meeks, 1983:97, 105).
[2]

Deception,
Ambiguity,
and
Matthews Judgmental Scenes in
Perspective

Revelation:
Social-Science

@
Jerome
H.
Neyrey
Forthcoming in the Anthony Saldarini Festschrift
Things
are
seldom
what
Skim milk masquerades as cream (H.M.S. Pinafore)

280

they

2002
seem,

1.0 Introduction, Hypothesis, Models

Matthews gospel contains numerous instances of deception, lying, secrecy,
hypocrisy and ambiguity, which are the focus of this study. Yet, we examine them
not as isolated semantic phenomena, but as part of a common and expected social
strategy

found

in Israelite (Roberts

1988:211-20;

Freund

1991:45-

61), Christian (Pilch 1992, 1994; Neyrey 1998a), and Greco-Roman literatures
(Detienne and Vernant 1978; Haft 1983; Verdenius 1981; Vernant 1988; Walcot
1977). To this end we employ materials from cultural anthropology which
interpret such phenomena, in particular the sociology of secrecy (see Tefft 1989;
Neyrey 1998a) and symbolic cosmologies (Malina 1981; Neyrey 1986a, 1987,
1990). With these lenses we are able to observe how our data operate as part of a
common, expected social strategy.
We take this inquiry one step further by examining how Matthews understanding
of divine judgment must be first and foremost an apocalypse, that is, an act of
pulling back the veil on all deception, lying, secrecy, hypocrisy and ambiguity.
Thus God can finally render a just judgment which separates the good from the
bad and the wise from the foolish. Then God can remedy the chronic injustice of
a deceptive world where evil succeeds while good fares poorly. Since justice
consists of a revelation, Gods unveiling of deception etc., entails a shock and
surprise when mortals, both bad and good, find the world not as they thought it to
be. And so, we give special attention to the three parables in Matthew 25, as
illustrative of the hypothesis we are arguing about the unveiling of deceit,
secrecy, and ambiguity. Thus this study takes its readers through several stages:
(1) data on deception, lying, secrecy, hypocrisy and ambiguity; (2) secrecy as a
281

common social strategy; (3) the cosmology of a world filled with deception; and
finally (4) interpretation of the parables in Matthew 25.
2.0 Data Describing a Deceitful, Secret, Hypocritical, Ambiguous World
Our claim that Matthews world is rife with lying, deception, hypocrisy, secrecy
and ambiguity includes the following data, which are based on a study of the
semantic word field of ambiguity, lying and deception (Darton 1976:107-110;
Louw and Nida 1988:388-445). Of the many items available, we list only those
relevant to the argument of this study
1. deception (): Matt 13:22; to deceive (v): Matt 18:12, 13;22:29; 24:4, 5, 11, 24; deception
(v): Matt 27:64
2. hypocrisy (o): Matt 23:28; hypocrite (o):Matt 6:2, 5, 16; 7:5; 15:7; 22:18; 23:13,
14, 15; 24:51
3. lying (o): Matt 5:11; to bear false witness (o): Matt 19:18; false testimony
(o ): Matt 15:19; 26:59; a false witness (o Matt 26:60; false prophet
(oo): Matt 7:15; 24:11, 24; false Christ (oo): Matt 24:24
4 secret (o ): Matt 6:4, 6; 10:26; secret (o ): Matt 6:18; to hide/make secret (): Matt
5:14; 11:25; 13:35, 44; 25:18, 25
5. to appear, seem (o): Matt 3:9; 17:25; 18:12; 21:28; 22:17, 42; 26:66
6. to reveal (o): Matt 10:26; 11:25, 27; 16:17

Matthew also narrates scenes where deception, lying, secrecy, hypocrisy and
ambiguity occur, even though the semantic terms just noted are not used. Taking
note of these data should increase our appreciation of how secrecy and deception
phenomena permeate this narrative world.

282

2.1 Deception. Even Jesus mandates deception (see Neyrey 1993a:38-42). For
example, he commands those who fast: Anoint your head and wash your
face, that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in
secret (6:17-18). In regard to alms, Jesus ordered, Do not let your left hand
know what your right hand is doing (6:3). All acts of piety must be done in
secret (6:4, 6, 18). To outsiders, then, the disciples of Jesus will appear to be
non-observers of traditional piety and thus deceive outsiders.
Characters in the narrative regularly practice deception. To all appearances,
Pharisees and Sadducees come to John at the Jordan for purification. But John
perceives deceit in them, and exposes their hidden evil: You brood of vipers. . .
(3:7-10). Deception constitutes the latent peril in Jesus temptations by the
Devil. Outwardly what is suggested to Jesus seems reasonable and good, but
therein lies the snare. Evil is disguised as good. Jesus prophetic role enables
him to unveil this hidden evil, and so avoid ruin (4:1-13). Moreover, people
regularly ask Jesus questions, not seeking information from him but to trap him
(16:1; 19:3; 22:18) -- a deception meant to harm; others flatter him: Teacher, we
know that you are true, and teach the way of God truthfully, and care for no man
(22:16). Finally, Judas Iscariot seemed to be a loyal disciple yet was secretly
plotting with Jesus enemies for his death, a deception he maintains up to the
Passover meal when Jesus unveiled his fraud (26:21-23).
2.2 Lying. Matthew narrates scenes in which lies are told, even if the words
such as - and v- do not occur. For example, Herod tells the Magi to
follow the star and report back to him, That I too may come and worship him
(2:8). This king, who was troubled when he first learned of the king of the
Jews (2:2), lies to the Magi; for he really seeks to find and kill this newborn
283

rival (2:16-18). After Jesus death the religious elite describe him as that
deceiver (vo) who falsely predicted his vindication (27:63). With Pilates
approval they post a guard to prevent Jesus lie from being realized by the theft
of his body (27:62-65). Yet this guard sees sights at his tomb which acclaim the
truth of Jesus prediction (28:4) and tell them to their superiors (28:11). In the
end, the guards were bribed to tell a lie of their own, namely, that Jesus disciples
stole his body (28:12-15; Cadbury 1937:106-8).
2.3 Hypocrisy. Like deception, hypocrisy refers to the mismatch of exterior
behavior and internal states (Wilckens 1972:559-71; Garland 1979:96-123).
Hypocrites are people who practice piety, not that God may be honored, but that
others might notice (6:2, 5, 16). Hypocrisy describes those who find the smallest
speck in anothers eye, but are blinded themselves (7:5), who wash the outside of
cups, but not the inside (23:25-26). Pretending to make proselytes, they bind
them with burdens so they cannot find God (23:15). Matthew describes Jesus as
adept in penetrating this duplicity and deception (Minear 1974:76-93).
2.4 Secrecy. Jesus instructs his disciples to absent themselves from the public
arena where typical villagers perform public acts of piety. Ostensibly Jesus
disciples will then appear non-observant, perhaps even neglectful of God and
scornful of piety. Yet in fact they are not, for they are instructed to give alms in
secret, to pray in secret, and to fast in secret (6:1-18). This is not a secrecy which
hides valuables from the envious gaze of onlookers or protects family matters
from village gossips and nosy parkers. This secrecy is calculated to create a false
impression.
Earlier Jesus told his disciples that they must be visible as a city on a hillside.
Their good deeds should be manifest for all the world to see (5:14-16).
284

Nevertheless they are later commanded to secrecy (6:1-18; Risnen 1990).

Jesus himself strives to keep secret his powers (8:4) and his identity (16:20). He
appears not to practice what he preaches. His strategy in telling parables is to
reveal the secrets to the few insiders, while keeping them from the many
outsiders: To you it is given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but
to them it has not been given (13:11). Even God keeps secrets: Thou has
hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes;
yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will (11:25-26). Clearly, then, it is
acceptable for God to withhold information and to keep secrets, just as it is for
Jesus and his disciples to act secretly. One of the most vexing topics in gospel
2.5 Ambiguity. Although Matthew never uses the word ambiguous/ambiguity,
things are seldom what they seem: one cannot tell a man by the clothes he wears
(Mt 23:5). External actions do not serve as reliable indicators of internal states.
And so, most situations and persons are often fundamentally ambiguous. For
example, the Gospel begins with Joseph learning that his espoused wife, Mary, is
pregnant with a child not his. Outwardly, the scene bespeaks sexual immorality to
Joseph, but an angel assures him that in truth Mary has conceived by the power
of Gods spirit (1:20-21). Things are not what they seem, either for good or ill.
Jesus himself appears as the most ambiguous figure in the Gospel. Matthew
reports positive interpretations of him: Son of God (3:17; 17:5; 27:54), Son of
David (9:27; 15:22), Christ (16:16), and prophet (21:11). He does mighty works
(11:2-5), teaches Torah (5:3-7:27), and attends the synagogue (4:23; 9:35; 12:9).
Yet in the perception of some, his actions do not correspond to his claim as Gods
anointed agent. They perceive him as a deceiving sinner who breaks the Sabbath
(12:1-8), eats with tax collectors and sinners (9:9-13), disregards purity rituals
(15:1-20), and profanes the Temple of God (21:12-14).Observant Israelites do not
285

do such things! Which version is correct? and how can we know (Malina and
Neyrey 1988:81-88, 118-30)? Indeed the very gospel itself is testimony to
Matthews attempt to remove that ambiguity by proclaiming Jesus prominence.
But he does so in the face of formidable alternative interpretation by the
Jerusalem and Temple elite.
One should not ignore the ambiguity contained in many of Jesus statements. His
evaluation system turns social perceptions upside down: those who are shamed,
reviled, dispossessed, etc. he acclaimed blessed or honored (Hanson 1994:99101). Life is gained by losing it (16:25), and greatness, by being least and
servant (20:26-27). The normal categories of experience, then, are painfully
ambiguous: last is first, low is high, empty is full, and losing is saving.
2.6 Say One Thing, Do Another. Finally, the Gospel contains many stories about
people who say one thing and do another (see Neyrey 1993b:59-63). The parable
in 21:28-32 tells of a father who asks his two sons to go and work in his
vineyard. One said Yes! and did not go, while the other said No! but went.
From a cultural reading of the passage, the one who said No! publicly insulted
his father, bringing shame on him; yet the story ironically implies that he is the
better son. Ostensibly he shamed his father, but in the end honored him by his
obedience. Appearances, then, are fundamentally misleading. People say one
thing and do another. See 7:21-23.
What, then, is the world of Matthew like? The evangelist describes his world as
a place of profound deception, lying, hypocrisy, secrecy and ambiguity. Speech
does not match deeds; people say one thing, but do another. Externals provides
no safe indicator of internal states. Persons and events regularly outwardly
appear either good or bad, but in fact are otherwise. Yet ambiguity is too kind a
286

term for the world Matthew describes. All characters in his narrative expect to
be lied to and deceived. They, too, practice secrecy and deception. All regularly
hide from others their true thoughts, authentic deeds, knowledge and piety. They
are alert to masked compliments, feigned requests for information, flattery and
the like. Moreover, they are formally warned to expect false prophets, false
Christs, and false apostles. False testimony is often given. But as we said earlier,
we err if we take these data as isolated phenomena; for they constitute part of a
common and expected social strategy. Matthews world is a cosmos where all
characters both deceive others and expect in term to be deceived.
3.0 Secrecy: A Common Social Strategy, Even in Matthew
3.1 The Sociology of Secrecy. Dvornick describes the secrecy system in
antiquity in his The Origins of Intelligence Services (1974). He examined records
from Egypt, Assyria-Babylon-Persia, Greece, Rome and Byzantium in light of
governmental secrecy and intelligence services, a formidable system indeed.
Besides international espionage and spying, scholars too have undertaken the
systematic analysis of "secrecy," beginning with Georg Simmel's publication of
"The Secret and the Secret Society" (1906; 1950). Simmel's work has been newly
reexamined by sociologists who study this phenomenon in cross-cultural
perspective (Hazelrigg 1969:326-30; Tefft 1980; Frizby 1994). Even some
biblical scholars have begun to tap into this material for the purposes of biblical
interpretation, notably Pilch (1992; 1994; see Neyrey 1986b; 1998a). The secrecy
model, then, has been profitably used to interpret New Testament documents.
3.2 Secrecy Defined. Tefft defines secrecy as "the mandatory or voluntary, but
calculated, concealment of information, activities, or relationships" (1980:32021). Thus, secrecy is a formal, conscious and deliberate concealment of
287

information. Secrets, moreover, are "a social resource (or adaptive strategy) used
by individuals, groups, and organizations to attain certain ends" (Tefft 1980:35).
As

strategy,

secrecy

may

be

employed aggressively against

rivals

or defensively against attackers (Tefft 1980:36). Secrecy enables certain types of

associations to avoid political persecution or destruction while it allows other
groups to maintain an exclusive monopoly on esoteric knowledge.
3.3 The Secrecy Process. Tefft describes secrecy as an adaptive device
containing five interrelated processes: 1. security (control of information),
2. entrusted disclosure, 3. espionage, 4. evaluation of spying, and 5. post-hoc
security measures. He notes that all peoples engage in some form of secrecy or
information control (1980:39). Kees Bolle, too, made the same claim: "Not only
is there no religion without secrecy, but there is no human existence without it"
(1987:1). Families do not want their squabbles, embarrassments, plans, strategies,
private interactions or finances discussed outside their houses (du Boulay
1976:391-96), nor do groups, organizations and governments. All practice some
form of information control, whether they base it on the right to privacy, the
nature of interpersonal relations or the politics of business and administration. All
engage in some form of "security," that is, information control, and hence
secrecy.
Within families or organizations, certain people are privy to what is withheld
from others. In fact, who knows what may serve as an index of status or ranking
within a group. Not everybody knows all things. Thus secrets are entrusted to
some, but not others, who may or may not know that secrets are withheld from
them. Governments use of sliding scale of increasing degrees of classified

288

information, such as secret, top secret and "for your eyes only." Thus there
tends to be an inner circle which is "in the know."
Then arises some sort of "security system" in terms of who can or should be
entrusted with secrets. It is a known fact that group members who develop bonds
of mutual loyalty pose less security risk than those of low morale. Nevertheless,
groups tend to develop security systems to secure their secrets, simply because
not all group members can be counted on to have highly developed bonds of
mutual loyalty. Such systems can include a number of steps in securing its
secrets, such as: 1) required loyalty tests for old and new members, 2) total
obedience to the group at the expense of other ties, 3) gradual revelation of
secrets to members, and 4) imposition of strict norms of silence . .
Secrets invite snooping, espionage and disclosure, which is due in part to fear
that secrets may be used to harm others (i.e., a planned coup) or to shut others out
from certain benefits (i.e., technological formulae; discoveries). Thus people
deem it a matter of vital self interest to know what others are up to. Whatever the
reasons, outsiders tend invariably to engage in some form of espionage to learn
the secrets of others.
By "espionage" is meant "acquisition of information held secret by another group
or individual" (Tefft 1980:333). Spying, whether done by persons or technology,
entails a body of people who watch, scrutinize, lie in wait, trap, trick, etc. others
so as to learn their secrets. They may investigate records, interrogate associates,
plant informers and spies, and so forth. If successful in gaining access to
controlled information, an evaluation process must take place. Is the new
information of any value? is it a cover? a false lead? "Leaks" of information may

289

be intentional to distract those engage in espionage from more vital secrets or to

lull them into thinking that they have cracked the secret.
If individuals, groups, or governments learn that their secrecy has been breached,
they are likely to engage in a post-hoc program to identify the spy, plug the leak,
bury the secret deeper, etc. New loyalty tests may be demanded. But the "secrecy
process" is hardly over, for with the renewed interest in keeping secrets, those
who control information invite a new round of espionage and evaluation, which
may result, if successful, in new post-hoc programs to shore up security. And so
the cycle repeats itself again and again and again.
3.4 Extra-Group and Intra-Group Secrecy Sociologists distinguish two types of
secrecy. Manifest secrecy describes the formal, overt actions of certain groups to
hide ceremonies, rites, information, and the like from the curious and perhaps
dangerous eyes of others. In contrast, latent secrecy is practiced by groups as the
additional and unintended consequences of certain structural arrangements, such
as covering up unintended actions. We focus on the specific functions
of manifest secrecy, also distinguishing extra-group secrecy from intra-group
secrecy (Brandt 125-27).
Extra-group secrecy may be practiced for aggressive or defensive
purposes (Tefft 36). Aggressive secrecy describes actions and strategy used by
secret groups to organize political rebellion or provide secret leadership for
revolutionary organizations. Moreover, groups subject to coercion deal with their
antagonists by hiding information or resources as a way of neutralizing superior
power. Alternately, groups often employ defensive secrecy strategy to protect
themselves. . Alienated groups, which are embattled minorities within a larger

290

hostile society, use secrecy to escape persecution or destruction (Tefft 324;

Brandt 131).
Intra-group secrecy can be employed for a variety of purposes (Tefft 51-53). It
may prove significant for group formation, in that some groups form for the overt
purpose of engaging in covert actions, such as secret societies. Likewise, secrecy
both sets up group boundaries and, when defended, maintains them. Those "in
the know" distinguish themselves from those "not in the know." This is called the
superiority syndrome and the process of guarding this distinction contributes to
group cohesiveness. Internal secrecy within groups, whereby only select
members know certain information, serves to control access to rank, status and
political power. "Elders" or "experts" regularly maintain their special position
within groups by monopolizing esoteric information even from other insiders,
thus buttressing their own power and status within the group (Brandt 130-34).
3.5 Matthew and the Sociology of Secrecy. In our survey of Matthews data, we
observe that both Jesus and his enemies formally and intentionally conceal
information and relationships. Jesus commands his disciples to perform their
pious actions in secret, whereas others hide their hostility through flattery or
other

means

of

deception.

We

find,

moreover,

frequent

references

to manifest secrecy, that is, the formal and overt function of certain
societies . . .to hide ceremonies, rites, information and the like from outsiders.
John Pilch has argued that this is one of the chief functions of the so-called
messianic secret (Pilch 1994).
Matthew contains both extra-group and intra-group secrecy. While extra-group
secrecy can have both offensive and defensive purposes, Matthew basically

291

describes the defensive one. As noted above, the messianic secret serves to
deflect the attention of Jesus rivals, thus lessening the conflict.
Sociological Interpretation

Matthean Terminology

1. Deception, deceive

- aggressive strategy: to harm another by hiding the evil offered (4:1-13;

24:4, 5)

2. Hypocrisy, hypocrite

- defensive strategy: to conceal weakness or evil with a facade of

goodness (23:13, 14, 15, 28)

3. Lying, lie

- aggressive strategy: to mislead others, to trick and harm them (19:18;

24:11, 24; 26:59)

4. Secrecy, secret

- defensive strategy: to confuse ones opponents as to intent and behavior

(6:4, 6, 18; messianic secret)
- aggressive strategy: to expose ones opponents secrets (10:26) and to
strengthen inner group with superior knowledge (11:25; 13:11, 34-35)

5. Appearances, appear

- defensive strategy: like hypocrisy, to hide evil or falsehood by display

of good ( 3:9; 4:1-12)

6. Ambiguity

- aggressive strategy : to claim some benefit by external display of good

or by actions (23:5)
- defensive strategy: to eradicate external markers of shame or weakness
(1:19-26;

7. Say one thing, do another

- defensive strategy : to avoid criticism by false words which appear

correct but which hide shameful behavior (7:21-23; 21:28-32)

As noted above, there are steps in the secrecy process, which likewise help to
interpret Matthews data. .1. Control of Information. Some of Jesus speech is
addressed to the crowds, but much of it is directly only to his disciples (5:1ff;
292

10:1ff; 13:10-17; 24:3ff) thus control of information regularly occurs.

2. Entrusted disclosure. Jesus discloses important information only to the
disciples, not to the crowds. For example, they are the unique, chosen ones to
receive Gods revelation, not the people outside (11:25-27); they are privy to the
secret meanings of Jesus parables, while the rest go without this revelation
(13:11-17, 34-35). To Peter, James and John is given the appearance of Moses
and Elijah and the theophany on the mountain (17:1-8). To Peter himself is given
special revelation about Jesus (16:17), a private explanation of Jesus teaching
(15:15), and instructions of halachic practices (17:24-27). 3. Espionage. Jesus
opponents constantly question his disciples to learn about Jesus actions: why
does he eat with tax collectors (9:10-13)? why he does not fast (9:14-17)? why
does he violate the Sabbath (12:1-8)? does he pay the temple tax (17:24-27)? By
their challenging questions, they seek to discredit him (21:15-17; see Neyrey
1998b:658-66, 671-78); they demand signs to test him and discredit him (16:14). Matthew does not report on their evaluation of their espionage.
Who knows what and when? Elizabeth Brandts study of the Taos Pueblo
provides an insight into the function of secrecy within hierarchical groups
(1980:125-34). Information is restricted even within close-knit groups; not all
people know everything. Thus we can plot out status and role within such a
group: who knows something serves as an index of group status. Those in the
group who are "not in the know" represent persons of low status, who are not
well integrated into the social networks within a village. They contrast with the
few elites in the group, who are privy to the group's secrets, and who stand atop
the status hierarchy in the group and control it in virtue of their monopoly of
esoteric information.. Between these two extremes we can observe a diversity of
individuals in terms of the kinds of knowledge they possess (Brandt 1980:133;
293

Hazelrigg 1969:324). In Matthew, God of course knows all things; to a lesser

degree, Gods authorized agent, Jesus (24:36). Within the circle of disciples, 1)
Peter has the most knowledge and revelation, which warrants his role as rock on
which I will build my church, then 2) the select disciples with Jesus at the
Transfiguration, and finally 3) all the disciples.
What do Peter and the disciples know? They have heavenly revelation of Jesus as
Son of God (16:17), as well as unique knowledge about God-Father and the
Son (11:27). They know secrets hidden from the wise (11:25), as well as secrets
of the kingdom of heaven (13:11). Not only did they hear Jesus five speeches,
they learned his distinctive teachings about Sabbath observance, temple taxes,
and the like. Matthew, then, informs us that Jesus makes entrusted disclosure of
the most valuable information to his disciples and especially to Peter.
The sociology of secrecy provides a useful model which accommodates
Matthews data, not miscellaneous items but elements that constitute a common,
meaningful social pattern. 1. The sociology of secrecy accurately interprets how
Jesus himself constantly practices forms of secrecy, even as he engages in
entrusted disclosure of his secrets to his disciples. 2. As a defensive strategy, it
shows that both Jesus and his hypocritical adversaries practice the conscious
defensive strategy of keeping secrets, either to protect themselves or to fend off
shameful exposure. 3. And as an offensive strategy, it interprets attempts by
Jesus adversaries to learn his secrets, to test his public behavior, so as to unmask
him as a deceiver. His opponents then engaged in espionage to learn his
identity and his teaching. 4. If knowledge is related to status and role, God knows
all and Jesus knows almost all; nor is God ever fooled. And Jesus has elevated his
disciples above the crowds by unique disclosures to them, and Peter above the
294

rest by special revelations and information entrusted to him. 5. The sociology of

secrecy, while a modern model, is truly cross-cultural and trans-temporal; as
noted earlier secrecy was a pronounced element in the governments and in
private life in antiquity.
But if secrecy is a pervasive, common social strategy, does it matter in the world
of early Christianity if social and even heavenly rewards are given unjustly to
deceivers and hypocrites? Does it matter if some deceivers are evil figures who
seek

to

harm,

enslave

and

destroy

other

persons?

Underlying

the

contextualization of secrecy in Matthews world are issues of ethical chaos,

sorcery accusations, crisis in theodicy, etc. Hence we now ask of the symbolic
universe reflected by Matthew and his audience how the system of secrecy fits in
it, and how Matthew solves the crises in such as system.
4.0 The Symbolic Universe of An Ambiguous, Deceptive World
Culture is a social construction. Peoples invest meaning in the elements of their
worlds. But what meanings, and to what are they given? Anthropologists provide
us with a model for asking these questions, in which they focus on key, regular
topics in all cultures which are the object of interpretation, such as the following:
1. purity (is the world ordered or not? how is it ordered?), 2. rites (what
boundaries exist, how crossed or maintained?), 3. the human person (grouporiented or individualistic?), 4. body (is it a symbol of unity or a stage of
deception?), 5. sin (is it rule breaking or pollution?), 6. God and cosmic order,
(whos in charge?) and 7. suffering and misfortune (is suffering just or unjust?).
We focus on these seven standard topics and ask what meanings they have in the
culture of Matthew and his audience? Although secrecy is a common social
strategy, how do we put it in the larger context or a symbolic universe.
295

We have a reliable model for sketching the symbolic universe of Matthew in the
work of Mary Douglas (1982), its application to second-temple Judaism by
Neusner (1973; 1975), the synthesizing of Douglas materials by Malina (1986:127), and its systematic use for interpreting New Testament materials by Malina
(2001:161-97), Malina and Neyrey (1988:3-32),) and Neyrey (1986a:160-70;
1988:72-100; 1990:21-55). Attitudes to the seven topics vary, depending on
groups status and social location in ancient society. While we focus on the
interpretation of the cosmos by non-elites in Matthews world (the right column),
the following chart allows us compare and contrast their world with that of
Temple elites.
Non-Elites: Peasants, Artisans, Untouchables

Aristocrats and Temple Elite

1. Purity: strong concern to classify all things in terms of 1. Purity: strong concern for purity; but interior of social
clean/unclean; clear rites for purification; purity rules & physical body attacked; rites for purification prove
define and maintain social structures
ineffective.

2. Rites: fixed rites which express the internal2. Rites: fixed rites which focus on group boundaries;
classification system of the group; permanent sacred rites aim to expel deviants from group; fluid sacred space
space.

3. Personal Identity: focus on internalizing clear social 3. Personal Identity: focus on group membership, not in
roles; individual subservient to but not in conflict with internalization of roles, which are confused; distinction
society; group-oriented personality
between appearance and internal states; group-oriented
personality

4. Body: tightly controlled, but a symbol of life

4. Body: controlled but under attack; invaders have

penetrated bodily boundaries

5. Sin: breaking of formal rules; focus on behavior rather5. Sin: a matter of pollution; sin equals corruption or
than internal states of being; individual responsible for sindisease from the social system; internal states more
or deviance
important than external behavior

296

6. Cosmology: anthropomorphic, non-dualistic; universe6. Cosmology: anthropomorphic and dualistic; war

is just and reasonable; personal causality
between forces of good and evil; universe is not just;

7. Suffering and Misfortune: the result of automatic7. Suffering and Misfortune: unjust; not automatic
punishment for violation of formal rules; part of a divine punishment; attributable to malevolent forces
economy

4.1 Purity: Order, System, Classification. Temple elites perceive the cosmos as a
very orderly and exactly classified system (Neusner 1973; Newton 1985).
According to the priestly version of creation in Genesis 1, God separated wet
from dry, dark from light, earth from sky and water, so God established a system
of classifications, not only of places and things, but also time and persons. This
priestly vision was embodied in the Jerusalem Temple, where all persons, places,
times and things were elaborately classified. Because judgments of holiness and
evil in Matthew are based on this system, we do well to examine more closely the
system represented by the Temple. It admits of very precise degrees both of
holiness and uncleanness. Place: As regards holiness, we find, for example,
in m. Kelim a classification of space which moves from the farthest borders of
Israel (not holy), to its cities, to Jerusalem, the Temple mount, the temple and the
Holy of Holies (1.6-9; see Neyrey1986b:94-95). Persons: Persons, too, can be
classified; for example, we find in t. Megillah a list of those who may hear the
scroll of Esther; beginning with Priests and Levites and concluding with bastards,
eunuchs and those with damaged genitals (2.7). As Malina has shown, the list
describes different degrees of holiness to persons which correlates with space or
standing: the most holy, i.e., the Temple functionaries, stand closest, while those
least holy or defective in some way stand furthest, i.e., those who are defective in
lineage and/or generative powers (Malina: 2001:173-76). This system makes
297

detailed decisions about skin disease (Lev 13-14)), bodily discharges (Lev 15);
animals for sacrifice (Lev 16), marriage partners (Lev 18), the physical bodies of
the priests (21:17-21). Even pollution can be classified, as we find in Danbys
excerpt from Eliyahu Rabbah concerning the fathers of uncleanness (Danby
1933:800-804). Thus, in the ideal orderly world, the rule makers in 2 nd temple
Israel could map persons, places, times and things, and thus bring systematic
clarity and order to the world. On this basis they evaluated Jesus.
But from a non-elite perspective, the system is not at all clear and the
classifications articulated in the Temple do not match the experience of the
population called the little tradition. For example, far removed from the
Temple, the prophet John preaches repentance (3:2); people confess their sins,
are ritually washed and so achieve purification (3:6). But some claim that he is
not a prophet, but has a demon (11:18; see 21:25-27). According to the Temple
system, John is at least ambiguous if not deceptively evil. Matthew, moreover,
presents numerous instances of concern for holiness and purity in the work of
Jesus, which differ from the system represented by the Temple. Jesus teaches a
reformed Torah (5:21-46), with more concern for interior states than exterior
performance; he commands people to be perfect as your heavenly father is
perfect (5:46), but a perfection not based on the temples classification system
and purity concerns. Pharisees, according to Matthew, frequently challenge him
(9:11, 14; 12:2; 15:2), making plain these different understandings of holiness.
These controversies dramatize different and conflicting symbolic universes; both
cannot be right and so are at odds with each other.
4.2 Continued Threats; Ineffective Rituals Labeling should function to remove
ambiguity from the world; for, as a ritual action, labeling attempts to purify the
298

ambiguous cosmos by drawing clear boundaries and distinctions. Alas, this

labeling process does not always work. Pharisees, although they publicly profess
total separation from evil and zeal for Torah, are judged by Jesus to be deceivers
who hide their corruption from view. Thus he likens them to whitewashed tombs,
which outwardly appear clean but inwardly are filled with all uncleanness
(23:27). They teach Torah, but Jesus accuses them of insinuating a poisonous
doctrine (brood of vipers, 12:34; 23:33) and a corrupting teaching (leaven,
16:6). Their evil is doubly compounded because it is masked as good. But Jesus
says that while they honor God with their lips, their heart is far from God (15:8).
Yet it is unclear how successful his hypocrite label was. Even among the
disciples of Jesus (the few, the elect, and the chosen), we learn that some say
Lord, Lord, but do not do the will of God (7:21-23). Among them, moreover,
are wolves disguised in sheeps clothing (7:15). False prophets and false Christs
will come to lead even the elect astray (24:24). The desired classification system
remains perilously threatened from without and within. The community of
Matthew frequently hears certain outsiders labeled as hypocrites(Matt 6:2, 5,
16; 7:5). The ritual act of labeling is intended to introduce clarity into an
ambiguous and deceptive situation. Deceivers abound not only in the synagogue,
but even in the circle of disciples.
4.3 Ethical Secrets: Heart, Motives, Desires Although Matthew and other NT
writers describe a divine judgment based on ones deeds (Matt 12:37; Rom 2:611), these same writings state that a persons deeds may be deceitful attempts to
mask an evil heart. Deeds, then, are ambiguous and may even by deceptive. One
cannot tell a book by its cover. In this context, we find a corresponding emphasis
on the heart as opposed to the hands and feet or on the motive for action as

299

well as the act itself, or on the difference between external actions and internal
states (Neyrey 1988:84-87).
In several of the antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus reforms the
Torah to include correct internal states as well externally correct behavior. God
proscribes not just avoidance of murder (exterior), but also of anger and hate
(interior) (5:21-22); not just absence of adultery (exterior), but also lust in the
heart (interior) (5:27-27). Hence holiness consists in agreement between deeds
and desires, which precludes hypocrisy and deception. Jesus knows when the lips
say one thing, but the heart another (15:8), when people speak one thing, but do
another (21:28-31). But we are always suspicious of people for their heart,
motive, and desire may be veiled by deceiving actions and words. Actions and
words, then, are ambiguous or deceptive unreliable indices of holiness, for they
may be practiced to deceive others. For example, good deeds (such as the
strict observance of Torah) cannot function as a reliable norm of judgment.
Conversely, the non-observance of the Sabbath or the absence of washing rites do
not automatically indicate a sinner.
4.4 A Cosmic War of Personified Figures. The world of Matthew and his
characters is peopled with personified cosmic figures. On one side we locate
God and the angelic messengers whom God sends to aid, inform, gather, and
protect the elect (1:20; 2:13, 19). They also serve as agents in Gods final
judgment, separating the good from the wicked (13:41, 49; 16:27; 18:10; 24:31).
Yet Matthew tells of a world of devils and evil spirits, who wage war on Gods
people, tempting them with evil disguised under the appearance of good (4:1-13),
making them ill (4:24; 17:15), sowing evil in their midst (13:39), and enslaving
them. A quick list of these personified evil spirits would include:
300

Beelzebul:

10:25; 12:24,27

demons:

7:22; 8:16,28,33; 9:32-34; 10:8; 11:18; 12:22,24,27-28; etc.

the moon:

4:24; 17:15

unclean spirits :10:1; 12:43,45

Satan:

4:10

sons of the evil one: 13:28, 38-39 (Malina and Neyrey 1988:3-5)
The world, then, is fully peopled with cosmic figures both good and evil, who
are at war.
One may ask if Matthew perceives any relationship between these cosmic evil
figures and 1. the hypocrites or 2. the false prophets, false Christs described
above? Some people associate Jesus, John the Baptizer and even the disciples of
Jesus with demons: 1. Jesus as Beelzebuls agent (12:24), 2. John: He has a
demon (11:18), and 3. the disciples: If they have called the master of the house
Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household (10:25).
Some people, then, who are outsiders to Jesus circle, link him and his disciples
with agents of cosmic evil powers who war on Gods holy people (10:25). On
the other hand, Jesus is wont to label others as demon possessed (12:43-45;
23:15). The cosmic war of evil spirits, therefore, is being waged on earth by their
agents and proxies. The frightening thing, however, is the difficulty of
identifying the

enemy.

Evil masquerades

as good; appearances

are

fundamentally deceiving; hypocrisy abounds.

4.5 Unjust Suffering and Undeserved Success: Flaws in a Moral Universe.
Ancient Israel boasted to the Gentile world of the excellence of its laws
(Josephus, Ag. Apion 2.146), especially it ideal notion of justice rendered
301

according to a lex talionis. As you sow, so shall you reap (Gal 6:7; see 2 Cor
9:6). Ideally God rewarded the pious (Matt 6:4, 6, 18), a reward proportional to
their deeds (Matt 16:27; see 12:36), and requited the wicked.
But Matthew and audience do not experience a world functioning justly: the
good do not prosper, and the wicked are not put to shame. Jesus, faithful agent of
God, meets rejection and death. So did all the prophets (Matt 5:12; 23:29-27).
The disciples of Jesus can expect unjust suffering (Matt 5:3, 4, 6, 10; 10:16-23,
34-39). In short, the universe appears fundamentally confused and unjust. The
crisis is further compounded by the uncertainty which surrounds the norms for a
just judgment. As we noted above, people such as the Pharisees perform external
actions which are observant; but these external actions are not reliable
indicators of the heart, which may be filled with all uncleanness . . . hypocrisy
and iniquity (23:28). Thus, people may enjoy public honor because of their
observance, an unjust judgment. Correspondingly, in the eyes of others Jesus and
his disciples do not keep Torah; no wonder that according to this norm they
experience criticism, challenge, and cross. Thus, if the norms for assessing
holiness are themselves ambiguous, then the judgment based on these will be
unjust.
What, then, does this model of the symbolic universe of Matthew contribute to
our reading of deception, lying, secrecy, hypocrisy and ambiguity? Just this:
Matthews world is painfully filled with these phenomena, and in a way which is
much more terrifying and consequential than the sociology of secrecy described.
1. It is a world threatened with chaos because the dominant classification system
is inadequate: nothing seems reliable or trustworthy. 2. Moreover, it is besieged
by evil attackers who defy boundaries and aggressively seek to destroy what is
302

within the group or individuals; purification ritual to identify and expel them fail.
3. Furthermore, evil masquerades as good; a persons deeds no longer serve as a
reliable index of his holiness. This disguise, which intentional, functions to make
the attacker pass unnoticed. 4. Mirroring this earthly conflict is the cosmic
perception that God is at war with Satan and his minions. This explains why evil
attacks good on earth, for it is but the extension of the cosmic war. 6. As a result,
suffering seems unjust; the wicked prosper and the righteous are not rewarded.
Truly a scary cosmos, where deception and harm are universal; but worst of all is
the sense of the collapse of a moral universe.
In light of Matthews symbolic universe, what strategies are necessary and
desirable for dealing with an deceiving and ambiguous world? Matthew
envisions a theodicy, that is, a vision of Gods just judgment in which God will
definitively and surprisingly act vis--vis a deceitful, lying, secret, hypocritical
and ambiguous cosmos. This judgment scenario will contain these recurring
elements: 1. arevelation which clarifies ambiguity, uncovers lies, exposes
deception and manifests hidden secrets, 2. a surprise or shock, as the truth is
finally known and recompense is rendered, 3. a just judgment which reverses
fates and awards rewards or punishments on the basis of the truth, and 4. a person
with

both omniscience (to

penetrate

disguises

and

read

hearts)

and omnipotence (to administer true justice finally). What does this look like in
the narrative?
5.0 The Parables of Judgment in Matthew 25.
Matthew gathered three parables and put them togther, locating them at the
climactic end of Jesus last discourse. Clearly he intended them to be heard as a
unit, sharing repetitive rhetorical structure and recurring motifs (Davies and
303

Allison 1988:377, 394; Lambrecht 1972:309-42). All formally deal with issues of
deception, lying, secrecy, hypocrisy and ambiguity. And so, to interpret them
correctly, we bring to our reading what we know of the social and
anthropological materials about secrecy and deception.
5.1 Matthew 25:1-13 The evangelist tells of ten maidservants in a noblemans
house. By telling us that five are wise and five foolish, the author invests the
story with a serious moral perspective. Some maids will enter with the
bridegroom and be rewarded in his household as loyal and true servants; but
some will find the door shut and the bridegroom dismissive of them: I do not
know you (25:12; see 7:21-23).The stakes, then, are very high.
The

parable

contains

strong

element

of

ambiguity, secrecy, and

deception. Ambiguity: while all have lamps, five have oil, but five do not.
Neither the maids among themselves nor the audience can distinguish at this
point who is wise and who is foolish. All appear the same, and we cannot
penetrate appearances to know who has oil and who does not. Secrecy: the time
of the bridegrooms return is hidden from them (and us), a secret no one can
know. Vital information is withheld from all. Yet all are expected to act as if they
knew; reward and punishment following upon acting as if one knew this
secret. Deception: the foolish maids are actually practicing a deception. For so
important an event as the masters marriage, all maids must have oil in their
lamps. Some are indeed prepared, but others pretend readiness. If all goes well,
that is, if the bridegroom comes quickly, the unpreparedness of the five foolish
maids will escape detection. They shall have successfully deceived the groom
and entered his household under pretense. The wicked will fare the same as the
good, the foolish the same as the wise. Thus they shall have successfully hidden
304

their fault and been fraudulently rewarded. And up to a certain point, their ruse
succeeds.
Because the bridegroom is delayed, the ten maids slumber and sleep. Karl
Donfried has argued that this sleep means death (1974:426); if so, then in life
the deception by the foolish maids went undetected and unpunished . But all
maids awaken at midnight from death to face a moment of reckoning. The time
of deception is over and secrets will be revealed.
This parable does not describe the bridegroom personally unveiling secrets; after
all, his narrative role is that of bridegroom, not judge. But his coming occasions
revelations nonetheless. The foolish maids are exposed for what they are:
culpably unprepared (see 24:44, 48-51), while the wise are shown to be prudently
prepared (24:45-47). As the parable continues, a judgment takes place in the
characteristic Matthean form of a separation. The foolish, who leave the house in
search of oil, return to find themselves locked outside. Their appeal to the
bridegroom (Lord, Lord) mocks their earlier attempt to deceive this same lord.
In contrast, the wise, prepared maids have accompanied the groom into the
house. Thus in the end, deception and masquerade are unveiled. The fates of
wise and foolish servants are not the same. The good are finally separated from
the wicked, as wheat from chaff. Furthermore, just rewards and punishments are
finally meted out. This parable, then, illustrates the type of judgment scenario we
have been describing, where (1) ambiguity and deceit are finally unveiled, (2) the
just and the wicked are finally separated, and (3) each is accorded her proper
recompense, and (4) the unveiling brings surprise and shock.
5.2 Matthew 25:14-30 The parable of the pounds begins with notice about an
absentee landlord, a common feature of gospel parables (Matt 21:33-36; 24:45305

47; Luke 16:1-8). The landlord entrusts three servants with substantial but
differing amounts of wealth, who then treat the landlords wealth differently. Two
trade with it and double their initial investment, while the third buries it. Since
parables function in terms of binary opposites (Crossan 1979:17-35), both
strategies for dealing with the masters wealth cannot be correct. One strategy
will prove to be honorable and deserving of reward, and the other shameful and
deserving of punishment. But which? In these details, the parable resembles that
of the wise/foolish maidservants in 25:1-13: (1) a master, either delayed or
absent; (2) servants with duties, either prepared with oil or clever with the
masters wealth; (3) the return of the principal figure; (4) a judgment, which
separates the good from the wicked; and (5) a strong element of ambiguity and
shock Which strategy will work?
Along with the preceding (25:1-3) and subsequent (25:31-46) parables, this too is
about judgment, rewards and punishments. Upon the landlords mysterious
return, he demands an audit or accounting; moreover, in the New Testament, the
end-time judgment is often cast in terms of rendering an account for ones
behavior:
1. v oov: Matt 18:23-24; 25:19
2. oov oov: Matt 12:36; 16:27; 18:25; 20:8
3. oov: Rom 14:12
4. o : Rom 2:6
[see also 2 Cor 5:10; 11:15; Heb 13:17; 1 Pet 4:5]

Hence, Matthew narrates a ritual event when accounts are audited, which serves
as a metaphor for divine judgment and just recompense is rendered. Audits

306

occasionally expose fraud and deceit (Luke 16:1-2); but when the accounts are
balanced, justice prevails.
Rohrbaughs study of this parable contributes much fresh critical information for
its interpretation, for which reason we summarize his evidence and argument
(1990:32-39). First, he presents the appropriate economic background for peasant
life, in particular the perception of limited good whereby all goods in the
cosmos are fixed in size and volume. For someone to become richer, others must
lose. Those becoming richer, then, would be thought of by peasants as thieves
(Every rich person is either a thief or the heir of a thief, Jerome, In Hieremiam,
II,V,2; CCL LXXIV 61). Second, he cites M. I. Finleys remark that the legal
interest rate in the Greco-Roman world was 12% (1973:54). Third, using
Plutarchs treatise On the Love of Wealth, he describes ancient attitudes about the
wealthy who are generally portrayed as greedy: I go on amassing and pursuing
new wealth, wrangling with my servants, my farmers, my debtors (Love of
Wealth 525). Finally, the wealthy are notorious for interrogation of servants,
inspection of ledgers, the casting up of accounts with stewards and debtors
(Love of Wealth 526). Rohrbaugh draws the cultural conclusion that the master
of our parable is himself very wealthy and the first two servants are rapidly
becoming wealthy. The only way for this is happen in a limited good world is for
others to lose the wealth these persons gain. In peasants eyes, then, the master
and his servants cannot be upright and honorable persons, on the contrary.
Second, since the wealth gained by the two servants vastly out measures what
legal rates of interest would provide; one suspects, then, that it is ill-gotten gain.
Third, if the behavior of the master and his two servants reflects the actions of the
greedy rich, in contrast, the third servant obeyed the law and did the honorable
thing (Josephus, Ant. 4.285-87; StrB. 1.970). Traditional norms demand that we
307

condemn the master and the first two servants, but praise the third one. Yet, just
the opposite happens. The universe is thrown into chaos by the reward of the
wicked and the punishment of the good. Is secrecy an issue? Ambiguity? Deceit?
As regards secrecy in the story, on the one hand, one major secret is kept from all
three servants, namely, the time of the masters return. As with the ten maids, all
should act as though they knew this secret. And in fact all three servants did
something in anticipation of the audit. This secret of the masters return, then,
plays no role in the story. Far from being misled by this secret, all of the servants
can be said to watch, as good servants do. Moreover, all three servants know
very important information, namely, the character of the master. Even the third
servant confesses that he knew the measure of his master, a hard man. The
master, then, accuses him of failing to act on this knowledge: You knew that I
reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed (v. 26).
Since no secret is withheld from the servants, secrecy plays no part here;
alternately, all know the vital knowledge for playing the game.
But the story is filled with ambiguity, which Rohrbaugh cleverly points out. In
the peasant world of Jesus, the action of the third servant who hid the masters
wealth appears to be the right thing to do (1990:37-38). Conservative peasant
hearers would approve the traditional response of this man who continued to do
what had always been done. On the other hand, the servants who traded wildly
with the masters wealth appear to have been risking his wealth, and thus putting
it and the masters honor in jeopardy. Moreover, their actions appear to be evil,
for doubling investments such as these servants did would mean theft or
fraudulent dealings in peasant eyes, Israelite usury law forbade lending money at
levels that could earn interest of 500% and 200%. Thus, at first glance, the two
308

servants appear to be reckless thieves, while the third appears to have acted
correctly according to peasant norms. But, as is typically the case, appearances
are deceiving: things are seldom what they seem.
In peasants eyes, ambiguity clouds all of the storys persons and their actions.
Where a master thief rewarding his thieving servants, there would be no
ambiguity. But when the third servant is despoiled and dismissed, then ambiguity
descends like a fog. And if this parable is supposed to comment on the final
judgment, then the moral universe of peasant hearers is turned upside down. A
confused and frightening world it is when the landlord praises the apparently
wicked actions of the first two servants: Well done, good and faithful servant(s);
you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of
your master (25:21,23; recall how an absentee landlord in Luke 16:8 praises his
wicked servant for his cleverness in preparing for the audit of the masters
affairs). The master shocks us again by shaming the servant who did the
apparently correct action: You wicked and slothful servant . . . take the talent
from him . . . cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness (25:26, 28, 30).
The landlord reveals nothing so much as a universe utterly ambiguous and unjust.
Wicked servants are richly rewarded, whereas the conservative, correct servant is
dispossessed and cast out. This is not right! Or is it? The ambiguity is painful
and expensive.
What can Matthew be doing by presenting a parable of ambiguous and unjust
judgment in the middle of two other parables of just judgment? It hopes to place
this story alongside other parables of Jesus which also contain an ambiguous,
even deceptive element. Often the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of
God contain an element that at first glance contradicts what we know of
309

heavens God. For example, the kingdom of God is like leaven, which in Israelite
and Greco-Roman cultures means corruption of some sort (13:33; see 1 Cor
5:6-8; Gal 5:9); yes, the kingdom of the holy God is like uncleanness. This
kingdom is like a man who found a treasure, hid it and bought the field (13:44),
which in Judean law was wrong (Crossan 1976 and 1979). So doing evil pays!
The same kingdom is like a merchant in search of fine pearls (13:45-46), which
we just learned characterizes such a person as one of the greedy rich. The
kingdom of God is like a grain of mustard seed which a man sowed in his field
(13:31-32); but fields must be sown with only one kind of seed (Deut 22:9).
Uncleanness results with seeds and stuff and animals are mixed. In parables,
then, God and Gods kingdom are regularly presented as shockingly opposite the
customs and purity arrangements of Israel (Crossan 1973a:26-36). It would seem,
then, that ambiguity is a regular element of Matthews parables. But by placing
the parable of the pounds between that of the ten maids and the sheep and the
goats, Matthew would presumably be suggesting an unambiguous message.
What, then, might be the exhortation contained in the parable of the pounds? 1.
The hard measure of the master suggests that God , Gods agent, and the gospel
are all turning our world upside down. They are not withholding any secrets from
anyone, but demanding very hard choices. 2. The crisis of the audit lies in the
ambiguity of what is the right response to this knowledge. Ordinarily, custom and
Scripture would dictate what is right behavior, thus removing ambiguity and
protecting peasant lives from chaos. The cosmos would then be just, because
God will is clear and God is just in his recompense. But now Gods ways require
action which in the eyes of others appears wrong, sinful, and shameful (i.e.,
discipleship). 3. But a final element needs to be considered: ones actions must
match ones thoughts. It is not just those who say Lord, Lord, who are Jesus
310

disciples, but those who do the will of his father (7:21-23). The third servant
knew the vital information about his master, but his actions did not reflect it; he
knew the master was a hard man, but did not act to please him (Mason
1990:380-81). 4. Finally, like many other sayings in Matthew, the parable of the
pounds reflects a reversal of popular expectations, as the following list indicate:
1. last is first/first is last (Matt 19:30; 20:16; Mark 9:35; 10:31; Luke 13:30)
2. smallest is greatest/greatest is smallest (Matt 13:32; Mark 4:32; see Luke 7:28)
3. dishonored is honored/honored is shamed (Matt 5:3-15; Luke 6:20-26)
4. humbled is exalted/exalted is humbled (Matt 23:12; Luke 14:11; 18:14)
5. losing is saving/saving is losing (Matt 10:39; 16:25; Mark 8:35; Luke 9:24; 17:33)
6. children are knowledgeable/wise do not know (Matt 11:25)
7. low is high/high is low (Luke 14:9, 10)

To this we add what we learned about parables above: wicked is good (i.e.,
hidden treasure, pearl) and uncleanness is heavenly (i.e., leaven). All of these call
for hearers to act bizarrely and contrary to local expectations in the hearing of the
gospel. It may be in the eyes of some that this gospel is indeed unclean like
leaven or like two kinds of seeds in a field. And the response will be choosing
death, dishonor, losing all; in the eyes of many this response will seem like
unfaithfulness and wickedness. Action is called for in the parable, but not the
conservative good behavior peasant neighbors would expect.
5.3 Matthew 25:31-46 The third parable describes another judgment scene. The
Son of Man comes in his glory and sits on his throne (25:31). Before him are
not maidservants or estate stewards but all the nations who are judged
according to a surprising judgment by which the blessed are separated from the
wicked. Thus, the scene unfolds as a forensic process: a judge, a norm of
311

judgment, trial, rewards and punishments (Davies and Allison 1997:419). Yet for
all of its clarity, the parable presumes a world of disguise, secrecy,
surprise/shock, and finally revelation, items generally overlooked by scholars.
Appropriately, the Judge first addresses those at his right hand (Court and
judges them favorably: Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom.
Then he reveals to them his norm of judgment: For, I was hungry and you gave
me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, etc. (vv. 35-36). They are
surprised at the judges remarks, because they confess to not recognizing him
when they acted: Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty
and give thee drink? (vv. 37-39). Then the Judge reveals the secret of secrets to
them, namely, his disguised presence in their midst: As you did it to one of the
least of these my brethren, you did it to me (25:40). Thus in a world where they
could not discern the Judges disguise, they nevertheless are revealed to have
acted correctly. Their surprise rests in the delight of finding an unexpected
treasure and an unanticipated reward. Despite the disguise of the Judge, they did
the right thing by their neighbors, although by peasant standards such liberal
generosity might be thought foolishness. Judgment here is a revelation which
pulls back the veil over the disguise of Jesus and the apparent foolishness of
feeding and clothing non-kin; it issues in a surprising reward for those who acted
foolishly.
When the Judge addresses the goats, he condemns them: Depart from me, you
cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. His judgment
rests on the same norm whereby he rewarded the sheep on his right: For I was
hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, etc.
(vv. 42-43). Like the first group, they are shocked at this judgment, and beg for
312

clarification: Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked
or in prison and did not minister to you? (v. 44). The Judge reveals the same
secret of his disguise to them: As you did not do it to one of the least of these,
you did not do it to me. (v. 45). Like the blessed in vv. 34-40, they too lived in
an ambiguous world; they too confess to not seeing him and not recognizing the
disguised Lord. They too did not penetrate the secrecy around them. One might
even argue that by peasant standards they acted wisely by not squandering the
familys meager resources on non-family members. Yet the Judge reveals that
this calculation was wrong and culpable.
Ambiguity clouds the norm of judgment here, just as it did in the preceding
parable of the pounds. How can anyone refuse basic charity to someone in need?
But in a world of limited good, where ones honorable obligation lies in a type of
generalized reciprocity to ones family (after all, charity begins at home), the
generous behavior of a good Samaritan may not appear honorable at all
(Oakman 1992:117-124) One should not take the childrens bread and throw it to
dogs (15:26). And if one does not recognize in a needy beggar a kinship bond, is
the reservation of whatever food and clothing were available for ones recognized
kin so fundamentally evil? In peasant eyes, no. Correspondingly, those who act
liberally with the meager resources of their kinship group to benefit outsiders
would not by any means be judged wise or prudent. Thus ambiguity confronts all
the narrative characters. Is wise really foolish? And foolish wise?
Pivotal

to

the

judgment

arevelation of secrets,

here

and

in

the

preceding

the unmasking of disguise,

parable

is
and

the clarification of ambiguity. Things were not what they seemed, but only the
Lord who reads hearts can remove all the veils and make known what was
hidden. Both good and bad are surprised, for neither knew the secret of secrets in
313

their world: a disguised Lord. Yet according to the Gospels narrative logic, these
participants have been warned that they live in a world of unknowable secrets.
Of the greatest secret, the day of the Son of Man, no one knows, not even the
angels in heaven, (nor the Son), but the Father only (24:36; see Mark 13:33,
35). Hence, they are all commanded to watch: Watch, for you do not know on
what day your Lord is coming (24:42). It is only those who are ready who
will enter (25:10) or survive a revealing judgment (24:44). The Lord makes no
apology for secrets, disguise and ambiguity; the world remains frightfully
insecure and unpredictable, as he said. And readiness and watching constitute the
appropriate strategy.
In summary, judgment in Matthews world has to do with an o, the
unveiling of things hidden. Despite what Jesus says, it is no easy matter to read
either the signs of the weather or the signs of the time (16:1-3). There are
major secrets in the lives of the people of the narrative and the parables; some
things cannot be known. In a world is filled with ambiguity, who is wise and
who is foolish? who is kin and who is not? what is right and what is wrong?
People are disguised and go unrecognized, even by the most astute. Others
practice deception, appearing dutiful while unprepared, hoping to escape
detection and shame. Hence people experience surprise and shock: surprise that
they acted correctly or shock to learn that traditional wisdom no longer applies.
But all need to be told by another whether they were acting correctly; another
reveals to them secrets hidden from them or by them. The essential act of
judgment becomes revelation.
6.0 Summary, Conclusions and Further Questions.

314

1. Indeed, Matthews world is filled with deceit, secrecy, lying, hypocrisy, and
ambiguity. These phenomena span the narrative from womb to tomb. Moreover,
they are not isolated phenomena, but belong to a recognizable cultural pattern of
information management common in the ancient world.
2. As regards the social-science model of secrecy, this study serves to confirm its
utility both in surfacing discrete data and in integrating them into a common
social strategy.
3. This model has proved successful in reading John (Neyrey 1988) and
Revelation (Pilch 1992a), and should prove worthwhile in other documents, such
as the Pauline letters.
4. As chart one shows, the parables from 24:45-25:46 enjoy not only unity of
literary motifs and common patterns, but also of secrecy and revelation. In fact,
the shock and surprise which typify gospel parables is precisely the unveiling of
secrets and the clarifying of ambiguities. All the personae in the parables practice
some form of deception, secrecy or ambiguity.
5. . The cultural model of ancient cosmologies provides us with a larger
framework in which to assess ambiguity, deception, secrecy and revelation. It
helps us to uncover the judgment scenes in Matthews parables where revelation
by bridegroom, landlord or king pulls back the veil on disguise, deception,
secrecy and ambiguity. Now God can render a just judgment, for the mysteries
are dispelled and true purity and holiness can be distinguished that their
counterfeit.
6. Although we did not pursue one idea from the sociology of secrecy, it would
seem that Brandts remark about who knows what and its relationship to social
315

hierarchy is well worth pursuing With this set of lenses, one might consider again
what 4 Ezra says about the esoteric character of various biblical books: Make
public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the
unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give
them to the wise among your people (14:45-46).

Motifs

elayed or Absentee Master

Matt 24:45-51

Matt 25:1-13

faithful and wise vsprudent

vs
wicked servant (24:45,maidservants
47)

after a long time. . . (25:19)

hock &/or Surprise

--------------

when the Son of Man come

his glory [unknown] (25:31)

foolishrisky investors vs conservativesheep vs goats;

non-investor
foolish vs wise;
generous vs stingy

Revelation True Criteria ofwatching and doing (24:46) having oil in ones lamp
ment

larification of Ambiguity or
eption

Matt 25:31-46

master, when he comesthe groom was delayeda man went on a journey and
(24:46). . .my master is(25:6)
entrusted to servants his property
delayed (24:48, 50)
(25:14)

Midnight or Unknown Futureon a day he does notat midnight (25:7)

e
expect, and an hour he does
not know (24:50)

paration of Characters

Matt 25:14-30

-------------------

risky investment = right thing to dorevelation of the right

(25:24-27)
but
conservativewrong behavior (25:34-40 &
actions = wrong thing (25:26-30) 45)

those with oil enter, but theouch: the wrong thing was the1. Jesus in disguise: When di
foolish are exposed asright thing; but the right thing see you?
deceiving servants
was the wrong thing
2. the wrong thing was
right thing; and the right t
was the wrong thing

not to faithful servant,

not to the faithful ones,

not for the investors,

but to wicked one

but to the wicked ones

but for the

(25:24-26)

316

conservative

disbelief and shock

parties (25:37-39, 44)
one

for

Rendering True Judgment:reward for good deeds: setreward: entering

t Rewards and Punishments over all his possessions
(24:47);
punishment:punishment: exclusion
punish him (24:51)

settle accounts (25:19)

reward: inherit the kingd

(25:34);

reward: excessive bonus

punishment: total

punishment: depart from me

the eternal fire (25:41, 46)

dispossession

ost-Mortem Retribution

Master
delayed
=all slumbered and slept
argument
for no postmortem judgment
. . .they rose (25:5-6)

implied
return of absentee master

Works Consulted

Bolle, K. W., ed.

1987

Secrecy in Religions. Leiden: E. J. Brill

Brandt, Elisabeth
1980 On Secrecy and the Control of Knowledge. Pp. 123-46 in S. K. Tefft,
ed., Secrecy: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York: Human Sciences Press
Cadbury, Henry J.
1937 Rebuttal, A Submerged Motive in the Gospels. Pp. 99-108 in R.P.
Casey and Silva Lake, eds., Quantulacumque, Studies in Honor of Kirsopp Lake.
London: Christophers
Craven, Toni
1989 Women Who Lied for the Truth. Pp. 35-49 in Douglas Knight and
Peter Paris, eds., Justice and the Holy. Essays in Honor of Walter Harrelson.
Atlanta: Scholars Press
Crossan, John Dominic
1973a In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus. New York: Harper and
Row
1973b The Servant Parables of Jesus, SBLSP 1973 2.94-118
317

implied

1976

Hidden Treasure Parables in Late Antiquity, SBLSP 1976.359-79

1979 Finding is the First Act: Trove Folktales and Jesus Treasure Parable.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press
Darton, Michael
1976 Modern Concordance to the New Testament. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday and Company
Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison
1988

The Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 3 Edinburgh: T & T Clark

Davis, John
1977

People of the Mediterranean. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Detienne, Marcel and Jean-Pierre Vernant

1978 Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and Society. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press
Dodd, C.H.
1961

The Parables of the Kingdom. New York: Charles Scribners Sons

Donfried, Karl P.
1974 The Allegory of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25:1-13) as a Summary of
Matthean Theology, JBL 93:415--28
du Boulay, Juliet
1976 Lies, mockery and family integrity. Pp 389-406 in J. G. Peristiany,
ed., Mediterranean Family Structures . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Eickelman, Dale F.

318

1989 The Middle East: An Anthropological Approach. Rev. ed.. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Finley, M. I.
1973

The Ancient Economy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press

Freund, R.A.
1991
"Lying and Deception in the Biblical and Post-Biblical Judaic
Tradition," ScandJournOT 5: 45-61
Frisby, David, ed.
1994

Georg Simmel: Critical Assessments. 3 volumes. London: Routledge

Fuchs, Esther
1988 For I Have the Way of Women: Deception, Gender and Ideology in
Biblical Narrative, Semeia 42:68--83
Garland, David E.
1979

The Intention of Matthew 23. Leiden: E. J. Brill

Geertz, Clifford
1978
"The Bazaar Economy:
Marketing," AmEconRev 68: 28-32

Information

and

Search

in

Peasant

Gilsenan, Michael
1976 Lying, Honor, and Contradiction. Pp. 191-219 in Bruce Kapferer
(ed.), Transaction and Meaning: Directions in the Anthropology of exchange and
Symbolic Behavior. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues
Given, Mark D.
2001 Pauls True Rhetoric. Ambiguity, Cunning and Deception in Greece and
Rome. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International Press
Greenberg, Moshe

319

1962

Another Look at Rachels Theft of the Teraphim, JBL 81:239--48

Haft, Adele J.
1983 "Odysseus, Idomeneus and Meriones: The Cretan Lies of Odyssey 1319," CJ 79: 289-306
Hanson, K.C.
1994 How Honorable! How Shameful! A Cultural Analysis of Matthews
Makarisms and Reproaches, Semeia 68: 81-112
Hazelrigg, L.E.
1969 "Reexamination of Simmel's The Secret and the Secret Society: Nine
Propositions," Social Forces 47: 323-30
Jantzen, Waldemar
1981 Withholding the Word. Pp. 97-114 in Baruch Halpern and Jon D.
Levinson, eds., Traditions in Transformation. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns
Kelber, Werner H.
1988 Narrative and Disclosure: Mechanisms of Concealing, Revealing, and
Reveiling, Semeia 43:1-20
Kerr, Philip
1990

The Penguin Book of Lies. London: Viking

Lambrecht, Jan
1972 The Parousia Discourse. Composition and Content in Mt., XXIV XXV. Pp. 308-42 in M. Didier, L vangile selon Matthieu. Rdaction et
thologie. Leuven: Gembloux
1981 Once More Astonished: The Parables of Jesus. New York: Crossroad
Publishing Company

320

Lateiner, Donald
1990

"Deceptions and Delusions in Herodotus," Classical Antiquity 9: 230-46

Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida, eds.

1988 Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic
Domains. New York: United Bible Societies
Malherbe, Abraham J.
1983

Antisthenes and Odysseus, Paul at War, HTR 76:143-73

Malina, Bruce J.
1986 Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology. Practical Models for
Biblical Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox Press

2001 The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology.

3rd edition; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox
Malina, Bruce J. and Jerome H. Neyrey
1988 Calling Jesus Names. The Social Value of Labels in Matthew. Sonoma,
CA: Polebridge Press
Marcus, David
1986

David the Deceiver and David the Dupe, Prooftexts 6:163-71

Marshall, Peter
1987 The Character of the Flatterer. Pp. 70-90 in his Enmity at Corinth:
Social Conventions in Pauls Relations with the Corinthians. Tbingen: J.C.B.
Mohr
Mason, Steve
1990 Pharisaic Dominance before 70 CE and the Gospels Hypocrisy Charge
(Matt 23:2-3), HTR 83:363-81
321

Minear, Paul
1974 False Prophecy and Hypocrisy in the Gospel of Matthew. Pp. 76-93 in
J. Gnilka, ed., Neues Testament und Kirche. Freiburg: Herder
Murnaghan, Sheila
1987 Disguise and Recognition in the Odyssey.
University Press.

Princeton: Princeton

Neusner, Jacob
1973

The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism. Leiden: E. J. Brill

Newton, Michael
1985 The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Neyrey, Jerome H.
1986a The Idea of Purity in Marks Gospel, Semeia 35: 91-128
1987

Jesus the Judge: Forensic Process in John 8, 21-59, Biblica 68: 509-41

1988
100

Bewitched in Galatia: Paul and Cultural Anthropology, CBQ 50: 72-

1991

The Social World of Luke-Acts. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson

1993a Deception. Pp. 38-42 in J J. Pilch and B. J. Malina, eds. Bible Social
Values and Their Meaning. A Handbook. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
1993b Equivocation. Pp 59-63 in J J. Pilch and B. J. Malina, eds. Bible Social
Values and Their Meaning. A Handbook. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
1998a The Sociology of Secrecy and the Fourth Gospel. Pp. 79-109 in
Fernando Segovia, ed.,

322

What is John? Volume II. Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel.
Atlanta: Scholars Press
1998b Questions, Chreiai, and Challenges to Honor. The Interface of Rhetoric
and Culture in
Marks Gospel, CBQ 60:657-81
Oakman, Douglas E.
1992 Was Jesus a Peasant? Implications for Reading the Samaritan Story
(Luke 10:30-35), BTB 22:117-25
Pilch, John J.
1992a "Lying and Deceit in the Letters to the Seven Churches: Perspectives from
Cultural Anthropology," BTB 22:126-34
1992b "Secrecy in the Gospel of Mark," Professional Approaches for Christian
Educators [PACE] 21:150-54
1994
Secrecy in the Mediterranean
Perspective," BTB 24: 151-57.

World:

An

Anthropological

Risnen, Heikki
1990

The Messianic Secret in Mark. Edinburgh: T & T Clark

Roberts, J. J. M.
1988 Does God Lie? Divine Deceit as a Theological Problem in Israelite
Prophetic Literature, Pp. 211-20 in Congress Volume Vetus Testamentum
Supplement 40. Leiden: E. J. Brill
Rohrbaugh, Richard L.
1993
"A Peasant Reading of the Parable of the Talents: A Text of
Terror?" BTB 23: 32-39
Rue, Loyal D.
1994 By the Grace of Guile: The Role of Deception in Natural History and
Human Affairs. Oxford: Oxford University Press
323

Scott, Bernard B.
1981

Jesus, Symbol Maker for the Kingdom. Philadelphia: Fortress Press

1989 Hear, Then, the Parables: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus.

Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press
Simmel, Georg
1906 "The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies," American Journal of
Sociology 11: 441-98; reprinted pp. 305-76 in Kurt H. Wolff, ed., The Sociology
of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1950
Smith, Jonathan Z.
1987 "No News Is Good News: Secrecy in Late Antiquity." Pp. 66-80 in Kees
W. Bolle, ed., Secrecy in Religions. Leiden: E. J. Brill

Stock, Augustine
1986

Jesus, Hypocrites, and Herodians BTB 16:3-7

Tefft, S. K.
1980

Secrecy: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York: Human Science Press

Vaage, Leif E.
1988 The Woes in Q (and Matthew and Luke): Deciphering the Rhetoric of
Criticism, SBLSP 1988: 582-607
Verdenius, W.J.
1981 Gorgias Doctrine of Deception. Pp. 116-28 in G. B. Kerford, The
Sophists and Their Legacy. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag
Vernant, Jean-Pierre

324

1988 Ambiguity and Reversal: On the Enigmatic Structure of Oedipus Rex.

Pp. 113-40 in J-P Vernant and Pierre Vidal Naquet, Myth and Tragedy in Ancient
Greece. New York, NY: Zone Books
Via, Daniel O.
1988
The
Gospel
of
Deception, SBLSP 1988:508-16

Matthew:

Hypocrisy

as

Self-

Wadingon, Warwick
1975 The Confidence Game in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press
Walcot. P.
1977

Odysseus and the Art of Lying. Ancient Society 8: 1-19

Wilckens, Ulrich
1972

o, TDNT 9.559-71

Williams, P. J.
2002 Lying Spirits Sent by God? The Case of Micaiahs Prophecy. Pp. 58-66
in Paul Helm and Carl Trueman, eds., The Trustworthiness of God. Perspectives
on the Nature of Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans

"Jesus, Gender and the Gospel of Matthew"

Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J.
University of Notre Dame

1.0 Topic and Focus

It is an axiom of contemporary scholarship that gender is a social construct (Brod, Kramer;
Lorber; Ortner). Ancient Greece (Cantarella, Dubish), Palestine (Satlow) and Rome
(Gleason; Kueffler; Hadley) all articulated what it means to be male or female in
relationship to their values and institutions. This study focuses on the figure of the male
Jesus in Matthew from the perspective of the common gender stereotype in the Hellenistic
325

world at that time. We argue that the ancient world shared a common gender stereotype,
that is, a descriptive and often a proscriptive sketch of gender-specific roles, tasks, tools
and places. There are three major sources of information for this stereotype. We find it in its
full form in authors such as Xenophon, Aristotle, and Philo. Second, it is also accessible in
epideictic rhetoric, which articulates the criterion for the honor and praise of males (Neyrey
1998:70-162), and in other places, such as physiognomics (Malina and Neyrey 1996:104-6,
111-13, 146-48, 179-81). Third, a large body of data on "public/private" from many ancient
documents provides yet one more important source of information on the gender
stereotype.
This study has two parts, data and interpretation. First we will rehearse the ancient data for
the gender stereotype. The thrust of this part of the study points toward males as "outdoors"
and as "public" figures, as well as the roles, tasks, and behaviors expected of such males.
Second, with this data we will then interpret the figure of the male Jesus in Matthew. We
wish to see how much of this stereotype Matthew knows, how he presents Jesus as an ideal
male, and what this means for the interpretation of his gospel.
2.0 The Gender-Divided World of Antiquity
2.1 Ancient Informants On Gender Stereotypes. The ancients perceived the cosmos as
totally gender divided, and so they describe parallel male and female worlds, in which
certain places, roles, tasks and objects are deemed appropriate to each gender. Their
descriptions, of course, are cultural constructions of social reality, that is, integral to their
attempts to organize and interpret their worlds. The topos on "house" and "household" that
was popular both in classical Greece and especially Rome (Pomeroy 69-73) constitutes our
first source of information of the ancient gender stereotype.
In figure one below, we have in parallel columns four articulations of the topos on "house"
and "household." While there are many examples of this topos, we may only examine these
four in the framework of this article. What do these texts tell us? 1. They span over five
centuries (Xenophon 428-354 BCE; Aristotle 384-322 BCE; Philo 15-50 CE; and Hierocles
117-138 CE); and because of their striking similarities, they witness to a common and
persistent gender stereotype in antiquity. 2. All consider gender-divided space an important
element, whether that is open/covered or outside/inside. While Hierocles does not use the
terminology of binary opposite spaces, his tasks position males and females in different
places. 3. Corresponding to gender-specific space are gender-specific tasks and roles. Male
are either engaged in agriculture or civic affairs (= "outdoors" or "public"); thus they are
farmers, herders, traders or civic leaders. Females, on the other hand, have three tasks
associated with the "indoors" or "private" world: child rearing, food preparation and
clothing production. 4. It follows that objects and tools are likewise gender-specific. Plows
and draft animals, sheep, weapons and harvesting tools belong to the male world; looms,
pots and pans and food-preparation instruments belong to the female. 5. Xenophon and
Aristotle continue the stereotype by contrasting body types: male bodies are suited to
hardship, labor and strength, whereas female bodies are weaker (Kuefler (2001:21); if
males display courage, females are timid. It is worth noting that both rural and urban
locations are in view.
326

2.2 "Public" and "Private" Labels for Male Spaces. My research identifies many linguistic
expressions for "public/private." The raw data are extensive in regard to the terms used and
the periods of history in which the examples are found.
Figure Two: Different Expressions of "Public" & "Private"

1. / : "The deliberative kind is either 7. / : "And you will find united in the same
hortatory or dissuasive; for both those who persons an interest at once in private () and in
give advice in private () and those who public () affairs" (Thucydides, II.40.2)
speak in the assembly () invariably either
exhort or dissuade" Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.3.3
1358b
2. / : "What a widespread corruption of 8. /: "Two speeches have been devised that
the young in private families (i ) as well as relate to burial. One is common ( ) to the
publicly in the State ()" Plato, Laws 10 whole city and is spoken over the war-dead.
890B
The other is private and individual( ') ,
relating to events that frequently happen in
peace, when people die at various ages
(Pseudo-Dionysius, Procedure for Funeral
Speeches, (Russell and Wilson p.. . .)
3. / : "Now he who said, 'The man who 9. publice / privatim: "We shall do well to
would be tranquil in his mind must not heed that sound doctrine of democritus in
engage in many affairs, either private () or which he shows that tranquillity is possible
public (),' first of all makes our tranquillity only if we avoid most of the activities of both
very expensive if it is bought at the price of private (privatim) and public (publice) life, or
inactivity. . ." Plutarch, Tranquillity 465C at least those that are too great for our
strength" Seneca, On Anger 3.6.3
4. /: "First, they laid down laws to protect 10. privatus: "Under fortune one inquires
the morals of our children. . .then they whether the person is a slave or free, rich or
legislated for the other age-groups in poor, a private citizen (privatus) or an official
succession, including in their provision, not with authority (cum postestate). . .(Cicero, De
only private citizens ( ), but also the public Inv.1.25-35).
men ( )" Aeschines, Against Timarchus 7
5. /: "When any Athenians come to him 11. publicus / privatus: ". . .tranquillity is
[Hyrcanus] either on an embassy or on a possible only if we avoid most of the
private matter ( ' ' ). . ." Josephus, Ant. activities of both private (privatim)and
14.151
public (publice) life, or at least those that are
too great for our strength" Seneca, On
Anger 3.6.3
6. / : secret political councils () were 12. foris / domi: "abroad
meeting in private houses ( ) Dio Suetonius, de Gramm.
Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 11.57.3
327

vs

at

home,"

These data indicate that males may be located in three places: "public" (politics), "private"
(non-kinship associations), and "private" (household).
1. Greeks and Romans distinguished between "public" and "private" in terms of male
participation in the "public" or political life of the city and the "private" social relations of
an ordinary citizen (see also Hyperides 4.9; Xenophon, Agesilaus 11.5-6;
Demosthenes, Trierarchic
Crown 15-16;
Lysias, Defense
of
Mantitheus 9-13).
Demosthenes makes this distinction in one of his speeches:
There are two sorts of problems with which the laws of all nations are concerned. First,
what are the principles under which we associate with one another, have dealings with one
another, define the obligations of private life ( ), and, in general order our social relations?
Secondly, what are the duties that every man among us owes to the commonwealth, if he
chooses to take part in public life ( ) and professes any concern for the State? Now it is to
the advantage of the common people that laws of the former category, laws of private
intercourse ( ), shall be distinguished by clemency and humanity. On the other hand it is to
your common advantage that laws of the second class, the laws that govern our relations to
the State ( ), shall be trenchant and peremptory, because, if they are so, politicians will not
do so much harm to the commonalty (Against Timocrates 192-93).
Elite males, then, may participate in public life ( ) or restrict themselves to
ordinary private life ( ). Thus, male association with other males occurs in both "public"
and"private." Different behavioral expectations characterize male/public and male/private
behavior: laws that govern public activity should be "trenchant and peremptory" vs
"clement and humane" in private intercourse.
2. Male public figures still had private household concerns. For example, criteria for
bishops and deacons in 1 Tim 3:4-5, 12 indicate that a male can provide appropriate
leadership for the church only if he manages his household well. Thus males, who
"naturally" belong in the public world with other males, also have roles and duties in the
private world of the household . The duties of a male in the private world of the household
include: 1. control of his children, 2. procurement of dowries for daughters and wise
marriages for them (Isaeus, On the Estate of Cleonymus 39-40), 3. proper use of patrimony
(Aeschines, Against Timarchus 154), 4. funeral rites for parents (Isaeus, On the Estate of
Menecles 36-37; see Matt 8:21-22), 5. concern for the virtue and reputation of wives and
other females in the household (see Lysias, On the Murder of Eratosthenes 15-26), and 6.
ruling over slaves and servants (Balch 1981:21-80). This distinction confirms what
anthropologists of the classical world regularly argue, namely, that the ancients had only
two institutions, politics (= "public") and kinship (= "private").

328

3. Occasionally we read of males with decidedly public roles but who rarely appear in
public. Plato described some rulers remaining in their fortresses and rarely appearing in
public:
And is not that the sort of prison house in which the tyrant is pent? He only of the citizens
may not travel abroad or view any of the sacred festivals that other free men yearn to see,
but he must live for the most part cowering in the recesses of his house like a woman,
envying among the other citizens anyone who goes abroad and sees any good thing (Plato,
Rep. 9.579b-c).
While Plato's tyrant keeps to the "indoor" world to escape violence, we read of other
monarchs who lived in splendid isolation within their imperial residences and were
elaborately insulated from the common world (see 1 Tim 6:16). Therefore, a few elite males
remained "indoors,' but within the public world of the institution of politics. But males who
otherwise remain "indoors" are considered shameful, because their place is in "public"
(Pomeroy 276).
4. Finally we consider an example of this stereotype of male public and private space which
clearly articulates the three social venues to which the ancients thought males belonged.
Lysias argues for the honorable character of the accused by calling attention before his male
peers how the defendant fulfilled the expected code of proper male behavior in each of the
three spheres where males function (In Defense of Mantitheus 16.9-12). First he recounts
the honorable behavior in regard to the "private" world of the household:
Although little property had been bequeathed to me, I bestowed two sisters in marriage,
with a dowry of thirty minae apiece; to my brother I allowed such a portion as made him
acknowledge that the had got a larger share of patrimony than I had; and towards all else
my behaviour has been such that never to this day has a single person shown any grievance
against me. So much for the tenor of my private life ( ) (10-11).
As the eldest male in his family, he assumed responsibility for the honorable marriage of
the family's daughters; he acted as patron within the family by distribution of the father' s
patrimony to his male siblings and to the family' s clients.
The speaker turns to the world outside of the household, which, by contrast with the
"private" or household world, he labels the "public" world:
. . .with regard to public matters ( ), I hold that the strongest proof I can give of my
decorous conduct is the fact that all the younger set who are found to take their diversion in
dice or drink or the like dissipations are, as you will observe, at feud with me, and are most
prolific in lying tales about me. It is obvious, surely, that if we were at one in our desires
they would not regard me with such feelings (11).
This is not the "public"-political world of the Assembly nor the "private" household world
just seen. Rather, we view the non-household world where males entertain themselves in
the company of other males with symposia, games, gambling and the like.
329

Finally, he turns to the public-political world where the affairs of the city are in view, in this
case, the city's army and its defense of its allies:
As regards campaigns in face of the enemy, observe how I discharged my duty to the State.
First, when you made your alliance with the Boeotians, and we had to go to the relief of
Hilartus, I had been enrolled by Orthobulus for service in the cavalry (12-13).
Mantitheus goes on to say how he volunteered for the more difficult military task of an
infantryman, attesting to his courage and solidarity with that part of the army. And he
claims that he has been a model "public," i.e., political, person who has "discharged his
duty to the State." By recounting his military exploits, he declares that he acted as an
honorable male who has a visible public role in the affairs of the city. Thus, Mantitheus
serves as an excellent emic informer on the triple spheres, spaces and roles which make up
the male world which was both "public" and "private."
2.3 Males and Females vis-a-vis Gender-Divided Space. While "public" vs "private" were
used by the ancients primarily in regard to males, our investigation of the ancient gender
stereotype surfaced many examples the way male and females are gender divided in regard
to space.
1. / : "It saw how unlike the bodily shapes of man 4. / : "And of the many forms of
and woman are, and that each of the two has a baseness none disgraces an aged man
different life assigned to it, to the one the domestic more than idleness, cowardice, and
() life, to the other a civic life (), it judged it well to slackness, when he retires from public
prescribe rules all of which though not directly offices ( ) to the domesticity ( )
made by nature were the outcome of wise reflection befitting women." Plutarch, Old Men
and in accordance with nature" Philo, Virt 19
in Public Affairs 784A
2. / : "And since both the indoor ( ) and the outdoor 5. / : "Organized communities are of
( ) tasks demand labor and attention, God from the two sorts, the greater which we call
first adapted the woman's nature, I think, to the cities () and the smaller which we call
indoor ( ) and the man's to the outdoor ( ) tasks and households (). Both of these have
cares" Xenophon, Oeconomicus 7.19-22
their governors; the government of the
greater is assigned to men, under the
name of statesmanship (), that of the
lesser,
known
as
household
management (), to women."
Philo, Special Laws 3.171
3. / : "Human beings live not in the open air ( ), 6. / : "Theano her exposed her arm.
like beasts, but obviously need shelter ( ). Those Somebody exclaimed, 'A lovely arm.'
who mean to win store to fill the covered space, 'But not for the public (),' said she.
have need of someone to work at the open-air ( ) Not only the arm of the virtuous
occupations; since ploughing, sowing, planting and woman, but her speeches well, ought
grazing are all such open-air () employments. . . to be not for the public (), and she
again, as soon as this is stored in the covered place ought to be modest and guarded about
( ) , there is need of someone to keep it and to work saying anything in the hearing of
330

at the things that must be done under cove ( ). outsiders ( ), since it is an exposure of
Cover () is needed for the nursing of the infants; herself; for in her talk can be seen her
cover () is needed for the making of the corn into feelings, character, and disposition.
bread, and likewise for the manufacture of clothes Pheidias made the Aphrodite of the
from the wool." Xenophon,Oeconomicus 7:20-21 Eleans with one foot on a tortoise, to
typify for womankind keeping at
home () and keeping silence."
Plutarch, Advice to Bride and
Groom 142C-D

We saw that while males enjoy exclusively male public and private worlds, they belong
also in a second "private" world, the household. And a code of duties accompanies male
participation in each three realms. Females, however, do not have formal public space visa-vis the polis; and while the stereotype indicates that they belong to the "indoor" world,
that is not to say that they always remain in their houses. What household does not need to
import water and fuel, fulfilment of which tasks must take females "outside" of the house.
But females enjoy neither a civic role and so have no public space. The data about females
at meals outside their houses in general indicate their absence (MacMullen); as PsDemosthenes implies, such females are likely slaves or hetairai (59.122). About such
females the law was not interested (Fantham 380). In summary, when concepts like genderdivided space occur, they invariably indicate redundant sets of gender-specific places, roles,
tools, and even virtues.
Matthew, we argue, knows this gender stereotype, as is indicated in the following. For
example, in Jesus' final discourse he warns all to watch. Illustrative of the gender stereotype
is his reference to "males laboring in the fields," which is juxtaposed to "women grinding
corn" (21:25-26). Similar to this is the exhortation to "behold the birds of the sky who do
not sow nor reap nor gather into barns," which is balanced by "behold the lilies of the
fields. . .who neither toil nor spin" (6:26-28). Males, who labor in the fields, perform males
tasks related to farming. Females, who labor in the household, do female tasks related to
food preparation and clothing production. Evidently, the tools of each are gender specific.
To this we might add the woman with yeast (13:33) who is juxtaposed to farmers (13:24)
and merchants (13:45-46).
2.4 "Public" vs "Private" and Human Sexual Organs. The ancient medical writers
Herophilus and Galen testify to the ancient belief that male and female genitals were
classified as "public" and "private." Although it was argued that male and female sexual
organs are similar, the difference was significance: male genitals are outside the body,
whereas female genitals are within the body. Thus Galen writes: "All the parts, then, that
men have, women have too, the difference between them lying in only one thing. . .namely,
that in women the parts are within the body, whereas in men they are outside, in the region
called the perineum" (Usefulness of the Parts of the Body 14.6). External vs internal
classification of the genitals, then, replicates the larger stereotype of a gender-divided
world.
331

One important conclusion to draw from this study of a gender-divided stereotype is that,,
while we have focused on space, the stereotype is replicated in matters of social roles, tasks
and tools, behavior and even biology. It permeates and structures the entire social lives of
males and females. 1. It describes the roles ascribed to males as husbands and fathers in the
"codes of household duties": they were expected to lead and command, whereas their wives
should follow and obey. 2. As regards tasks, males acquired the art of farming and herding,
including the tools for this, such as mastering animals, carpentry and tool-making required
for this; females became adept at food preparation and clothing production. While both
males and females touched corn and sheep, males produced the corn and sheared the sheep,
whereas females processed the corn and the sheep's wool - different tasks. 3. Finally, males
in public were expected to behave in masculine ways: with boldness, aggressiveness, eager
to defend and advance their families' interests. Females, on the other hand, were respected
when they were patient, subservient, restrained, passive and defensive of their virtue
(Malina 2001:48-50).
2.5 Nuancing the Stereotype: Social Location. Does the same set of gender expectations
apply equally to elite and non-elite males and females? Needed here is some model of
social stratification suitable to the ancient world which can distinguish for us the various
classification of persons in the ancient world. Gerhard Lenski, in his survey of advanced
agrarian, pre-industrial societies, provides just such a classificatory tool (1966). Lenski
describes a hierarchical ranking of persons which seems to fit quite well the ancient world,
which model has been profitably used by various New Testament scholars which
considerable success (Saldarini 1988:35-49; Fiensy 1991:155-76; Duling 1992:99-116;
Rohrbaugh 1993:114-27; Neyrey 1996:255-67). Atop the social pyramid sit the true elite of
ancient society, namely rulers and/or aristocratic families, who are served by a series of
retainers such as soldiers, priests, scribes, slaves, etc. Dropping off precipitously in terms of
social status, the hierarchical pyramid then consists of merchants, only a few of whom cater
to elite tastes and needs, while the rest belong to the non-elite masses. Peasants, who
constituted the vast majority of the ancient population (80%), tilled the land, labored in
small villages, fished. and served as day laborers. Landless peasants in search of labor
made up the bulk of the artisan group, which sought its fortunes in cities. Below them are
the unclean, degraded and expendibles, such as beggars, thieves, prostitutes and the like.
The ancients themselves expressed the radical difference between elites and non-elites as
one between "the best" ( ) and "the rest" ( ) or between the "more reputable" (honestiores)
and the "more lowly" (humiliores) (Garnsey 1970:221-76).
Accordingly, all males did not enjoy the same social location and role, and hence
"honor."Some were free and others, slaves; a few were elites and the rest non elites. In a
hierarchical world where every person was vertically classified according to conventional
notions of wealth, power and status, kings rank above peasants who rank above slaves, who
in turn are above the untouchables. Few males, then, had the opportunity to fulfil the ideal
stereotype of masculinity. Peasant males simply had no "public"-political world; leadership
roles so characteristic of male elite are not available to them, nor do they have voice to
speak with boldness in public.
More to our purposes, the ancients themselves inform public speakers to make similar
distinctions in regard to the social positions of the persons to be described in speeches or
332

called as witnesses. In regard to how a person may be presented to a court, Cicero instructs
the orator to select one of the following social locations: "Under fortune one inquires
whether the person is a slave or free, rich or poor, a private citizen (privatus) or an official
with authority" (Inv. 1.25.35). Quintilian's version brings out more of the elite/non-elite: "It
makes a great difference whether a man be famous or obscure, a magistrate or a private
citizen (privatus), a father or a son, a citizen or a foreigner, a free man or a slave" (Inst.
Orat. 5.10.26). All such witnesses, of course, were males, as males alone had public voice.
This material will be of considerable importance when we examine Jesus, the peasant from
Nazareth, who nevertheless enjoys public voice.
What do we know if we know this? We have in view an stereotype about human gender
which is both ancient and enduring. We may rightly call it a "commonplace" and expect
that it both describes ancient social life and prescribes it. It constitutes a code into which all
were socialized and according to which praise or blame was awarded. Although we have
tended to view the gender stereotype in terms of space and location, the data indicate how it
was replicated throughout the various aspects of life in antiquity: space, roles, tasks, tools,
biology and behavior. It was, then, a formidable construct. The ancients, then, had clear and
firm notions of what it meant to be male and female.
3.0 Jesus, the Male Stereotype and the Code of Honor.
With this stereotype of male gender in view, we turn to Matthew's Jesus. We claim that
Matthew describes Jesus in terms of the cultural expectations about males just examined.
And to argue this, we will track various representative elements of the stereotype: (1) space,
(2) role and status, (3) tasks and behavior, (4) public speech, (5) objects, and (6) reputation.
3.1 Jesus, Private and Public. Where does Matthew locate Jesus? What does this
communicate? Recall that the spatial options for males are "public" (civic space), "private"
(with associates) and "private" (household).
3.1.1 Jesus in "Public"-Political Space. With Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem and its Temple
(Matt 21-22), he enters into "public"-political space and behaves like a male with elite
standing. He will, moreover, stand face-to-face with Israelite and Roman authorities: males
in male civic space, i.e., courtrooms. Thus Jesus acts as a "public" male in public-political
roles.
3.1.2 Jesus in "Private" (Non-Kinship) Space). Matthew often portrays him "outside," as
the stereotype on gender-divided space indicated: on a river bank with other males (3: 13 17), on the shore of the Lake of Galilee (4:18; 13:1; 15:29) or crossing it (8:18 and 9:1;
14:13, 22-33), in fields (12:1), in "lonely places" (4:1; 14:13) and atop mountains (4:8; 5:17:29; 14:23; 15:29; 17:1; 24:3-25:56; 28:16). Jesus, moreover, readily frequents public
spaces in villages and towns: synagogues (4:23; 9:35; 12:9; 13:54), and open areas, such as
marketplaces and village gates (8:5; 9:9, 27; 11:1; 15:1 ). Jesus traveled extensively,
speaking and healing through "all Galilee" (4:23), the surrounds of Gadara (8:28), the
villages around Tyre and Sidon ( 15:21 ) and Caesarea Philippi ( 16:13 ). Thus as far as
Matthew narrates, Jesus lived his life outdoors in the male "private" world outside his own
home, as one would expect.
333

Matthew, moreover, presents Jesus "indoors," i.e., in "private" space in the company of
disciples and non-kinship related males. For example, Jesus eats at the home of Levi, where
"many tax collectors and sinners" -- presumably all males - likewise dined (9:10). Although
"indoors," this not "private" in the sense of household, but "private" space where nonrelated males gathered; the same holds true for other meals served Jesus (8:14-15; 10:10;
14:13-21; 15:33-39; 22:2-3).
3.1.3 Jesus in the Private Household Space. Matthew narrates in 12:46 that Jesus' mother
and brothers "stood outside" and demanded Jesus come to them, while Jesus spoke to his
circle "inside." The story contrasts 1. two social groups, the blood relatives of Jesus
("mother and brothers") and the fictive kin of Jesus ("Here are my mother and my
brothers," 12:49) and 2. two social spaces ("outside" and "inside"). Ideally, his family
should be "inside" with him and non-kin "outside." But the kinship relationship and the
corresponding space are spatially topsy-turvy. When Jesus calls the group "inside" his
"mother and brothers," he labels them his kin, albeit fictive kin. His blood relatives,
however, are "outside"; Jesus does not obey their request nor does he imply that he has any
obligation toward them. Matthew, moreover, never describes Jesus in the "private" world of
kin and household. He is not found there; he rejects the duties expected of him in regard to
it; and he speaks against it. The "private" world of the household, then, is the one space that
the male Jesus resists and avoids.
3.1.4 Mobility and Male Behavior. While males are expected to be "outdoors," this means
the "open air" male-specific places of cities and villages. How, then, assess Jesus' constant
mobility and so his absence from home and household duties? It belonged to males to
protect and supervise the females under their custody; but if absent for long, they risked
being thought cavalier about the reputation of those females (Malina 2001:140-42).
Matthew says that Jesus' mother is still living, although she is not cared for by Jesus,
despite the fact that he is her eldest (or only) son (13:55-56). Jesus' absence from the family
home and his lack of care for his mother make him suspect; his mobility creates a problem,
for he does not appear to support or supervise his family. Matthew's explanation for Jesus'
mobility is tied to his obedience to his Father (e.g., Luke 2:49), and thus his regular
appearance in "public" places is sanctioned by other aspects of the gender stereotype,
namely loyalty to one's Father (Barton 1994:125-215).
On this topic, let us recall Jesus' sayings which directly and indirectly attack family loyalty
and legitimate a male's absence from the "private" world of the household. Because of him,
many disciples will be at odds with their families (10:34-38); some will be ostracized by
them (5:11-12; see Neyrey 1998:168-80). Others, it would appear, "left houses or brothers
or sisters or father or mother or children or lands" for his sake (19:29). Thus Jesus' own
mobility would have to be assessed in terms of the kind of anti-family stance which creates
loyalty to Jesus and his group. Thus one "private" space (household and blood relatives) is
replaced by another (fictive kinship). Whether expelled from the synagogue or seeking to
forge strong fictive kinship bonds, the disciples are told to prize the "private" world of
fictive-kinship over the all other spaces, even "private"-household space.
Summary, Matthew narrates Jesus' presence and actions in both the "public"-political forum
and the "private"-non-kinship world of disciples. He never portrays Jesus in his "private"334

household, space. Whereas Jesus assumes male roles commensurate with the first two
spaces, he rejects the male roles vis-a-vis the household. While one might expect a typical
village male to be found "outside," as indeed Jesus is, it is surprising to find such a person
in "public"-political space acting in a political role. If Jesus' mobility, moreover, creates any
problem in terms of his honor, that is rationalized by his studied rejection of kinship roles
and duties and by the rationale that his public activity is demanded by his Father - thus
honor is restored.
3.2 Jesus and Male Roles: The Consummate Public Person.
Matthew is mute on Jesus' role as husband and father and never presents him as having any
role in the "private"- household world. In contrast, most of the roles which Jesus himself
claims or are ascribed to him belong to the "public"-political world. We consider two
factors in the following survey of Jesus' public roles: (1) the proclamation and
acknowledgment of them take place in the "public"-political world, and (2) the roles
acclaimed are all political ones related to politics, the other major institution in antiquity,
indeed the ideal space for honorable males.
Son of God. The proclamation of Jesus as "son of God", which occurs strategically at the
beginning (3:17), middle (17:5) and end (27:54) the gospel, it is made by political persons,
either God or the Roman centurion, and always in public. Although God calls Jesus "Son"
(3: 17 and 17:5), this is hardly a kinship role for Jesus (d'Angelo 1992a & b). For, the
background of "son of god" regularly points in the direction of the political roles of
monarchs in the ancient world (Gadd 1948:45-50). It applies as well to kings of the Davidic
line (see 2 Sam 7: 14; Ps 2:7). It was applied to wonder workers and occasionally to angels,
who act as the "public" agents of God in political matters, such as battle or judgment. "Son
of God," then, refers to a political role. We take "son of God," then, to designate Jesus in
terms of a "public"-political not a kinship role.
Son of David . All other titles and roles locate Jesus outside the "private"-household world
and within in the "public" world of politics. That is, Jesus is not identified with the
institution of kinship, but rather with that of politics. Whether people call him by any one of
the three inter-related titles of "Son of David," "King of the Jews," or "Christ," they look to
him to fulfill those roles and perform the tasks associated with "public"-political figures. It
is by far the label most frequently ascribed to Jesus, which occurs first in Jesus' genealogy.
There Matthew ascribes royal honor to Jesus by blood descent from the founding fathers of
the nation, both Abraham and David ( 1: 1, 17). In Brown's treatment of the functions of
genealogies, he highlights one in particular, namely, to "undergird status, especially for the
offices of king and priest where lineage is important (see Ezra 2:62-63; Neh 7:64-65)"
(Brown 1993:65). The status in question is that of a public, political figure. Various people,
both males and females, Judeans and Gentiles, acknowledge this claim of Jesus to a public
and political role in diverse situations: (1) when they petition Jesus to act as benefactor
toward them with the resources reserved to monarchs to bestow (9:27; 15:22; 20:30-31 )
and (2) when they herald Jesus' entrance into the royal city (21:9, 15), an event interpreted
by the evangelist as a political act (e.g., "king" in 21:5). Jesus himself explains Ps 110 in
such as way as to indicate that the "Son of David" will be enthroned at God's right hand,
and so enjoy a public status and role superior even to David himself (22:42-4).
335

King of Israel/King of the Jews. The Magi in search of the new king set the reigning king
and his retainers in an uproar (2:2); two kings cannot live in Judea at the same time. Later,
during Jesus' trial and execution, the central issue is his role and status as "King of the
Jews" (27:11, 29, 37, 42). "King" is by far the most contested role in the gospel, as it upsets
Herod, the Jerusalem elites (2:1-4), the Roman procurator and army (27:11, 29, 37), and
becomes a source of mockery from Judean passers-by at the cross (27:42). Yet, along with
"Son of David," this most honorable title clearly portrays Jesus in a "public" role in the
world of politics.
Christ/Messiah. Irrespective of the diverse popular expectations of a Messiah
(Charlesworth 1992:3-35), when Matthew narrates that people call Jesus "Christ," they
refer to his "public" role in the world of politics (see Horsley and Hanson 1985:88-134;
Crossan 1991: 168-206). It may be ascribed to Jesus by the heavenly sovereign and
acknowledged on earth by his followers (16:16-17), but it is also bitterly contested by those
who stand to lose political status and power from the presence of their political rival (26:63,
68; 27:22-23).
Lord (Sovereign). The label "lord," a general acknowledgment description of honorable
extra-household status, is equivalent to "sir." Thus people address Jesus as "lord" who seek
benefaction from him as a patron under this title (8:2, 5, 21, 25; 14:28; 15:27; etc.). On two
occasions, moreover, the evangelist uses this title for Jesus in the role of a "public" official,
not a private citizen. The "Christ" who is the "Son of David" sits at the right hand of the
heavenly Lord, and in that context he is himself called "Lord" (22:44-45). A person at the
King's right hand enjoys a "public" role in the world of cosmic politics. Second, although
the label "Lord" is not mentioned in the context, when Jesus states that "All authority in
heaven and on earth has been given to me" (28:18), he claims the kind of executive role
predicted of him in 22:42-45.
Prophet. Jesus is often likened to prophets (12:39-40; 16:14) and on one occasion is found
in their company (17:3-4). People in the narrative twice acclaim him a prophet, both times
in Jerusalem: "This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee" (21:11, see 21:46). Yet
all of Israel's prophets, especially Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah and Jonah, were public figures
whose role frequently involved them within the political institution of either forming a
people (Moses), criticizing the behavior of Israel's rulers (Elijah and Jeremiah) or calling a
nation to conversion (Jonah). Prophets were sent to "Jerusalem," the national political
center, which rejected them and killed them (23:37). In regard to Jesus, "prophet" is
likewise a public role in the political institution (see Horsley and Hanson 1985:135-41;
Gray 1993:114-23). Moreover, it involved Jesus in political conflict; for, prophets were sent
to criticize those in public-political roles.
In summary, from Jesus' genealogy and birth to his death and vindication, Matthew presents
him not simply in terms of ordinary male roles and behaviors appropriate to the "private"
world outside of the household. On the contrary, Matthew locates Jesus in the ultimate
public arena of politics where he is ascribed and acknowledged as having elite publicpolitical roles. According to Matthew, Jesus was no mere head of a household, artisan or
peasant. God has ascribed to him the political roles of "Son of David," King of Israel,"
"Lord" and "Christ. God will make him "sit at my right hand" with power to judge and rule.
336

3.3 Jesus and Male Tasks: No Ordinary Male. Since Matthew locates Jesus mostly in the
"outdoors" world and presents him acting according to political roles there, what tasks and
deeds does Jesus perform? Are they appropriate to private or public space? To the
institution of kinship or politics? How would Jesus' actions be viewed in terms of the
gender stereotype?
3.3.1 Few Actions and a Limited Private Role. Matthew narrates no actions or words by
Jesus which relate to management of his own household. Yet males in villages also enjoyed
a vigorous "private" life with friends independent of the household. We saw how frequently
Jesus eats in the homes of disciples (8:14-15) and followers (9:10-13). The "private"
conversations with the disciples on the way to Jerusalem (Matt 16:1320:28) are a special
case and will be discussed shortly. Hence, we find Jesus frequently in "private" non-kinship
space, where he does what all ancient males did with great frequency, namely, "hang out" in
the company of other males.
3.3.2 Shepherd, Warrior, Lawgiver and Benefactor. Judging from the importance Matthew
gives to it, we focus now on what Jesus does in the "public" world where he acts out certain
political roles. The simplest way to treat this is to compare Jesus in his "public"-political
roles with what David or other kings of Israel did. 1. Shepherd. David was shepherd, not
simply of sheep, but of the nation; he was also warrior, lawgiver, judge and benefactorpatron. Matthew describes Jesus as "shepherd" of a leaderless flock (9:36), who benefits
them by his healings and feedings, relieves misery by miraculous acts, and forgives debts
and sins. 2. Warrior. All of Jesus' conflicts with demons are properly the acts of a warriorruler attacking a rival, according to the symbolic world of that ancient culture (Robinson
1957:33-42). In defense of his power and authority, Jesus mounts an apology to the political
charge that he is the agent of the "Prince of Demons"; he explains that kingdoms or
"houses" in civil war collapse. But Jesus the warrior besieges the fortress of a rival warrior,
captures him and plunders his kingdom (12:25-29). 3. Lawgiver-Judge. Jesus proposes a
law (5:21-46; 16:24-26) and acts as enforcer of his law, namely, as a judge (16:27). As king,
he will sit on his heavenly throne and separate his subjects like sheep and goats, rewarding
some but requiting others (25:31-46). 4. Benefactor. As expected of a generous monarch,
Jesus provides access to God's great storehouse of food, health and freedom. Despite the
cultural perception of a radically limited supply of all good things, Jesus is able to increase
the amount of goods, not by taking from others (i.e., spoils), but by divine benefaction
which expands the supply and enriches all. In this, Jesus stands heads and shoulders over
other benefactors of this world, who must despoil many to benefit a few.
3.3.3 Responder to Public, Even Political Challenges. Virtually every chreia about Jesus
narrates a challenge to him and his response. All challenges, to be effective, must be
"public," that is, face-to-face with Jesus before the eyes and ears of others. In that culture,
every honorable male must not turn the other cheek, but to deliver a riposte (Neyrey
1998a:666-81). And Jesus indubitably does so, despite what he told his disciples (5:38-42).
Two questions arise: (1) are Jesus' claims and the challenges to them those of a private or
public-political nature (i.e., "only God can forgive sins?") and (2) what is the social location
of the players who claim and who challenges? The content of most of the claims and of the
challenges to them have to do with "public"-political matters. In regard to the social
location of claimants and challengers, if the challengers to Jesus were merely private
337

individuals who, out of envy of him (Mk 15:10) challenged him, then his riposte would be
the appropriate behavior of a private person. If, however, his challengers are rulers and
elites in the political institution, then challenge and riposte games should be upgraded to
reflect the conflict over the public role and status of Jesus in that political institution. We
saw earlier that at the beginning and ending of the gospel the political elite plot Jesus'
death. The challenge-riposte game, then, is played among the male elite of the "public"political world.
Does the picture change when we move from the capital city to Galilee? Who are the
people who challenge Jesus (12:38) and test him (16:1)? By far the dominant opposition to
Jesus in Galilee comes from the Pharisees (9:11, 34; 12:2, 14, 24, 38; 15:12; 19:3).
Saldarini notes (1988:168-69) that in general the Galilean challenges from scribes and
Pharisees touch on two areas: food rules (9:6-13, 14-17; 12:1-8; 15:12) and sources of
power (9:32-34; 12:22-24). Yet, these should not be classified as "religious" issues. Daniel
and 2 and 4 Maccabees witness that what one eats is a matter of political loyalty. The
Pharisees belong to the retainer class who serve the governing elite (that is, those with
wealth and direct political power) and who allied themselves with them to promote their
own programs for Judaism. In Galilee, they were not the top level of leadership, but
influential figures in local village leadership. They were a middle level of leadership
between the governing class and the people and sometimes acted as brokers for the people
with their higher contacts (Saldarini 1988:171-72). Thus Jesus is confronted by a high level
class of retainers who serve the elite - no mean opponents. Therefore, challengers to Jesus,
whether in the capital city or in Galilee, belong to the public-political world. The contents
of the challenges, moreover, are political issues, either Jesus' identity and role or his agenda
for the way the nation should act. Thus, both challengers and the topics of conflict confirm
the presentation of Jesus as an honorable "public"-political figure. It is exclusively male
behavior to seek honor, make claims and defend them. It is uniquely male behavior to
engage in combat.
3.4 Jesus and Male Speech. According to the gender stereotype, males in "private" space
outside the household have voice but females do not, a distinction all the more true of the
"public"-political world. But not every male had public voice, as Plutarch implies in this
maxim: "Nature has given us two ears and one tongue, because we ought to do less talking
than listening" (Listening to Lectures 39B). Who, then, has voice? What have age, social
location and public/private space to do with voice? First, young males generally do not
enjoy voice, as Lysias indicates: "Some people are annoyed at me merely for attempting at
too early an age to speak before the people" (Defense of Mantitheus 16.20; Luke 2:46-47).
Second, perhaps Luke had this cultural issue this in mind when he stated that Jesus was
"about thirty years of age" (3:23) when he went to the Jordan. Some scholars read this, not
so much as calendar age, but as a claim that Jesus was sufficiently mature to be an elder
(Buchanan 1995). Third, elite male citizens had "public" voice, but not male peasants.
Thus, social location indicates whether in the eyes of others one has the right to speak. In
general, then, elders, who are higher up the status ladder, enjoy public voice; less so,
ordinary males and youth (Rohrbaugh 1995:192-95; Neyrey 1996:276-79). Let us examine
now Jesus' public speaking in terms of his social role and the conventions of an honorable
public male.
338

3.4.1 Jesus' Right to Public Speech. While Matthew remains silent on whether Jesus as
"educated" (see John 7:15), which might qualify him to speak, he narrates that Jesus was
authorized to speak and to act in public world by the highest-ranking person in the cosmos.
At the Jordan with the Baptizer, John, not Jesus has public voice. But Matthew notes that
Jesus immediately assumed public voice as he "taught in their synagogues and preached the
gospel of the kingdom" (4:23). The function of the theophany at the Jordan (3:16-17) serves
as the formal commissioning of Jesus to a public role with public voice. Rohrbaugh argued
this case for the Lukan narrative (1995:186-95), and the same can be said of Matthew. God
authorizes Jesus to the public role of "Son of God" (3:17), which, while challenged (4: 1-11
), is subsequently acknowledged by the audiences who hear Jesus' successful speaking and
see his actions (4:23-24; see Malina-Rohrbaugh 1992:304). Later in the narrative, when
Jesus begins to speak a new word about the fate of the Son of man and the "way" of
discipleship (16:21-26), God again appears in a theophany and authorizes the reluctant
disciples to "Listen to him" (17:5). Jesus, then, has public voice because God commissions
him what to say and what to do.
In addition, Jesus himself claims a unique bestowal of esoteric knowledge given to him by
God (11:25-27), which he speaks to a select few (11:27). He claims, moreover, legitimacy
to speak by comparing himself with Jonah and Solomon, whose public voices were most
honorable, only he is "greater than Jonah" and "greater than Solomon" (12:41-42). Thus,
Matthew has studiously attended to the issue of the legitimacy of Jesus' public voice. In
virtue of his ascribed honor from God, he has a public role with a public voice, even a valid
political voice.
3.4.2 The Content of Jesus' Public Speech. The content of Jesus' public speech includes
materials from both male and female worlds. Jesus speaks about the ordinary roles and
tasks of females: clothing production (6:28-30; 9:16), food preparation (i.e., leavening
flour, 13:33) and child rearing (19:13-15; see 18:1-4). Five maids in a noble house (25:113) receive praise for performance of their domestic duties. While he mentions the Queen
of the South (12:42), he praises her for listening to the wisdom of king Solomon. Not
surprisingly, the bulk of his discourse is about male topics. Jesus, artisan and peasant,
knows and speaks of the roles and tasks of ordinary males in the outdoor world of the
village: carpenters (13:55), fishermen (4:18-22; 13:47-48), sowers (13:3), farmers buying
fields (13:44), merchants (13:45), shepherds (18:12-13; 26:31), day laborers (20:1-16),
tenant farmers (21:35-39), and servants abroad doing the master' s bidding (22:2-10).
Yet in contrast to these ordinary concerns of village non-elites, Matthew presents Jesus
speaking of affairs in the public-political world, namely God's "kingdom" (Chilton 1994;
Malina 2001:15-35). In a programmatic summary of his public speech, Jesus declared that
it is his role to "preach the gospel of the kingdom" (4:23; see also 9:35). And his parables
from 13:19 onward speak about the "kingdom." Modern translations of Jesus' words,
however, reduce his discourse on "kingdom of God" to the politically innocuous "God
reigning." Moreover, modern political ideology separates "church" from "state," making it
difficult to interpret "kingdom" except in terms of "religion" which is not embedded in
politics (Malina 2001:91-95 and 1986:92-101). But these recent trends are anachronistic
Euro-American concerns which skew the perspective of religion-embedded-in-politics
339

commonly found in antiquity. We argue that when Jesus speaks of "kingdom," he generally
speaks of the public world and the institution of politics.
At first, Jesus' discourse about this political "kingdom" seems problematic because of the
metaphors used to describe it. Some compare it items and actions within the ordinary male
"outdoors" world and the female world of the household. The kingdom of heaven is like a
woman putting leaven into flour (13:33) and a man sowing seed (13:24) or a grain of
mustard seed (13:31; see 13:44, 45, 47). Balancing these metaphors, Matthew likens the
kingdom of heaven to a king's wedding feast for his son (22: 1), a significant political
event. It resembles some great landowner hiring many workers (20:1 ) or a king settling
great debts (18:23). Some metaphors accentuate the greatness of the kingdom, others stress
its lack of honor and significance or its strangeness. What metaphor Jesus uses to describe
the "kingdom," while important, is ultimately less important here than the fact that he talks
about it so frequently and claims to know it intimately. He exercises public voice on a most
public topic.
Jesus' discourse on "the kingdom" contains many typical topics, the first of which is
membership: who belongs in this kingdom? Jesus declares that some unlikely people will
be accepted in the kingdom (8:11-12; 21:43; 22:8-10; 25:34-40), while others who thought
they had a claim to it will be cast out of it (22:2-7 & 13; 25:41-46). Second, is there social
stratification as one finds in a political kingdom? Evidently, for we are told that there are
"greatest" and "least"; status sometimes based on observance of the rule of Jesus (5:19),
sometimes on benefaction ( 11: 11 ) and sometimes on the new code of worth and honor
proclaimed by Jesus (19:14; see 18:1, 4 and 20:21). Third, in it benefaction is practiced
(13:11; 11:25-27), albeit a benefaction quite different from that practiced by rulers in the
world (20:25-26). Fourth, The ancestors of the kingdom are well remembered, both
patriarchs (8:11) and monarchs such as David and Solomon (6:29; 12:3, 42). Finally, Jesus
describes the great triumphal approach () of the vindicated monarch (24:27, 37, 39). Thus a
large part of Jesus' speech concerns the "public"-political world in which Matthew insists
that Jesus has a valid right to speak.
3.4.3 The Honor Component in Jesus' Public Speech. Finally, we briefly consider the times
when Jesus redefines the prevailing male value of honor. I have argued elsewhere that Jesus
began his Sermon on the Mount declaring "honorable" those who were dishonored for his
sake (5:3-12; Neyrey 1998:164-87; Hanson 1996). Moreover he called off the typical
games whereby males pursued honor, physical, sexual and verbal aggression (5:21-48;
Neyrey 1998:190-211), and he demanded that his disciples on select occasions vacate the
playing field where honor is claimed and awarded (6:1-18; Neyrey 1998:212-28). While the
content of this first public discourse is about the male value of honor, Jesus discredits
conventional honor-gaining and honor-maintaining behavior. In this regard he challenges
much of the prevailing male gender stereotype.
Jesus' redefinition of honor constitutes the commanding feature of other remarks, namely
Jesus' teaching of "the Way" on his way to Jerusalem. Although Jesus spoke often to
crowds "outdoors," he gave distinctive teaching to the inner circle of disciples whom he
leads to Jerusalem. Matthew bracketed this material about Jesus' "way" in terms of the
group addressed (i.e., inner circle), the time when it was spoken (after Caesarea Philippi
340

and before Jerusalem) and the locale (on route to Jerusalem). Of what does Jesus' new
honor code consist? We confess to seeing in Jesus' teaching on the way to Jerusalem
(16:21-20:28) a new code of honor and shame.
16:21-28 honor comes from taking up one's cross and imitating Jesus
17:14-20 shame comes from having too little "faith"
17:24-27 honor comes from taking tribute, shame from paying taxes
18:1-6 honor comes from being worthless, like a child
18:7-9 discipleship may require the shame of loss of an honorable limb
18:15-20 the honorable (i.e., private) way of correcting deviants
18:21-35 honor comes from forgiveness of wrongs, not vengeance
19:1-9/10-12 honor through sexual aggression denied disciples
19:16-30 honor comes from loss of wealth and power
20:1 - 16 generous patrons impartially share their wealth, showing no favoritism
20:20-28 honor comes from being last and servant of all.
Most of this instruction seems concerned with the issues of stratification and social
location, generally a male concern. The "greatest in the kingdom of heaven" is not the ruler
or leader, but a "worthless" child (18:1-6). Although kings of the earth take tribute and do
not pay taxes (17:25), Jesus and his followers, who now are reckoned among that elite, still
pay the shekel tax. Jesus denies session at his right and hands to James and John (20:2023). The "great ones" and the "first" should be like Jesus, the servant and last of all (20:2528). The creation of a new social hierarchy challenges that of the public-political world, in
keeping with which Jesus denies all elite titles and power to his disciples (23:8-12). Other
examples of Jesus' new social hierarchy include:
1. last is first, first is last (19:30; 20:16)
2. least is greatest, greatest is least (18:1-4)
3. humbled is exalted, exalted is humbled (23:12)
4. servant is "a great one" (20:26) or greatest (23:11); slave is first (20:27).
5. no one is greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom

341

of heaven is greater than he (11:1).

A social hierarchy there is, which is now based on values not thought of as male or
honorable. This constitutes, then, the most egregious variance of Jesus from the male
stereotype.
Other materials, however, touch on the manly virtue of courage. Honorable courage is
required to face trials (16:21-26), to lose face and worth (18:7-9), to forego vengeance in
favor of pardon (18:20-35), to foreswear sexual aggression (19:4-12), and to lose wealth, a
typical mark of honor (19:16-30). But clearly most of the remarks of Jesus "on the way" to
Jerusalem serve to redefine "honor" for males in the kingdom of God.
This material is all the more striking in view of the "love of honor" () which characterized
the ancients (Neyrey 1988:16-19), and Jesus regularly discourses on it. He knows that it is
"love of honor" which drives people to public display of socially commended actions.
Some practice their piety in public "in order to be seen by men" (6:1, 2, 5, 16). Similarly,
Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for their love of honor: They do all their deeds to be seen by
men; they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the places of
honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, salutations in the market place and being
called rabbi by men (23:5-7). These Pharisees appear to be no different from other males in
the ancient world: they dress for success, seek prominent social space, and thrive on public
acknowledgment of their worth. Even Jesus laments the loss of his share of it when he is
not acknowledged at home (13:57). But Matthew relentlessly portrays Jesus opposing this
part of the male stereotype. Therefore, we see that the bulk of Jesus' public speech directly
engages the conventions of male honor. All, including Jesus and God, seek
acknowledgment of their worth, role, and status by others. What differs in Matthew is the
reform of the honor code. Jesus' discourse on honor is a male gender phenomenon in their
"private" outdoors and "public"-political realms.
4.0 Summary and Conclusions
From this study of gender in antiquity we draw the following conclusions. 1. We have
clearly in view a stereotype of a radically gender-divided world. The stereotype, moreover,
was replicated the basic institutions of antiquity (politics and kinship), and structured the
whole lives of males and females, their roles, places, tasks and tools. The corollary to this
was a set of the social expectations shared by all according to which both males and
females would be evaluated and either praised or blamed.
2. Our ancient informants describe a simple stereotype of gender-divided space (i.e.,
males/public and females/private), in that male tasks take them "out of doors," whereas
female tasks focus them "indoors." Our data urge us to nuance this, for males belong in
three places: "public"-political, "private"-household and "private"-association. Females
belong only to the "private"-household world, even if tasks take them out of the house.
Thus males are not simply "public" as the ancient stereotypes suggest, but move in and out
of relationship to both the political world and the world of the household. The same is not
true for females.
342

3. In regard to Jesus, Matthew rarely locates him "inside" and mentions no duties which he
has toward his household, either to mother, wife or children. He appears in the "private"
world of non-related males and females (e.g., in marketplaces, synagogues, dining rooms or
traveling to wilderness, mountains, temple and the like). Moreover, Matthew credits Jesus
with an exalted role and status which belong to persons in the public-political world. Thus,
in our analysis, Jesus has nothing to do with the institution of kinship, except to encourage
disciples to stand against its pressures to conform. Thus, Matthew presents the male Jesus
in both public and private space, the public-political and a private-association realms.
4. Jesus' actions are generally those expected of honorable, public males. He performs
splendidly in the local game of push-and-shove, that is, the challenge and riposte exchange
(Neyrey 1998a; Malina and Neyrey 1988:71-91). His adversaries are generally socially
prominent people, whose hostility to Jesus only raises his status.
5. One of the striking features of Matthew' s presentation of Jesus is his public voice. Jesus'
audiences regularly credit him with public voice by comparing him with others: "he taught
them as one with authority, and not as their scribes" (7:29). Although the contents of his
speech cover a wide range of topics, two aspects stand out. First, he speaks often about the
kingdom of God, which we consider a genuinely political topic. His high-status, political
roles as "Son of God," "King of Israel," "Son of David" and "Christ" go hand in hand with
this discourse. Second, the cultural value of honor was a constant features in Jesus'
discourse. His remarks on honor, however, often conflict with those of the great code of
honor to which all males in some fashion were socialized. Jesus reforms aspects of the code
by declaring that certain behaviors honorable in the eyes of one's family and peers are not
praiseworthy before God, and vice-versa.
This study, then, contributes to the study of gender in antiquity by making salient what the
ancients understood by male gender, which as an historical matter should not be left to
intuition or political correctness. The gender stereotype of a totally divided world is an
historical fact. In light of this, Matthew portrays the male Jesus as most honorable: he acts
where honorable males should act ("outside" and in public); he behaves as males should,
whether in challenge-riposte exchanges or with socially approved voice to speak boldly and
authoritatively. Jesus may seem not to conform to the gender stereotype when he demands
of his followers that they: 1. eschew male games of physical and sexual aggression to gain
honor; 2. vacate the public forum to perform their piety; 3. endure shameful actions, such as
ostracization, 4. forsaking family wealth, 5. become lowly and serve others. But these
shameful actions actually become the way to honor in the eyes of God and Jesus. Thus
knowing the ancient gender stereotype allows a reader of Matthew to assess the gospel
presentation of Jesus as an ideal, honorable male.
.

[H]uman beings live not in the For Providence has made Market-places Before
open air, like beasts, but man stronger and woman and council- anything else I
343

obviously
need
shelter. weaker, so that he in virtue halls and law- should speak
Nevertheless, those who mean of his manly prowess may courts
and about
the
to win store to fill the covered be more ready to defend the gatherings
occupations
place, have need of someone to home, and she, by reason of and meetings by which a
work
at
the
open-air her timid nature, more ready where a large household is
occupations; since plowing, to keep watch over it; and number
of maintained.
sowing, planting and grazing while he brings in fresh people
are They should
are
all
such
open-air supplies from without, she assembled,
be divided in
employments; and these supply may keep safe what lies and open-air the
usual
the needful food. Then again, within. In handicrafts again, life with full manner,
as soon as this is stored in the woman was given a scope
for namely, to the
covered place, then there is sedentary patience, though discussion
husband
need for someone to keep it denied
stamina
for and action -- should
be
and to work at the things that endurance of exposure; all these are assigned those
must be done under cover. while man, though inferior suitable
to which have to
Cover is needed for the nursing to
her
in
quiet men both in do
with
of the infants; cover is needed employments, is endowed war
and agriculture,
for the making of corn into with vigour for every active peace.
The commerce,
bread, and likewise for the occupation.
In
the women
are and the affairs
manufacture of clothing from production of children both best suited to of the city; to
the wool. And since both the share alike; but each makes the indoor life the wife those
indoor and the outdoor tasks a different contribution to which never which have to
demand labour and attention, their upbringing. It is the strays
from do
with
God from the first adapted the mother who nurtures, and the
house, spinning and
woman's nature, I think, to the the father who educates" within which the
indoor and man's to the (Aristotle, Oeconomica 1.3. the
middle preparation of
outdoor tasks and cares" 4 (1343b 30 - 1344a 9).
door is taken food, in short,
(Xenophon, Oeconomicus 7.19
by
the those of a
-22)
maidens
as domestic
their
nature
boundary, and (Hierocles, On
the outer door Duties
by those who (4:28.21).
have reached
full
womanhood
(Philo, Specia
l Laws3.169).

Works Consulted

344

Adkins, Arthur W.H.

1960 Merit and Responsibility. A Study in Greek Values. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press (Midway Reprint)

Anderson, Janice Carol

1982 "Matthew: Gender and Reading," Semeia 28: 3-27

Arnal, William E.
1977 "Gendered Couplets in Q and Legal Formulations: From Rhetoric to Social
History," JBL 116: 75-94

Balch, David L.
1981 Let Wives Be Submissive. The Domestic Code in 1 Peter. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press

Barton, Stephen C.
1994 Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press

Blok, Anton
1981 "Rams and Billy-Goats: A Key to the Mediterranean Code of Honor," Man 16: 427440. Reprinted pp. 51-70 in Eric Wolf (ed.), Religion, Power and Protest in Local
Communities. The Northern Shore of the Mediterranean. New York: Moulton Publishers,
1984

Brandes, Stanley
1980 Metaphors of Masculinity. Sex and Status in Andalusian Folklore. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press
345

Brod, Harry, ed.

1987 The Making of Masculinities. Boston: Allen and Unwin

Brown, Raymond E.
1993 The Birth of the Messiah. Rev. ed. New York: Doubleday

Cantarella, Eva
1987 Pandora's Daughters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press

Charlesworth, James H.
1992 The Messiah. Developments in earliest Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press

Chilton, Bruce
1994 "The Kingdom of God in Recent Discussion." Pp. 354-80 in Bruce Chilton and Craig
Evans, eds., Studying the Historical Jesus. Leiden: Brill

Connell, R. W.
1987 Gender and Power. Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Stanford: Stanford
University Press

Crossan, John Dominic

1991 The Historical Jesus. The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco:
Harper

346

D'Angelo, Mary Rose

1992a "Abba and 'Father': Imperial Theology and the Jesus Traditions," JBL 111: 611-30
1992b "Theology in Mark and Q: Abba and 'Father' in Context," HTR 85:149-74

Davis, John
1984 "The Sexual Division of Labour in the Mediterranean." Pp. 17-50 in Eric Wolf
(ed.), Religion, Power and Protest in Local Communities. The Northern Shore of the
Mediterranean. New York: Moulton Publishers

Dubish, Jill
1986 Gender and Power in Rural Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press

Duling, Dennis
1992 "Matthew's Plurisignificant 'Son of David' in Social Science Perspective: Kinship,
Kingship, Magic and Miracle," BTB 22: 99-116

Elhstain, Jean Bethke

1981 Public Man, Private Woman. Women in Social and Political Thought. Princeton:
Princeton University Press

Fantham, Elaine and Helene Foley, Natalie Kampen, Sarah Pomeroy and Alan Shapiro
1994 Women in the Classical World. Image and Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Fiensy, David A.

347

1991 The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period: The Land is Mine. Lewiston:
Edwin Mellen Press

Finley, M. I.
1983 Politics in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Gadd, C. J.
1948 Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient East. London: Oxford University Press

Garnsey, Peter
1970 Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press

Gilmore, David D.
1987 Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean Washington: American
Anthropological Association.
1990 Manhood in the Making. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press

Gilmore, Margaret and David D.

1979 "'Machismo': A Psychodynamic Approach (Spain)," Journal of Psychological
Anthropology 2:281-300

Gleason, Maud
1995 Making Men. Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton: Princeton
University Press

348

Hadley, D. M., ed.

1999 Masculinity in Medieval Europe. New York: Longman

Hanson, K. C. and Douglas E. Oakman

1998 Palestine in the Time of Jesus. Social Structures and Social Conflicts. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press

Herzfeld, Michael
1985 The Poetics of Manhood: Contest and Identity in a Cretan Mountain Village.
Princeton: Princeton University Press

Hoffner, Harry A.
1966 "Symbols for Masculinity and Femininity. Their Use in Ancient Near Eastern
Sympathetic Magic Rituals," JBL 85: 326-34

Horsley, Richard A. and John S. Hanson

1985 Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus.
Minneapolis: Winston

Kramer, Laura, ed.

1991 The Sociology of Gender. A Text Reader. New York: St. Martin's Press

Kueffler, Mathew
2001 The Manly Eunuch. Masculinity, Gender Ambiguity, and Christian Ideology in Late
Antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

349

Lenski, Gerhard, E.
1966 Power and Privilege. A Theory of Social Stratification. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press

Lorber, Judith and Susan A. Farrell, eds.

1991 The Social Construction of Gender. London: Sage Publications

Malina, Bruce J.
1986 "'Religion' in the World of Paul," BTB 16: 92-101
2001a The Social Gospel of Jesus. The Kingdom of God in Mediterranean
Perspective Minneapolis: Fortress Press
2001b The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology 3rd ed. Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox Press

Malina, Bruce J. and Jerome H. Neyrey

1988 Calling Jesus Names. The Social Value of Labels in Matthew. Sonoma, CA:
Polebridge Press
1996 Portraits of Paul. An Archeology of Ancient Personality. Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox Press

Malina, Bruce J. and Richard L. Rohrbaugh

1992 Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress Press

Moxnes, Halvor
1988a "Honour and Righteousness in Romans," JSNT 32: 61-77
1988b "Honor, Shame and the Outside World in Paul's Letter to the Romans." Pp 207-18 in
350

Jacob Neusner (ed.), The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press

Neyrey, Jerome H.
1994 "'What's Wrong with This Picture?' John 4, Cultural Stereotypes of Women, and
Public and Private Space," BTB 24: 77-91
1996 "Luke's Social Location of Paul: Cultural Anthropology and the Status of Paul in
Acts."
Pp. 251-79 in Ben Witherington, III, ed., History, Literature, and Society in the Book of
Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
1998a "Questions, Chreiai, and Challenges to Honor. The Interface of Rhetoric and Culture
in
Mark's Gospel," CBQ 60:657-81
1998b Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John
Knox Press

Ortner, Sherry, and Harriet Whitehead, eds.

1981 Sexual Meanings: The Cultural Construction of Gender and Sexuality. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press

Peristiani, J.G., ed.

1966 Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Pitt-Rivers, Julian
1968 "Honor." IESS 6.503-11
1977 The Fate of Shechem or The Politics of Sex: Essays in the Anthropology of the
Mediterranean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
351

Pomeroy, Sarah B.
1994 Xenophon: Oeconomicus. A Social and Historial Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon
Press

Robinson, James M.
1957 The Problem of History in Mark. London: SCM Press

Rohrbaugh, Richard L.
1984 "Methodological Considerations in the Debate over the Social Class Status of Early
Christians," JAAR 52: 519-46
1993 "The Social Location of the Marcan Audience," BTB 23: 114-27
1995 "Legitimating Sonship -- A Test of Honour. A Social-Scientific Study of Luke 4:1-30."
Pp. 183-197 in Philip F. Esler, ed., Modelling Early Christianity. Social-Scientific Studies
of the New Testament in Its Context. London: Routledge

Saldarini, Anthony J.
1988 Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society. A Sociological Approach.
Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier

Satlow, Michael L.
1996 "'Try to Be a Man': Rabbinic Construction of Masculinity," HTR 89:19-40

Wainwright, Elaine Mary

1991 Towards a Feminist Critical Reading of the Gospel according to Matthew. Berlin: de
Gruyter

352

Winkler, John J. and Froma Zeitlin, eds.,

1990 Before Sexuality. The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World.
Princeton: Princeton University Press

Winter, Bruce W.
1988 "The Public Honouring of Christian Benefactors. Romans 13.3-4 and 1 Peter 2.1415," JSNT 34:87-103

Honoring the Dishonored:

The Cultural Edge of Jesus' Beatitudes
Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J.
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN 46556

Introduction: Focus and Hypothesis

This study of "poor" and "poverty" brings to the discussion a cultural and social
element. Stated most baldly, "poor" implies not simply scant economic resources,
that is, little land or money, but has a decidedly cultural component as well. Most
people in antiquity would qualify as "poor" according to economic standards. But
the ancients did not automatically classify the economically deprived as "poor."
If peasants had what sufficed, Plutarch did not call them "poor": "In what
suffices, no one is poor" (On Love of Wealth 523F). Seneca echoed this:
Let us return to the law of nature; for then riches are laid up for us. The things
which we actually need are free for all, or else cheap; nature craves only bread
and water. No one is poor according to this standard; when a man has limited his

353

desires within these bounds, he can challenge the happiness of Jove himself (Ep.
Mor. 25.4).
Peasants or artisans with little of this world's goods have what is deemed
"sufficient," and so are not called "poor."(1)
Let us distinguish two Greek terms, pens and ptchos. Dictionaries
translate pens as "the poor man" (e.g., BAGD 642), which misses the root
meaning penomai, "to work hard." Pens refers to a person who does manual
labor, and so is contrasted with plousios, a member of the landed class who
does not work (Hauck 1967b: 887). At stake is the social status or honor rating of
a "worker"; Gildas Hamel writes of the pens:
[H]e (the worker) was forced to work to live and had to receive some form of
wage and to sell, the craftsman was dependent on others' goodwill. In this
respect, he was similar to servants and slaves, free but fettered by various
customs. . .This lack of time and self-sufficiency, some philosophers argued,
made the craftsman unfit to be a citizen, at least an honorable one. One had to be
rich to avoid the ties of dependence usually associated with work and be able to
live like a true Hellene. Work, because it meant subservience and dependence,
was seen as an impediment to this ideal and was therefore contemptible. .
.The pentes were all those people who needed to work in shops or in the fields
and were consequently without the leisure characteristic of the rich gentry, who
were free to give their time to politics, education, and war (168-69; see Hands
62).
A ptchos, however, is a person reduced to begging, that is, someone who is
destitute of all resources (Hauck 1967b: 886-87; Hands 62-63). One gives alms
to a ptchos. A pens, who has little wealth yet has "sufficiency," is not called
"poor." In contrast, the ptchos, who lacks sufficiency and most other things,
such as social standing, is "poor" (see Aristophanes, Plutus 535-54).
Of the destitute poor person (ptchos) Hamel remarks:
The ptchos was someone who had lost many or all of his family and social ties.
He often was a wanderer, therefore a foreigner for others, unable to tax for any
length of time the resources of a group to which he could contribute very little or
nothing at all (Hamel 170).
If "poor" and "poverty" are not simply (or primarily) defined in economic terms,
let us ask about the cultural and social meaning of these labels in antiquity. My

354

hypothesis about the relationship of a "poor person" (ptchos) to the value of

honor/shame may be stated:
(1) Honor and shame are closely related to wealth and loss of wealth respectively.
(2) In antiquity, wealth and honor were not individual possessions such as we see
in the personal fortune of John D. Rockefeller, but the property of the family or
kinship group. When a family lost wealth, its status and honor were threatened.
(3) Although most people had meager possessions and low status, there were
families or kinship groups who could no longer maintain their inherited status in
regard to marriage contracts, dowries, land tenure, and the like. Loss of wealth
translated into lower status, which meant loss of honor (Hobbs 293).
Let us briefly examine the values of honor and shame and explore how wealth is
linked with honor, while loss of it could be linked with shame.
I. What is Honor?
In this context, I will presume that many of us know a good deal about "honor" in
antiquity. I presume on this, so we may spend appropriate time on the biblical
text. Nevertheless. Honour is the value of a person in his own eyes, but also in
the eyes of his society. It is his estimation of his own worth, his claim to pride,
but it is also the acknowledgement of that claim, his excellence recognized by
society, his right to pride (Pitt-Rivers 1).
"Honor," then, has to do with one's public standing; as a public phenomenon it
entails a public claim to worth and acknowledgement of it. Although one can
acquire honor, normally honor is attached to social groups, especially families.
All members of a certain clan, tribe or extended family share in its collective
honor. In discussing the relevant aspects of honor which constitute the
background for the makarisms in the Q tradition, we will focus on three aspects:
(a) honor and wealth, (b) honor and the family, and (c) loss of honor and loss of
wealth.
A. Honor and Wealth. Honor is not honor unless publicly claimed, displayed and
acknowledged. Honor is displayed by the clothing worn in public, which signals
status and wealth.(2) Josephus' account of Haman illustrates the importance of
public display of wealth and clothing and honor.
If you wish to cover with glory the man whom you say you love, let him rise on
horseback wearing the same dress as yourself, with a necklace of gold, and let
355

one of your close friends precede him and proclaim throughout the whole city
that this is the honour shown to him whom the king honours (Ant. 11.254; see
Philo, Jos. 120).
Everyone in the city could see the symbols of honor: gold necklace, elegant
clothing, and proud mount. The renewed honor of the prodigal son is symbolized
by the clothing his father allows him to wear: "Bring the best robe. . .a ring on his
finger and shoes on his feet" (Luke 15:22). (3)
Besides clothing, elites claimed honor through the display of their table setting
and the manner in which they dined. Plutarch comments on the ostentation of
meals among his contemporaries, as well as the need for an adoring public to turn
mere possessions into honor:
With no one to look on, wealth becomes sightless indeed and bereft of radiance.
For when the rich man dines with his wife or intimates he lets his tables of citruswood and golden beakers rest in peace and uses common furnishings, and his
wife attends it without her gold and purple and dressed in plain attire. But when a
banquet -- that is, a spectacle and a show -- is got up and the drama of wealth
brought on, "out of the ships he fetches the urns and tripods," (Il. 23.259) the
repositories of the lamps are given no rest, the cups are changed, the cup-bearers
are made to put on new attire, nothing is left undisturbed, gold, silver, or jewelled
plate, the owners thus confessing that their wealth is for others (Plutarch, On
Love of Wealth 528B; see Table-Talk 679B).
Wedding feasts, for example, were excellent times for families to put on a public
display of whatever wealth they had, i.e., clothing, coverlets, eating utensils,
music, food, etc. Insufficiency of wine at a wedding feast would bring
incalculable shame on a family (John 2:1-11).
Historians of the ancient economy remind our industrial world that "wealth" in
antiquity resided in land. Apropos of this, Carney writes: "...basically land, not
capital, was of critical importance in antiquity. The vast bulk of production was
agricultural. Technology was simple, and apart from slaves (used mainly in
conjunction with land), inexpensive. So power and wealth went with possession
of land" (Carney 181). He continues, "It was land, not capital, that produced
resources in antiquity" (Carney 182). Obviously great wealth resided in the hands
of aristocrats with vast land holdings, but peasants with small plots of land also
enjoyed some "wealth" because of their land. Thus honor is related to wealth
which is displayed; it is based on land holdings, which constitute the basis for
wealth in antiquity; yet honor is a family affair, such that all members shared in
the collective standing of the kinship group.
356

B. Honor and Family. In antiquity one is primarily known as the "son of so-andso" or the "daughter of so-and-so." One's identity and honor derive in large part
from membership in a family or clan (Malina-Neyrey 1991b: 74-76). The rules
for encomia in the progymnasmata mandate that when praising or honoring
someone, writers begin their praise with mention of the ancestors and family of
the honoree.(4)Rules in the progymnasmata simply codify the popular
appreciation of family honor. A relevant passage from Aristotle on the outline
summarizes these expectations about birth and family honor.
Now good birth in a race or a state means that its members are indigenous or
ancient; that its earliest leaders were distinguished men, and that from them have
sprung many who were distinguished for qualities that we admire. The good birth
of an individual, which may come either from the male or the female side,
implies that both parents are free citizens, and that, as in the case of the state, the
founders of the line have been notable for virtue or wealth or something else
which is highly prized, and that many distinguished persons belong to the family,
men and women, young and old (Rhet. 1360b 31-38).
To know a person, ancient peoples thought it essential to know that person's
blood lines (see also Cicero, De Inventione I.xxiv.34-35; Quintilian, Inst. Orat.
III.vii.10-11; V.x.24-25; Pelling 213-44). Hence notice of someone's genealogy,
ancestors, clan and parents constituted essential pieces of information about him
(Malina 1993a: 28-54; Malina and Neyrey 1991a: 25-65).
Peasants in villages have living memory of the families with whom they live.
They know which family has "wealth" relative to the village (size of land
holdings, crop yields, size of flocks, etc.). They know the reputations of other
families, their noble deeds, their chaste women, or their shameful ancestors.
Since arranged marriages, which are family affairs, are contracted with social
equals or betters, villagers are very careful to assess the wealth, worth and honor
of a family with whom a marriage is contemplated.
C. Poverty and Loss of Honor. If honor is symbolized by family and wealth,
especially land, loss of honor can be symbolized by loss of family, land, and
wealth. The ancients distinguished between the deserving poor, whom one should
help, and the undeserving poor, who deserve their situation. This is clearest in the
distinction made between those who suffer "misfortune" and those who are poor
because of their own fault. Aristotle called it virtuous for a man "to give to the
right people, the right amounts, and at the right time" (N.E. 1120a 25). The
virtuous person will "refrain from giving to anybody and everybody, that he may
have something to give to the right people, at the right time" (N.E. 1120b 3-4).
He does not specify exactly who the "right" and "wrong" people are, but indicates
357

that some should be poor (1121b 6). Cicero offers a similar distinction
concerning those whom one should help:
The case of the man who is overwhelmed by misfortune is different from that of
the one who is seeking to better his condition, though he suffers from no actual
distress. It will be the duty of charity to incline more to the unfortunate, unless,
perchance, they deserve their misfortune (De Off. 2.18.61-62).
Those who experience "misfortune" suffer undeservedly and so warrant
assistance. What then is a legitimate "misfortune"? In praising generosity, Cicero
hints at a class of "misfortunes" in others, for the alleviation of which a man
might prove generous:
The generous, on the other hand, are those who employ their own means to
ransom captives from brigands, or who assume their friends' debts or help in
providing dowries for their daughters, or assist them in acquiring property or
increasing what they have (De Officiis 2.16.55-56).
Put simply, some people experience misfortune through no fault of their own;
they fall below the social level into which they were born, thus provoking
sympathy and not contempt.(5) Conversely, the ancients deem others as
shamefully "poor" because the fault is their own. Philo mentions a series of
things that wither the spirit, all of which have to do with the family and which
have a social as well as an economic component: "It is true that marriage, and the
rearing of children, and provision of necessities, and disrepute following in the
wake of poverty (adoxia te meta achrmatias), and the business of private and
public life. . .wither the flower of wisdom before it blooms" (Gig. 29). While it is
no fault of a wife that her husband died or of a farmer that drought ruined his
crops, if a "fool" loses his wealth, it is shameful (Matthews and Benjamin 22226).
Therefore, we have learned that (1) wealth is a component of honor, and both
reside primarily in the family; (2) if becoming "poor" (ptchos) includes a
corresponding loss of status, this could come about through actual loss of wealth
(especially loss of land) or of family (especially death of parents or husband); (3)
such losses threaten one's honor rating, as well as one's economic situation. It
would, then, be culturally myopic to consider "poor" and "poverty" merely in
terms of economic levels (Hollenbach 50-63).
II. Honor and the Matthean Makarisms

358

K.C. Hanson recently presented a paper entitled "'Makarisms' and 'Reproaches':

A Social Analysis."(6) He argues that 'asr and makarios should be translated as
"esteemed," and hy and ouai as "disreputable" or "shame on."
The terminologies of Hebrew 'asr ("esteemed") and hy ("disreputable"), and
their Greek counterparts makarios and ouai, are part of the word field of "honor
and shame."
Hanson suggests that when we approach Matthew's "beatitudes" (5:3-12) from
their proper cultural perspective, we should be alert to several things. First,
public honor is being accorded to certain people who fit the categories
described. Makarios should include the cultural note of "esteemed" or "honored."
Second, if "poor" means someone who cannot maintain his or her status and so
suffers loss of honor as well as economic hardship, then the makarisms contain
an oxymoron: "How honorable are those who suffer a loss of honor. . ."
III. Loss of Family = Loss of Wealth and Honor -- The Original Four Makarisms
This study of the four original makarisms builds on but challenges certain
scholarly opinions. First, we build on the consensus that the original Q source
contained only four original makarisms and that Luke's version seems to be the
more original (Degenhardt 45-53; Schrmann 339-41). We do not, however,
direct our attention to the history of the makarisms, whether they originated
separately before being gathered together in the Q tradition (see Kloppenborg
1986:36-44; Mealand 62; Horsley 1991:194). Rather we wish to consider their
cultural meaning and to suggest a plausible social and historical situation to
explain them. In this we question the assertion that the first three makarisms deal
with "the general human conditions of poverty and suffering" and the fourth
makarism "is oriented toward the specific situation of persecution of the
Christian community" (Kloppenborg 1987: 173). Thus, in terms of the Q
document, we resist separating the fourth makarism from the other three,
whatever their previous independent histories.
The four original makarisms describe someone who has lost both material wealth
(poor, hungry), as well as social standing (loss of kin, ostracism). But do they
describe four different situations (Kloppenborg's "general human conditions") or
delineate the full extent of the crisis of one person? If they describe the full
extent of one crisis (Boring 24), what likely scenario explains that? Evidently, in
posing the question this way, I am advancing a new hypothesis, namely, that the
original four makarisms describe the composite fate of a disciple who has been
ostracized as a "rebellious son" by his family for loyalty to Jesus. This ostracism
entails total loss of all economic support from the family (food, clothing, shelter),
359

as well as total loss of honor and status in the eyes of the village (a good name,
marriage prospects, etc.). Such persons would be "shameful" in the eyes of the
family and village, but Jesus proclaims them "honorable" (makarioi).
A. The Fourth Makarism. Let us begin our examination with a closer look at the
climactic fourth makarism. It enjoys the significant rhetorical position of being
last (Daube 196-201) and it is triple the length of the others. It describes a total
loss of honor. Matthew and Luke record different versions of the fourth
makarism, but scholars generally credit Luke with the more original wording in
this case.
Luke 6:22
Honorable are you when men
hate you

Matt 5:11
Honorable are you when men
revile you

exclude you

drive you out

revile you
cast out your name as evil
on account of the Son of man

utter all kinds of evil against you falsely

on my account

According to Luke, some person is being shamefully treated; "persecuted" is

infelicitous here because it is too vague and imprecise, nor does it adequately
suggest either the source of the opposition or its socio-cultural result. But let us
examine more closely the terms Luke uses with an eye to their cultural meanings.
This hostility, moreover, is not the formal or informal excommunication from the
synagogue (Schrmann 333).
- misssin: "hate," the opposite of love, has to do with group attachment (Pilch
and Malina 110-12); it means formal rejection and denial of loyalty (see Luke
1:71; 16:13; 19:14); sometimes it is considered virtuous to hate what is evil or
disobedient (Michel 688-89).
- aphorissin: "separating" regularly takes place between what is holy and what is
unclean: unclean lepers were cast out of the camp (Lev 13:4 LXX), as was
Miriam for her revolt (Num 12;14). 2 Ezra 10:8 suggests the meaning of "falling
under the ban" (Schmidt 455). In Matthew it means "separating" so as to judge or

360

punish (13:49; 25:32); it has the sense of "to outlaw" from a social group
(Fitzmyer 635).
- oneidissin: reviling and reproaching are acts of shaming another (Matt 11:20;
27:44; Rom 15:3; 1 Peter 4:14); the predominant sense is "'disgrace,' 'shame,'
'scandal,' then 'abuse,' 'objurgation'" (Schneider 238).
- ekbalsin to onoma hymn hs ponron: although it has been argued that "the
name" here is "Christianos" (Fitzmyer 635), a man's personal name or reputation
is at stake; Luke speaks of someone speaking calumny, that is, of attacking the
public reputation and honor of another.
The fourth makarism describes the separation of a person from his basic social
group, either banning or expulsion; it speaks of his being reviled and reproached;
his honor, name and reputation are attacked. He is, thus, completely shamed in
the eyes of his neighbors.
The material or economic effects of this are not hard to imagine. The Tosefta
describes the plight of someone banned or excommunicated:
One does not sell to them or receive from them or take from them or give to
them. One does not teach their sons a trade, and does not obtain healing from
them (t. Hullin 2:20).
If the person so treated is an artisan, then public reproach will result in loss of
employment and trade; if a peasant farmer, the loss of cooperation in planting and
harvesting, a break in marriage contracts, an absence from the reciprocal feasts
among villagers at weddings and the like. Such losses entail declining material
wealth for a peasant and consequent failure to maintain one's subsistence and
previous social standing.
In the case of the fourth makarism, public shame goes hand in hand with severe
loss of wealth, the person described there is "driven out" (dixsin) or
"outlawed" (aphorissin). This implies that he has lost his property: land (if he is
a farmer) or market stall (if he is an artisan). Total economic ruin, as well as
corresponding collapse of social standing, quickly follow. This person will surely
be a ptchos, but is he honorably or shamefully destitute? Whence this hostility?
Previous studies of the "forms of persecution" which befell the early disciples of
Jesus focussed on formal judicial acts (Hare, Forkman). They describe
"persecution" as a form of exclusion from the synagogue, not, however, the
formal niddui, but rather "an informal ban employed by every community. .
361

.toward individuals it despises" (Hare 53). Although the NT speaks of disciples

"cast out of the synagogue" (John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2) or simply "expelled" (John
9:34; Hauck 527-28), there is another possibility for banning or exclusion,
namely, family sanctions against rebellious sons. I suggest that a likely scenario
for the fourth makarism is the situation of a son being disinherited by his father
and shunned by his family.
And while "itinerancy" may be the role of certain Cynic-like disciples (Theissen
1973; Mack 1993:114-21), fresh discussions are emerging from Q scholars about
stable communities (Theissen 1977:17-23; Horsley 1989:197). Not every person
ostracized by family necessarily became an itinerant, much less assumed that
formal missionary role.
B. The Other Three Makarisms. Let us examine the other three makarisms in the
light of the fourth one, for they can be understood as specifying more exactly the
economic or material loss that follows the loss of honor and social standing (see
Robbins 39-44 and 51-54). My strategy is to imagine them as literally and
realistically as possible in the economic and cultural world of peasants and
artisans.
As regards the first makarism, most peasants and artisans in antiquity possessed
little material wealth; and as we say, they were not thereby called "poor"
(ptchos) if they had what was sufficient (i.e., subsistence). Ulrich Luz describes
a "poor" person as one who is not simply lacking in wealth:
"Poor," according to Semitic usage, means indeed not only those who are lacking
in money, but, more comprehensively, the oppressed, miserable, dependent,
humiliated . . . the translation by the Greek wordptchos, the strongest available
Greek word for social poverty, speaks in favor of this interpretation. The basic
rule is: The pens has to work, the ptchos has to beg (Luz 231).
In the first makarism, those addressed are called ptchoi, which we take to refer
to destitute beggars, not pens or the general peasant audience of have-nots. I
favor, moreover, understanding this reference toptchos as a general statement
concerning persons who have suffered a recent and severe loss of means (Guelich
1976:426); more specificity is given in the subsequent makarisms.
Those who "mourn" might be said to be engaged in mourning for the dead (see
Gen 50:3; 1 Esdras 1:32; 1 Macc 12:52; 13:26); they are not lamenting sins or
awaiting the eschatological day (Schrmann 331); they will be
"consoled."(7) Since we find the combination of "mourning" for the dead and
"comfort" in ancient literature, the mourning envisioned here most probably
362

involves the loss of family and kin. The text gives no reason for supposing that
the "mourners" are the ubiquitous widows and orphans of antiquity (on life
expectancy in antiquity, see Carney 88). Nevertheless, someone lacks parents,
family and kin, with all the economic and social loss attendant upon this.
Finally, the literal and simple meaning of "hunger" as lacking food seems
warranted. Drought and famine may cause hunger in the land (Josephus, Ant.
15.299-316; 20.51-53; Acts 11:28; Garnsey 219-23), as well as excessive taxation
(Kloppenborg 1991:86-88). While landed peasants have resources and
relationships to alleviate starvation, not so landless peasants. They have scant
money with which to purchase food; even if they had, the money could hardly
last for long. These "hungry" folk are promised that they will "eat their fill," but
at present they are ptchoi in regard to their daily bread (Hamel 8-52 and
Oakman 22-28).
C. The Relationship of the Fourth and the Other Makarisms. The final makarism
offers a plausible scenario for understanding the other three. If a son were banned
or disinherited by his father, he would be "hated" by the family and "outlawed"
from the family house and land. He would then truly be "poor" (ptchos), that is,
suffering a severe loss of all resources, material as well as social. He could truly
be said to be "mourning" the loss of kin and experiencing the loss of status that
comes with being without family. Finally, if a son were driven away from the
family land, he would immediately experience the loss of access to the grain,
vegetables, fruits, etc. which were the daily food of peasants; no doubt he would
literally be "hungry and thirsty." The ostracism described in the last makarism,
therefore, describes a situation where sufficiency and subsistence fail.
Furthermore, each of the four makarisms, either individually or taken together,
genuinely describe a ptchos, someone who has suffered a loss of subsistence
and so cannot maintain the social position and status into which he was born.
Moreover, this peasant would suffer a true and total loss of honor and status. His
name would be reviled, his name and reputation held up to rebuke, and his
character calumniated. Business deals and marriage arrangements with such an
outcast would be unthinkable. With loss of wealth, he would hardly be in a
position to maintain his social obligations and social status. This loss of honor, I
suggest, would deprive him of all standing in the village or town. He would be
looked on by his neighbors as a person reaping a harvest of shame. This possible
scenario is by no means the only one. What would make it probable? IV. Loss of
Family in the Q Source
Several passages in the Q source support the probability of the scenario described
above. Two describe family crises (Luke 12:51-53//Matt 10:34-36 and Luke
363

14:25-26//Matt 10:37-39) and two deal with loss of wealth (Luke 12:22-32//Matt
6:25-32 and Luke 12:33-34//Matt 6:19-21). Three of these passages are found in
one continuous discourse in Luke 12; and if the general presumption of the
originality of the Lukan sequence prevails here, then the materials on family
crisis were originally linked with those about loss of wealth. The loss of family
could be the probable context for loss of wealth and thus of honor.
A. Crisis in the Family. One passage records Jesus attacking the social debt of
obedience owed by sons to their fathers and family (Luke 12:51-53//Matt 10:3436).
Luke 12:51-53
Matt 10:34-36
Do you think that I have come to give peace on Do not think that I have come to bring
earth? No, I tell you, but rather division;
peace on earth; I not come to bring
peace, but a sword.
henceforth in one house there shall be five
divided, three against two and two against three;
they will be divided, father against son, and son I have come to set
against father, mother against daughter and
daughter against her mother,
a man against his father,
mother-in-law against daughter-in-law
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

and and a daughter against her mother,

and a daughter-in-law
mother-in-law

against

her

and a man's foes will be those of his

own household.

Despite other sayings of Jesus in support of family (Mark 7:9-12; see Pilch 1988:
32-59), he is attacking here the basic solidarity and loyalty family members owe
to each other. This passage implies that the division of the family occurs
precisely because of Jesus ("I have come to. . ."); it envisions some members
loyal to family traditions but others joining the circle of Jesus and espousing his
teachings.
Linked with this is a second passage (Luke 14:25-27//Matt 10:37-39) which also
has to do with family loyalty. It presents a totally divided household:
364

Luke 14:26-27
Matt 10:37-38
He who loves father or mother If anyone come to me and does not hate his own father
more than me is not worthy of me; and mother and wife and children and brothers and
and who loves son
sisters, yes, and even his own life,
or daughter more than me
he cannot be my disciple.

is not worthy of me.

And he who does not take up his Whoever does not bear his own cross and
cross and
come after me
follow me

cannot be my disciple
is not worthy of me.

Matthew's version emphasizes "love X more than me"; this connotes a posture of
respect for or acceptance of the approval of another, which is the essence of
honor. Who "loves X more than me" is "not worthy" of me, another term of
honor. Luke's account stresses "hating" parents and family members, which
translates into disregard for filial obligations of obedience and respect (see Luke
9:59-60//Matt 8:21-22). This son would hardly be "honoring father and mother."
Who does not hate the family group (with its social standing, land and wealth)
cannot find affiliation, status and respect in Jesus' group. Again the issue focusses
on the source of honor, either from family or Jesus. Loyalty either to family or to
Jesus occasions the choice.
Both versions contain an exhortation to "take up one's 'cross'" and become a
member of Jesus' fictive-kinship group. The "cross" must surely be a metaphor
for negative experiences, possibly physical sufferings (begging, hunger) and/or
social ones (loss of family, shame). These sufferings are not the result of taxation,
365

drought or some other "misfortune," but precisely the results of becoming Jesus'
disciple. There would be, then, shame from the family, but honor from Jesus.
It takes little imagination to see how "hatred" of one's family would lead to a
"cross." Disobedience to one's parents, a paramount virtue sanctioned by custom
and law, can easily lead to social and economic ruin. A rebellious son should be
banned by the family (Deut 21:18-20). If banned, he will surely take up a "cross"
to be Jesus' disciple, namely, suffering as physical (hunger) as it is social
(mourning, begging, being an outcast). The crux of the crisis lies in honor and
loyalty, either traditional loyalty to parents and family with its concomitant
honor, wealth and status or affiliation with Jesus. Loss and gain: loyalty to Jesus
entails loss of honor in the family and kinship network, because the honor code
between father and son is violated, but also a gain of honor, because Jesus honors
those loyal to him (makarioi) and acclaims them "worthy."
Although these passages do not say that the father eventually bans the rebellious
son and disinherits him or that the son quits his father's house, yet they offer an
immediate and plausible scenario for the ostracism described in the fourth
makarism. If any form of banning or disinheriting results from a son's loyalty to
Jesus, then he will truly be "poor," as well as hungry and mourning.
B. Other Remarks on Loss of Wealth. Two other passages need to be examined
(Luke 12:22-32//Matt 5:24-34 and Luke 12:33-34//Matt 6:19-21), the correct
social interpretation of which can shed light on the economic and cultural effects
of families being divided over loyalty to Jesus. In the Lukan and Matthean
versions, both passages are linked together, an editorial clue which we respect.
Luke 12:22-32//Matt 6:25-34 (6:25-34) explicitly treats loss of wealth and its
relationship to honor. The passage begins with a topic statement:
DO NOT BE CONCERNED ABOUT:
what to eat
what to wear (Luke 12:22//Matt 6:25).
The scenario envisioned here reflects the gender division of society common in
antiquity: a male world (public tasks in public places) and a female world
(private or household tasks in the household). The person "concerned about what
to eat" is a male, whom I call the husband. When he looks at the birds of the air,
he "sees" fields, which in the gender-divided world of antiquity were the male
places where males did the male task of farming. Birds, however, do not perform
366

the tasks typically done by males, i.e., "sowing, reaping, gathering into barns or
storehouses" (Luke 12:24//Matt 6:26). Yet God gives them subsistence food. The
issue is food production, the proper concern of a male peasant.
Alternately a female scenario is imagined. The female in the family is concerned
about "what to wear," i.e., "clothing," which was produced by females in the
household.(8) This female is presumably the wife of the male addressed above, so
that the basic male and female tasks (farming/clothing) are in view, which are the
primary tasks of a peasant household. A basic family unit is envisioned which is
typically divided into the characteristic gender-specific tasks -- males: food
production and females: clothing production. When this female looks at the fields
with a gender-specific eye, she sees stuff for weaving. The lilies "neither spin,
nor toil," yet they are more gorgeous than the royal robes woven by Solomon's
harem.
Beyond this gender-specific reading, the exhortation treats the loss of wealth, that
is, insufficiency of food and clothing; peasant subsistence in these two basic
areas is failing. The text does not say why, but the options are limited. Drought,
which produces famine for humans and lack of fodder for wool-bearing sheep.
Or excessive taxation, which leads to peasant indebtedness, which when
foreclosed results in lost of land. Or family conflict, such that a son (and his
wife) were disinherited, "driven away" from the family farm, and set adrift
without land or animals. Which option seems appropriate? Since the exhortation
is addressed to disciples (mathtas, Luke 12:22), loss of wealth is formally
related to issues of group loyalty, and not to "general human conditions."
The passage, moreover, links wealth with honor and status. At the very
beginning, the topic is announced with an imperative (m merimnate). As part of
the topic, a value statement is made that the "soul" is more valuable (pleion) than
food, and the "body" more important than clothing. The comparative
term pleion relates to the world of worth: whether it has a quantitative or
qualitative note, pleion ranks one thing above another, thus giving respect and
honor to it. After the male is told to look at the birds, he is asked (Matt) or told
(Luke) that he is "of more value" than them, another term connoting honorable
status. Rhetorically this repeats the earlier value question, and explicitly bestows
honor to the man who lacks food (and land). A male is worth more than mere
birds. Likewise with the female; after she looks at the lilies of the field, she is
told that a paternal figure values her more than them, and so is promised honor
and respect (on the relationship of clothing to honor, see Neyrey 1993: 20-22,
120-22).

367

What may we say about this passage? The husband and wife are peasants who
are falling below the subsistence level in regard to food and clothing. Nothing in
the passage explicitly states that loss of land, especially family land, is at stake.
But something is missing from the horizon: there is no family, no household, and
no kinship network to catch them as they fall. In fact, the addressees are told to
turn to a heavenly paternal figure, rather than to the obvious kinship network
(Luke 12:30; Matt 6:26, 32). Of course, the family may have all died out; but
then the son should have inherited his father's land.
Nevertheless, the loss of wealth by this husband and wife entails a concomitant
loss of honor and social standing, for a major element in the exhortation has to do
with "worth" and "value," i.e., honor. Therefore, this husband and wife are truly
becoming "poor" in the eyes of the rest of the peasants, thus losing familial honor
but gaining worthiness and respect in Jesus' and God's eyes.
Family banning or disinheritance of a rebellious son would account for the loss
of subsistence envisioned here, as well as the loss of honor attendant on such an
economic catastrophe. This option becomes plausible and probable when we
recall that this passage in Luke 12 is linked directly with other remarks about
family conflict. We presume that Luke retains the correct sequence of the original
Q source:
"do not be anxious about your life..." (12:22-32)
"treasure in heaven..." (12:33-34)
"a house divided..." (12:51-53).
This Lukan collection concerns itself with disinheritance (12:13) and
covetousness (12:15), the former directly dealing with family conflict. The
original source, then, saw a connection between loss of wealth, family conflict,
and discipleship. It envisions a scenario which would make a person needy of
food and clothing as described in 12:22-32, namely, loss of family through
disinheritance or banning.
In an adjoining passage (Luke 12:33-34//Matt 6:19-21) disciples are instructed
about "treasure." Like the previous passage, it begins with a command from
Jesus: "Sell your possessions and give alms" (Luke 12:33) or "Do not lay up
treasure on earth" (Matt 6:19). Since Luke regularly exhorts disciples to give
alms (Luke 11:41; Acts 3:2-6; 9:36; 10:2, 4, 31) Matthew contains the more
original wording here. The imperative in Matt 6:19 ("do not lay up treasure") is

368

formally parallel in structure to that in Matt 6:25 and Luke 12:22 ("do not be
anxious").
Jesus' remarks about "treasure" are clearly hyperbolic, for subsistence peasants
simply do not have "treasure," especially in this period of ruinous taxation.
Peasants could have an ox (for plowing), some sheep (for wool/clothing), some
goats (for milk), and some fruit trees and vines (for food). But this is hardly
"treasure." The moth threatens the few blankets and garments the peasant has (on
the cost and scarcity of clothing, see Hamel 64-67) and corruption (brsis) rots
wood (house or wooden plow) and corrodes metal (an iron plow?). Thieves
(kleptai) abound in Galilee in this period, whose prime targets would be villages
unprotected by walls (on widespread banditry, see Horsley and Hanson 48-87).
However meager his wealth, it is a peasant's "treasure" and the key indicator of
his status and honor in the village. Jesus' remark, moreover, tells the peasant not
to value what all his family and neighbors value, but rather to value something
else superior to "treasure on earth." At a minimum, Jesus attacks peasant
covetousness (Luke 12:15 and Delling 266-70) and the honor attached to wealth.
Nothing explicit is said about loss of wealth here, except that moth, corruption
and thieves cause loss. But we remember that wealth and honor reside in the
family, not the individual. Hence a family's collective honor is in view.
From the discussion in this section, one clear theme emerges. The Q document
contains a number of statements which attack family unity and loyalty. These
statements, moreover, are often linked with remarks on loss of wealth and honor.
Thus crisis within the family emerges as a probable cause of the disinheritance,
banning or excommunication envisioned in the fourth makarism. Such a radical
action by a family against a disobedient or rebellious son would surely entail
immediate, severe economic and social loss.
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND FURTHER CONVERSATION
A. Summary. To the extent that the early part of this study was successful, we
have shown that being "poor" (i.e., ptchos) contains a social and cultural
component as well as an economic one. Clearly "wealth" is a component of
"honor"; and the loss of wealth entails a corresponding threat of loss of honor.
When a man moves from being pens to ptchos, he loses the resources to
maintain his social status or honor rating. This loss of honor is more serious to
ancient peasants than the mere loss of wealth.
The scenario or Sitz im Leben envisioned by the makarisms in Q has to do with
both loss of honor (makarios = "honorable") as well as loss of wealth. But the
369

question remains: why did a person suffer loss of wealth according to the
makarisms? My hypothesis has been that a son and his wife are envisioned as
banned or disinherited by a father and family, and so they suffer both loss of
wealth and honor.
(1) The four makarisms are addressed to disciples, not the crowds. As such they
do not speak of "the general human conditions of poverty and suffering"
applicable to the crowds or the generic "anxiety about the basic necessities"
(Horsley 1991:194), but of specific consequences of discipleship.
(2) The four makarisms, whatever their tradition history, are joined by the time of
the Q document, and should be taken as a unit, as a comprehensive statement
about the economic and social situation of certain persons. Daube's arguments
persuade us that the fourth makarism constitutes the appropriate climax of the
series, and so should not be separated from the other three.
(3) The makarisms contrast the way of Jesus with other "ways" of living (Guelich
1976:416-19). Hence, the general Sitz im Leben envisioned is one of discipleship
and loyalty shown to Jesus. Disciples "take up their cross" and follow him; they
are willing to lose all to gain his favor and approval (Matt 19:29). Thus they are
active players who make choices which have consequences. They are not mere
passive victims, who suffer "misfortune" independent of their actions. Dennis
Duling distinguishes "involuntary marginals" from "voluntary" ones (1993:64448). "Involuntary marginals" cannot participate in the normative social life of a
group because of race, ethnicity, gender, and the like; "voluntary marginals,"
however, consciously and by choice live outside the normative social patterns.
The beatitudes address "voluntary marginals" who by choosing to follow Jesus
are excluded from their normative social statuses, roles, offices and the like
(Duling 1993:653).
(4) But discipleship with a deviant like Jesus is costly. Thus, the four original
makarisms should been seen as Jesus' "honoring" of disciples who have paid a
price and been shamed by their kinship network. They are not just typical
peasants in the audience, all of whom are pens; rather they are ptchoi, that is,
people who have suffered a recent loss of wealth and status, which directly
results from discipleship or loyalty to Jesus.
(5) But what type of loss? If a village turned on someone, he would presumably
still have family to fall back on, either his father's house and land or his own
house and land. He would still have kin in the area, whose first loyalty would be
to him. He would not necessarily be hungry or mourning. But a disciple who
370

suffered disinheritance by his father or banning from the family land would
become a ptchos, and immediately suffer lack of subsistence, kinship and honor.
(6) The Hebrew scriptures are quite concerned with the proper obedience of sons
to their fathers; obedience to and respect for parents are cornerstones of the
Hebrew scriptures (see Exod 20:12; 21:17; Lev 20:9; 5:16; Tobit 4:3-4; 14:12-13;
Prov 1:8; 6:20; Sir 3:1-16), although less emphasis is found in early Christian
writings on this theme (Mark 7:9-13//Matt 15:3-6; Eph 6:2-3). One finds the
motif of "the rebellious son" in Scripture (Deut 21:18-20) and rabbinic literature
(Malina 1993b:2-4; Blidstein 37-52). Ancient childrearing practices consisted of
disciplining children who were perceived to be naturally rebellious (Pilch
1993:102-107). The right relationship of sons and fathers, therefore, was a
recurring, common problem thoughout the life cycle (see Mark 7:10-12; Matt
21:28-29; Luke 15:11-13). Issues of family loyalty and parental authority, not
religious excommunication from the synagogue, emerge as an important locus of
crisis in the lives of ordinary peasants.
We attended to passages in the Q source where Jesus boldly claims to have
caused division in families. These divisions would not be worth mentioning if
they did not result in social consequences. Luke 12:51-53//Matt 10:34-36 and
Luke 14:26-27//Matt 10:37-38 envision disciples of Jesus experiencing hostility
from their kinship groups, which I argue results in some form of disinheritance or
banning (i.e., the fourth makarism), and so loss of wealth and honor.
(7) The Q document contains a number of explicit remarks about the troubled
relationships within families caused by discipleship with Jesus.
Luke 9:59-60//Matt 8:21-22
Luke 12:51-53//Matt 10:34-36
Luke 14:26-27//Matt 10:37-39
In addition to these, there are other passages which seem to have family members
in view, who suffer a crisis in the kinship network (see 1 Cor 7:12-16). One
passage envisions the plight of a family (husband and wife) who has neither food
nor clothing (Luke 12:22-32//Matt 6:25-33). Although one can imagine many
reasons for this social tragedy, the persons addressed are clearly disciples to
whom Jesus issues commands. The question returns, then, as to why a disciple is
in such dire straits? Alternative answers such as debt foreclosure or drought do
not satisfy the criterion that such a tragedy is befalling a disciple. A probable
scenario seems to be the same one envisioned above in Luke 12:51-53//Matt
371

10:34-39, namely, some form of kinship crisis which results in a loss of land,
wealth, food and clothing. Seen in combination with Luke 12:51-53//Matt 10:3439, Luke 12:22-32//Matt 6:25-33 probably reflects the same situation:
discipleship has caused family division and resulted in disinheritance or banning
from the basic kinship network. Thus the family is seen in the Q tradition as a
primary source of "persecution."
(8) Our investigation of a focus in the original Q document on family crisis does
not contradict the data in Matthew's gospel which treats of the polemic between
the disciples of Jesus and "your synagogue." The relationship of Matthew and
the birkat ha-minim is a valid explanation for various passages dealing with a
social crisis. But these later clues about social dislocation do not adequately
explain the earlier crises of disciples described in the Q document.
B. Conclusion. What, then, is the cultural meaning of Jesus' four makarisms? The
mere loss of wealth would make those described ptchoi, but what of their honor
rating and its relationship to their loss of wealth? My scenario envisions those
disinherited or banned as suffering a frightful social stigma in the village as
disobedient and rebellious sons. They clearly lose honor and so become
shameful, at least in the eyes of their neighbors. According to the materials we
read earlier, they would not be the objects of compassion or sympathy. They got
what they deserved, because they did not suffer "misfortune." They experience
shame from family and kin for their rebellion against family tradition. But these
people are disciples of Jesus. In his perspective "last is first," "least is greatest,"
and "shame is honor." Hence a disciple who has suffered shame in the eyes of his
neighbors precisely for honoring Jesus is honored by him in turn. "How
honorable are those who . . ." They indeed are "worthy" to be his disciples. Thus
Jesus' remarks admit economic loss and the consequent loss of honor. But he
honors the dishonored.
C. Further Conversation. This study engages the current conversation on Q in
several ways. Concern over the social context of Q is receiving much attention
(Mack 1988:620-32; Horsley 1989:195-200; Kloppenborg 1989:211-12;
1991:85-88 and 96-99). The tendency to downplay the crises faced by disciples
from religious to economic factors is welcome; this study suggests that the family
factor be emphasized more, as many passages in Q indicate. Second, although
passing mention is made of crises within families by Q scholars (Kloppenborg
1987:241; Mack 1988:634), the materials in Q which we have examined suggest
that division of families and banning of rebellious sons should be taken more
seriously as part of the historical and cultural background for many aspects of the
Q tradition. Third, the importance of "itinerancy" as a hallmark of "missionaries"
in Q still enjoys support (Catchpole), especially with recent interest in Cynic
372

parallels. But not all disciples were itinerant; some who were ostracized by their
families did not necessarily become itinerants. It is often claimed that disciples in
the Q tradition are called to a "life of protest" against society (i.e., prophets). But
"voluntary marginals" whose allegiance to Jesus caused them banishment from
their families need not be classified as espousing a life of protest (Horsley
1991:184), but considered rather as requiring support in a crisis of kinship
authority created by discipleship. Finally, more serious consideration needs to be
given to the basic social institution of antiquity, namely, the family and the role
of the pater familias (Hennessey). Further studies in Q would do well to
investigate the role of families in socializing new members and exercising social
control. Issues of family and (fictive) kinship remain underdeveloped in
scholarship.
1. 1. "Sufficiency" (autarcheia) was a value regularly praised among the ancients;
for a peasant to live by this principle is probably making a virtue of necessity.
"Sufficiency" applies even to wealth: "Do you ask what is the proper limit to
wealth? It is, first, to have what is necessary, and, second, to have what is
enough" (Seneca, Ep. 2.6).
2. 2. In Isa 3:18-24 we are given a description of the wealth of certain elite
females in the Jerusalem of the prophet's day; noteworthy is the sense of
"conspicuous display" of the wealth of these elite persons. Conspicuous
consumption and display are said to be consistent features of the eastern
Mediterranean. See the praise of Solomon' sumptuous palace by the Queen of
Sheba (1 Kgs 10:4-5); it gained him further wealth (10:10) and public honor
(10:6-8).
3. 3. Luke's Jesus says that peasants can notice the "fine linen and purple" of a
rich man (Luke 16:19) and that those who wear soft raiment and are gorgeously
appareled live in kings' courts (Luke 7:25). Cotton from Egypt (Isa 19:9) and silk
from the orient (Ezek 16:10, 13; Rev 18:12) were available for the rich. And the
clothing of the elite would be dyed in blue, scarlet and purple (Exod 28:5-6; Jer
10:9; 1 Macc 4:23; Rev 18:12). We can imagine Herod's splendor when "he put
on his royal robes" to take his seat on his throne (Acts 12:21).
4. 4. Ancient rhetorical handbooks and the instructions on writing encomia in
the progymnasmata all instruct the orator or writer to attend carefully to the
ancestors and family of the person under discussion, for "honor resides in the
blood." See Isocrates, Panegyricus 23-25; Quintilian, Inst. Orat. 5.5.23-25;
Josephus, Vita 1-6. The ancient concern with genealogy belongs here.

373

5. 5. This idea of "honorable misfortune" might be compared with three

"misfortunes" mentioned in Lev 25, which render a person truly "poor": (a) "if
your brother becomes poor and sells part of his property" (v 25); (b) "if your
brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you" (v 35); (c) "if your
brother becomes poor beside you, and sells himself to you" (v 39). Thus, loss of
land, loss of means to meet basic social obligations, and debt that drives a family
into slavery are examples of "misfortune" for which there should be
"redemption" in the Jubilee year. Thus families may suffer misfortune by (1) loss
of family land, which is as much a status as an economic indicator; (2) debt
bondage; and (3) loss of resources to maintain one's status. To these could be
added others: a widow in a village might be called "poor," because she has no
male to defend her interests and safeguard her reputation. This is not simply an
economic issue (i.e., loss of her house; see Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47).
6. 6. Forthcoming from Semeia.
7. 7. One thinks of "consolation" literature in the Greco-Roman world, which
gave advice to those who were grieving and mourning the death of kin; see
Plutarch, Consol. ad Apoll. 112A-B or 1 Thess 4:13-17; Abraham J.
Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989)
64-65.
8. 8. Xenophon describes the respective places of males and females in a
household: ". . . Human beings live not in the open air, like beasts, but obviously
need shelter. Nevertheless, those who mean to win store to fill the covered place,
have need for someone to work at the open-air occupations; since plowing,
sowing, planting and grazing are all such open-air employments; and these
supply the needful food. Then again, as soon as this is stored in the covered
place, then there is need for someone to keep it and to work at the things that
must be done under cover. Cover is needed for the nursing of the infants; cover is
needed for the making of corn into bread, and likewise for the manufacture of
clothing from the wool. And since both the indoor and the outdoor tasks demand
labour and attention, God from the first adapted the woman's nature, I think, to
the indoor and man's to the outdoor tasks and cares" (Oecomenicus 7.19-22

Teaching You in Public and from House to House (Acts

20:20):
Unpacking a Cultural Stereotype

374

Jerome
University of Notre Dame

H.

Neyrey,

S.J.

1. Introduction: Focus, Status Quaestionis, Model and Plan

This article builds on several past studies in which we have examined the cultural and
social meaning of space.
Here we focus on a phrase from Pauls farewell address in
Acts, I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable and teaching
you in public () and from house to house ( ) (20:20).
As we will
see, two things are contained in this remark: 1) space, classified as public or private
and 2) speech, socially sanctioned speech: who may speak what, when, where and to whom
and for what purpose?
When Acts 20:20 receives any critical attention, it is generally as part of a farewell
address.
Yet commentators on Acts give it minimal consideration, perhaps because
the expression about public and private seems too obvious for comment. The study by
Stanley K. Stowers does not directly treat Acts 20:20, but addressed the topic of where the
historical Paul likely taught.
He dismissed the old perception that Paul, like a Cynic
preacher, spoke in public and in the manner of Cynics. Stowers shifts attention from public
venues to private ones, such as houses and the hall of Tyrannus(19:9), and he argues
that philosophers regularly used such for their discourse. He concludes:
The private home was a center of intellectual activity and the customary place for
many types of speakers and teachers to do their work. Occasional lectures,
declamations and readings of various sorts of philosophical, rhetorical and literary
works often took place in homes. Such sessions might be continued for two or three
days. The speaker might use his own house or be invited to speak or teach in another
home. These were private affairs and audiences came by invitation.
He presumes that the classifications of public and private are self-evident and provides
no nuance about what this classification of space means.
Our article is offered as a friendly compliment to Stowers argument in the following ways.
First, Stowers does not distinguish the two meanings of private which we will show are
readily discovered in our extensive survey of the public/private classification: 1.
private = associations of non-kinship related males (either in a house or elsewhere) and 2.
private = males in houses with their families. Second, without telling us, Stowers has in
view an elites house, for he seems to refer to what Vitruvius called the common parts of
a house where non-kinship males gather as distinguished from the private parts reserved
for kinship-related persons. This itself suggests another nuance to public/private, i.e., the
parts of a residence open to outsiders vs. those reserved for family. But given his focus,
Stowers ignored all materials dealing with the idea of gender-specific space: namely, that
375

certain gatherings would become male space and so exclude females during this use. Four,
Stowers was uninterested in the question of who has voice in what space. He focuses on
teachers or philosophers as speaker, i.e., those with a recognized role and adequate social
status, but ignores when and where Paul has voice. Five, he implies that space is controlled,
possibly by means of invitation. But he does not consider the control exercised over other
spaces where Paul speaks. This article will take up just such issues by bring into the
conversation an anthropological model on space. Full attention, then, will be given to Acts
20:20.
We begin by asking what is being said in Pauls claim that he spoke both in public and in
private. What is meant by public and by private?
Since this is a social/cultural
question, the method for researching and interpreting this labeling of space must needs turn
to the social sciences for appropriate materials and models. The argument of this article,
then, consists of four parts. First, we will examine the model of territoriality developed
by the social sciences, as the appropriate way for analyzing the classification of space as
public/private. Second, we will report on an extensive investigation of the wide variety of
expressions for public/private in Greek and Latin, which will then be interpreted in the
light of the model of territoriality. Third, attention must be given to who has voice, that
is, who is allowed to speak, where and when. This issue touches on matters of gender, role
and status in a group or a city. Finally, these three blocks of data will then be brought to
bear on the correct cultural interpretation of Acts 20:20.
2. Basic Model: Terrioriality.
The chief model for assessing space and place in terms of social science categories,
territoriality, is defined as
. . .the attempt by an individual or group to affect, influence, or control people, phenomena,
and relationships, by delimiting and asserting control over a geographic area. . .Territories
require constant effort to establish and maintain.
Like others, Sack emphasizes the attempt to control some place or some persons. Control
presumes that the controlling group has in some way labeled or classified some space in
relationship to itself. Sack notes that the controlling group tries to affect, influence or
control places, and the objects of control might be people, phenomena,
relationships.
Sacks notion of classification and control can be expanded by noting four types of
territory. One might contrast public territories (those areas where the individual has
freedom of access, but not necessarily of action, by virtue of his claim to citizenship)
with private ones (where regular participants have a relative freedom of behavior and a
sense of intimacy and control over the area).
Moreover, one might
identify interactional places (any area where a social gathering may occur. . .surrounding
any interaction there is an invisible boundary, a kind of social membrane)
376

and bodyterritories (the space encompasses by the human body and the anatomical space
of the body).
These concepts express a socially fluid understanding of
territoriality, as they imply that a space may be restricted temporarily for interaction, as
in a conference between patron and client in an agora. Such nuances of the basic model will
be welcome when we come to consider house as private in many senses.
Modern research into territoriality began with studies of animal behavior, especially that
of birds.
From the beginning, certain concepts emerged which remain integral parts
of all models of territoriality. Birds, for example, could be observed performing some
conspicuous behavior which was interpreted as communication of an exclusive claim to a
certain area, and which resulted in efforts tocontrol that territory. For example, a male bird
becomes intolerant of other males as he confines himself to a certain area for the purposes
of ensuring an adequate food supply and safe nesting space for his mate.
Even as
anthropologists later focused on human patterns of territoriality, the three foci of the
model remain: (1) classification of place, (2) communication of this, and (3) control of the
place so classified.
Classification Systems. The classification system, the key to the model, refers to the ways
in which humans invest space with meaning or label it for some purpose. For example,
people declare this space ours, but that space yours, thus making our space sacred
and set apart from other, profane spaces. Parents often classify their bedroom as off limits
for their children, thus distinguishing adult from family space. Muslims and Israelis both
claim Jerusalems temple mount as their own sacred space, and thus see the presence of the
other there as profaning it.
Anthropologists surface many emic or native patterns of classification of territory, all of
which contain binary opposites which set apart certain spaces as restricted and unrestricted,
ours and yours, holy and profane, and the like. These labels are intended to have dramatic
impact on how we and others think of and behave in regard to a certain space. A sample
inventory of classifications would include: 1) public/private, 2) honorable/non-honorable,
3) sacred/profane, 4) clean/unclean, 5) fixed/fluid sacred space, 6) center/periphery and 7)
civilization/nature. For us, only the first two pairs seem relevant and will be examined in
detail in this study.
Communication and Control. Communication of these classifications is relatively simple.
All a prosperous city need do to communicate that it is honorable or civilized space is to
build a wall around itself with a well-guarded gate (e.g., Josh 2:1-21).
The same
would apply to sections within cities

where various occupations or ethnic groups

were separated from each other and from the elites by interior walls and gates (e.g., Acts
19:23-25). Non-elites are thus kept away from the urban elites as well as from other nonelites with whom there might be rivalry or conflict. Similarly, the purpose of walls and
gates for cities is replicated by doors of houses, palaces and temples, sometimes manned by
guards (see John 18:15-17; Acts 28:16). A dramatic example of this principle of
377

communication and control is the inscription from the balustrade of the Jerusalem temple
prohibiting Gentile access to the court of the Israelites: No foreigner is to enter within the
forecourt and the balustrade around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to
blame for his subsequent death.
Control takes many forms, as we will see.
3. Native Classification Systems.
We saw above that the classification of space tends to be expressed in terms of binary
opposites, which is an endemic mode of thought in the ancient world.
Although we
noted above seven classifications of space, by far the most important for this study is
public/private, which is also the one most commonly used in the Greco-Roman
world.
The classification of public/ private deserves careful examination because
our survey of the material identifies many different linguistic expressions of it and
meanings for it. Thus, this section of the argument contains three parts: 1. the dominant
classification system public/private, 2. the relationship of this to male/female space, and
3. honorable/shameful space.
"Public and Private Spaces. The raw data are extensive in regard to the terms used and
the periods of history in which the examples are found. The following nine antithetical
classifications of public/private, although differing in terminology, all express the same
distinction.
1. /. Throughout his Rhetoric, Aristotle constantly makes reference to public/
private: Both those who give advice in private () and those who speak in the
assembly () invariably either exhort or dissuade (Rhet 1.3.3); similarly, Men
individually ( ) and in common (), nearly all have some aim( Rhet 1.5.1).
Public refers to politics, whereas private looks to social circles of male friends, not to
households. Centuries later, Pseudo Dionysius wrote instructions for composing public
and private funeral orations:
Two speeches have been devised that relate to burial. One is common (
) to the whole city and people and is spoken over the war-dead. The other is
private and individual( ), relating to events that frequently happen
in peace, when people die at various ages.
Public means common to the whole city, in this case, a political event, whereas
private relates either to kinship circles and/or to associations of friends. This linguistic
expression of public/private is by far the most common one in antiquity. A sample of its
ubiquity may be found in the citations in the following note.
2. / . Of this contrast Plato says: What a widespread corruption of the young
in private families ( ) as well as publicly in the State ( ) ( Laws 10
890B); private now clearly refers to kinship or household, and publicto politics. The
following remark by Dionysius of Halicarnassus clearly illustrates this binary opposite:
378

They permitted their oldest men to beat with their canes such of the citizens as were
disorderly in any public place whatever ( ); but for what
took place in the homes ( ) they took no thought or precaution ( Roman
Antiquities 20.13.2).
Again, politics vs. households.
3. / . Plutarch well exemplifies this variation on the basic theme: Now he who
said, The man who would be tranquil in his mind must not engage in many affairs, either
private () or public (), first of all makes our tranquillity very expensive if it is
bought at the price of inactivity. . . (Tranquillity 465C).
Most likely private refers
to male, non-political intercourse and public to civic affairs, not exclusively political.
4. / . A fourth variation of the classification is provided for us by the orator
Aeschines: First, they laid down laws to protect the morals of our children. . .then they
legislated for the other age-groups in succession, including in their provision, not only
private citizens ( ), but also the public men ( )( Against
Timarchus 7). Private means non-political, male associations, whereas public refers to
politics.
5. / . Josephus provides still another variation of this expression: When any
Athenians come to him [Hyrcanus] either on an embassy or on a private matter (
). . . ( Ant. 14.151). Embassies clearly are
political/public, whereas private matters may engage royal patronage on a one-to-one
basis.
6. / . Dionysus provides us with several examples of the antithesis
which most closely resembles that found in Acts 20:20: secret political councils
() were meeting in private houses ( ) Dio Halicarnassus, Ant.
Rom. 11.57.3 + 5.25.1). Private,while probably a household, is not private in the sense
that it represents kinship matters, for houses had rooms where males hosted their friends;
public here means politics.
7. / : When Thucydides indicates how the same person can belong to both the
public and private world, he provides us with one more variation on this theme: And you
will find united in the same persons an interest at once in private () and in public
() affairs (History 2.40.2). Public clearly refers to the political world, but
private may mean male, non-kinship associations as well as kinship-household matters.
But we pause here to grasp the important social reality which lies behind this expression of
public/private. / describe the two basic institutions of antiquity, namely,
politics and kinship.
In his Politics, Aristotle constantly juxtaposes and ,
which in his argument correspond to one meaning of public and private: The city-state
is prior in nature to the household and to each of us individually (Politics 1.1.11).
Centuries later, Philo continued the same juxtaposition of institutions:

379

Organized communities are of two sorts, the greater which we call cities ()
and the smaller which we call households (). Both of these have their
governors; the government of the greater is assigned to men, under the name of
statesmanship (), that of the lesser, known as household management
(), to women (Special Laws 3.171).
Thus public tends to describe the space as well as the roles and gender of males vis--vis
politics.
8. publice / privatim. Turning to Roman sources, we find Latin terms which correspond to
the Greek classifications we have just seen. The report by Aulus Gellius on the layers of
meaning in the contrast public and private is worth our attention.
The governor of the province of Crete had come to Athens for the purpose of visiting
the philosopher Taurus, and in company with this same governor was his father.
Taurus was sitting before the door of his room. In came the governor of the province
and with him his father. Taurus arose quietly, and after salutations had been
exchanged, sat down again. Presently the single chair that was at hand was brought
and placed near them, while others were being fetched. Taurus invited the governor's
father to be seated; to which he replied: "Rather let this man take the seat, since he is
a magistrate of the Roman people." "Without prejudicing the case," said Taurus, "do
you meanwhile sit down, while we look into the matter and inquire whether it is
more proper for you, who are the father, to sit, or your son, who is the magistrate."
And when the father had seated himself, and another chair had been placed near by
for his son also, Taurus discussed the question.
The substance of the discussion was this: In public places (publicis locis), functions
and acts the rights of fathers, compared with the authority of sons who are
magistrates, give way somewhat and are eclipsed; but when they are sitting together
unofficially in the intimacy of home life (in domestica re), or walking about, or even
reclining at a dinner party of intimate friends, then the official distinctions between a
son who is a magistrate and a father who is a private citizen (privatum) are at an end,
while those that are natural and inherent come into play.(Aulus Gellius, Attic
Nights 2.2.1-10).
Public here refers to civic or political role, status and space; private, however, has
many meanings, one of which suggests citizen vs. magistrate. As regards space, the
magistrate appears of course in public space where he acts like a political official;
likewise, he appears in private space, namely, his home/residence where he and his father
dwell. The father, on the other hand, has no public space or role or status; his private
space, moreover, might be threefold: 1. house/ residence (in the intimacy of home life),
2. dining rooms (a dinner party of intimate friends), and 3. outdoor walking
space (walking about). What makes this so fruitful an example of public/private is the
rich interplay of status and role (magistrate, citizen; father, son) and space (polis center,
resident home, out-of-doors).
380

9. communus / privatus. Vitruvius, who was concerned not only with architecture but with
the social meaning of space, tells us at the beginning of book six that he shifts is attention
from public to private buildings: Since in the fifth book I dealt with the suitable
provision of public (communium) buildings, in this book I will explain the calculations
involved in private (privatorum) buildings (On Architecture. Preface 7). Then using these
terms, he declares certain parts of the same house private and others public.
We go on to consider how, in private (privatis) buildings, the rooms belonging to the
family, and how those which are shared with visitors, should be planned. For into the
private rooms no one can come uninvited, such as the bedrooms, dining-rooms, baths
and other apartments which have similar purposes. The common rooms
(communia) are those into which though uninvited, persons of the people can come
by right, such as vestibules, courtyards, peristyles and other apartments of similar
uses (On Architecture 6.5.1).
Even in a house, then, some parts are private, i.e., restricted to members of the household,
and others are public or common spaces open to non-household persons as well.
This general view can be supplemented with the remarks of Cornelius Nepos who, when
contrasting Greek and Roman mores, introduces a gender issue into the way space even in a
residence is classified as common or private:
What Roman would blush to take his wife to a dinner-party? What matron does not
frequent the front rooms of her dwelling and show herself in public? But it is very
different in Greece; for there a woman is not admitted to a dinner-party, unless
relatives only are present, and she keeps to the more retired part of the house called
"the women's apartment" (gynaeconitis), to which no man has access who is not near
of kin (Cornelius Nepos, praef. 4-7).
We note that Greek women attend dinner parties in private, i.e., in the house, but only
when kinship members are present; these dining rooms are private, not common.
From the nine classifications for public/private we have examined, we draw the
following conclusions: Private = Non-Political, but Non-Household. There is a middle
space which is neither public/political nor private/household. Greeks and Romans used
public and private to distinguish male participation in the public or political life of
the city from the private social relations of an ordinary citizen. Demosthenes makes this
distinction in one of his speeches:
There are two sorts of problems with which the laws of all nations are concerned.
First, what are the principles under which we associate with one another, have
dealings with one another, define the obligations of private life ( ),
and, in general order our social relations? Secondly, what are the duties that every
man among us owes to the commonwealth, if he chooses to take part in public
life ( ) and professes any concern for the State? Now it is to the advantage
381

of the common people that laws of the former category, laws of private intercourse
( ), shall be distinguished by clemency and humanity. On the other
hand it is to your common advantage that laws of the second class, the laws that
govern our relations to the State ( ), shall be trenchant and
peremptory, because, if they are so, politicians will not do so much harm to the
commonalty (Against Timocrates 192-93).
Demosthenes, then, tells males that they may participate in public/political life (
) or restrict themselves to private life ( ), which is not synonymous
with life in the household. Males, then, associate with other males in both "public" and
private, Different expectations characterize male/public and male/private behavior: laws
governing public activity should be trenchant and peremptory vs. clement and humane
in private intercourse.
Private = Household Space, Roles and Concerns. Male public figures of course
had private household roles and duties. Among male duties in the private world of the
household are: 1. control of his children, 2. procurement of dowries for daughters and wise
marriages for them (Isaeus, On the Estate of Cleonymus 39-40), 3. proper use of patrimony
(Aeschines, Against Timarchus 154), 4. funeral rites for parents (Isaeus, On the Estate of
Menecles 36-37; see Matt 8:21-22), 5. concern for the virtue and reputation of wives and
other females in the household (see Lysias, On the Murder of Eratosthenes 15-26), and 6.
ruling over slaves and servants.
According to 1 Tim 3:4-5, 12, only males who
provide private governance of their own households are suitable for public leadership
of the church.
We propose the following excellent example of this stereotype of male public and private
space which clearly articulates the three social venues to which the ancients thought males
belonged. Lysias argues for the honorable character of the accused by calling attention
before his male peers how the defendant fulfilled the expected code of proper male
behavior in each of the three spheres where males function (In Defense of Mantitheus 16.912). First he recounts the honorable behavior in regard to the "private" world of the
household:
Although little property had been bequeathed to me, I bestowed two sisters in
marriage, with a dowry of thirty minae apiece; to my brother I allowed such a
portion as made him acknowledge that he had got a larger share of patrimony than I
had; and towards all else my behaviour has been such that never to this day has a
single person shown any grievance against me. So much for the tenor of my private
life ( ) (16.10-11).
As the eldest male in his family, he assumed responsibility for the honorable marriages of
the familys daughters; he acted as patron within the family by distribution of the father' s
patrimony to his male siblings and to the family' s clients.

382

The speaker turns to the world outside of the household, which, by contrast with the
"private" or household world, he labels the "public" world:
. . .with regard to public matters ( ), I hold that the strongest proof
I can give of my decorous conduct is the fact that all the younger set who are found
to take their diversion in dice or drink or the like dissipations are, as you will
observe, at feud with me, and are most prolific in lying tales about me. It is obvious,
surely, that if we were at one in our desires they would not regard me with such
feelings (16.11).
This is not the public-political world of the Assembly nor the private household world
just seen. Rather, we are viewing here the non-household world where males (citizens?)
entertain themselves in the company of other males via symposia, games, gambling and the
like.
Finally, he turns to the public-political world where the affairs of the city are in view, in this
case, the city's army and its defense of its allies:
As regards campaigns in face of the enemy, observe how I discharged my duty to the
State. First, when you made your alliance with the Boeotians, and we had to go to the
relief of Hilartus, I had been enrolled by Orthobulus for service in the cavalry
(16.12-13).
Mantitheus goes on to say how he volunteered for the more difficult military task of an
infantryman, attesting to his courage and solidarity with that part of the army. And he
claims that he has been a model public, i.e., political, person who has "discharged his
duty to the State." By recounting his military exploits, he declares that he acted as an
honorable male who has a visible public role in the affairs of the city. Thus, Mantitheus
serves as an excellent emic informer on the triple spheres, spaces and roles which make up
the male world which was both "public and private."
Is Public : Male : : Private : Female? While the ancient world indeed considered
males and females belonging to a totally gender-divided worlds, the precise labels public/
private we are examining describe male spaces and male roles.
Yet let us look
briefly at four classifications used by the ancients to distinguish male and female spaces.
First, Xenophons outdoor vs. indoor expresses the most common classification in
antiquity of male and female space: And since both the indoor ( ) and the
outdoor ( ) tasks demand labor and attention, God from the first adapted the womans
nature, I think, to the indoor ( ) and the mans to the outdoor ( ) tasks
and cares (Oeconomicus 7.19-22).
He then employs a second classification, open
air vs. covered to explain what gender-specific roles and tasks are appropriate for these
spaces:
Human beings live not in the open air ( ), like beasts, but obviously need
shelter ( ). Those who mean to win store to fill the covered space, have need
383

of someone to work at the open-air ( ) occupations; since ploughing,

sowing, planting and grazing are all such open-air () employments. . . again,
as soon as this is stored in the covered place ( ) , there is need of
someone to keep it and to work at the things that must be done under cover (
). Cover () is needed for the nursing of the infants; cover
() is needed for the making of the corn into bread, and likewise for the
manufacture of clothes from the wool (Oeconomicus 7:20-21).
Thus outdoors relates to male tasks (food production: farming, pasturing); indoors
describes the covered or female tasks (food preparation; child rearing; clothing
production).
In addition the tools males and females use are gender and spacespecific.
This exterior/interior contrast was applied to the male and female sexual organs of the
human body. According to Hierophilus and Galen the ancients classified male and female
genitals as public and private.
It was generally conceded that male and female
sexual organs were similar, the difference residing in the fact that male genitals are outside
the body, whereas female genitals are within. Galen writes: All the parts, then, that men
have, women have too, the difference between them lying in only one thing. . .namely, that
in women the parts are within the body, whereas in men they are outside, in the region
called the perineum (Usefulness of the Parts of the Body 14.6).
"Honorable"/"Non-Honorable" Places. This second classification of space does not have
the hard linguistic data that public/private has, but it is nevertheless a key evaluation by
people in the ancient world and has bearing on our interpretation of the space mentioned in
Acts 20:20. For example, we indicated above that part of the total gender-division of
ancient society was the separation of males in male space performing male roles and tasks
from females in female space with corresponding female roles and tasks. When both
genders live according to these expectations, both are honorable. But it would be shameful
for a male to be excessively at home when other males are either in the agora or the
fields.
Thus the classification of honorable/shameful space includes notions of
gender.
Furthermore, it was axiomatic for ancient writers to tell their audiences the place of birth of
the characters in their histories or lives. The principle is simple and clear: persons in
antiquity were known in terms of geography, generation and gender.
Honorable
persons come from honorable places. For example, Nathanael prejudges Jesus honor by
remarking that he does not come from an honorable place: What good can come from
Nazareth?(John 1:46). In contrast, Paul claimed honor by birth in an honorable place:
Tarsus in Cilicia, a no low-status city (Acts 21:39). One psalm explicitly states that honor
comes simply from being born in an honorable place: This one was born in Jerusalem!
(Ps 87:4-5). The honor rating of a place, then, constituted part of the stereotypical
384

knowledge of the ancients. It was "inevitable" that a person from an honorable place would
have its honorable characteristics. Places of origin, then, were classified as honorable or
non-honorable.
Honorable/non-honorable represent a scale of classification of spaces. Villages lack
honor because they are crude; towns, while nobler than villages, lack the sophistication of
major cities. In his study of ancient cities, Richard Rohrbaugh quotes Pausanias on what the
ancients considered an honorable "city," which native description serves us well in
illustrating the classification of space in terms of honor and non-honor: . . . if indeed one
can give the name of city to those who possess no public buildings, no gymnasium, no
theatre, no marketplace, no water descending to a fountain, but live in bare shelters just like
mountain huts on the edges of ravines (10.4.1).
An honorable city, then, has
honorable public spaces where elites gather and speak. They enjoy a vibrant civic life and a
sophisticated cultural ambiance. Honorable spaces are at the service of the honorable urban
elite. Such buildings, monuments and temples might take up 35 to 50 per cent of the area of
a walled city.
Apart from death, the worst punishment that could be meted out to a
Roman citizen was banishment from Rome to some obscure island or region. Public,
then, should include honorable urban places and cities.
4. Territoriality and Acts 20:20.
We have now both a sophisticated appreciation of the classification public/private, as
well as a suitable facility with the model of territoriality to begin our interpretation of
Acts 20:20. But we must sharpen the questions we would ask of Acts 20:20. Some
classification of space is expressed in the phrase . . .in public and from house to house,
but what is meant here? 1. Does public refer to the political arena or to out-of-doors or
to non-household space? 2. Does house to house mean household space, i.e., house
churches and indoor space? Could it refer to non-civic, non-public space? All know that
Acts 20:18-35 is Pauls farewell address, which genre suggests that broad generalizations of
Pauls behavior are intended, including space.
Hence, we read in public and from
house to house as the broadest classification of space, that is, 1. political-civic space as
well as 2. male private space such as the synagogue and 3. household - private space. The
evidence for this comes from a survey of spaces and places where Paul appears in Acts. In
what typical spaces does Luke locate Paul? We will look at 1. civic/political space, 2.
private space, such as synagogues or riverside groves, 3. kinship houses, 4. aule, such as
the hall of Tyrannus, and 5. the Jerusalem temple. In considering each venue, we will also
examine how it is classified, how this classification is communicated and how it serves as a
mechanism of control or access to this space.
Public as Political, Civic Space. Many times Luke narrates that Paul appeared in
the agora or civic center of a significant city. Only in Athens did Paul daily speak in public
(17:17). Because Paul is not restricted from this space, we infer that those present are said
to acknowledge Pauls role and status as a wise person with public voice. All other
instances tell of Paul brought to the magistrates (16:20) in the marketplace. Sometimes,
385

no space is mentioned, only that they dragged them . . .before the city authorities (17:6)
or that they brought Paul before the tribunal (18:12), which we know means the political,
public center of the city.
Acts tells us, moreover, that Paul was a regular speaker in the presence of elites. For
example, the proconsul Sergius Paulus summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear
the word of God (13:7). This is political, public space, probably the place of the
proconsuls bema or throne. Hardly a tete-a-tete, we should imagine a space filled with
Sergius retainers and maybe some other dignitaries. Far from restricting Paul, the
proconsul gave him license to speak, thus acknowledging his role and status. Later, Felix,
the Judean governor, kept Paul in confinement, yet we are told that he sent for him often
and conversed with him (24:26) over the course of the next two years. To be sure, they did
not converse in Pauls confined space, but rather in Felixs official space, which I imagine
as political, public space where Felix held meetings and heard reports.
Although
Felix did not release Paul, he did not restrict his speech, thus giving some acknowledgment
to Pauls role and status. The next governor, Festus, brought Paul before King Agrippa and
his queen, Bernice, to hear his side of the case. Again, the space envisioned here is the most
important place in the political space of the governors fortress. It befits Roman governors,
Judean kings and queens, and Paul. Here he has public voice and boldly states his case.
Finally, Paul found refuge from shipwreck in the house of Publius, the chief man of the
island (28:7). Again, Paul is in elite space, which is both public-politic space (chief man
of the island) and private (non-kinship males together) where Paul was entertained
hospitably for three days (28:8). Although Luke does not say that Paul spoke boldly here,
he tells us that others classified Paul as god-favored and that he was given freedom of
movement, despite being a prisoner. Paul, then, is at ease in the presence of certain political
elite, where he enjoys voice. We interpret public in Acts 20:20, then, in the light of these
examples.
Private Space but Not Household. Another example of classification and control of space
is the synagogue which is frequently mentioned in Acts. We classify the synagogue as
private, non-public space, where males gathered in association, generally out-ofdoors.
The synagogue, then, is neither political-civic nor household space, but
nevertheless private. With perhaps one exception, the members of the synagogue classify
Paul as a corruption and act to control his behavior:

Text in Acts

Place of Synagogue Control

13:5

Salamis

no restriction of speaking mentioned

13:15-50

Antioch of Pisidia

restrictions on speech (13:45); expulsion (13:50)

14:1-7

Iconium

attempted stoning (14:5), then flight (14:6)

17:1-8

Thessalonika

restriction on speech and violence (17:5), accusation of

treason before a magistrate (17:6-7)

386

17:10

Beroea

restriction on speech, flight by Paul (17:13-14)

18:5-18

Corinth

restriction of speech (18:6), yet open speaking for a

year and a half (18:11); accusation before Gallio
(18:16); violence (18:17), then flight (18:18)

19:8-10

Corinth

restricted from synagogue, but free speech in the hall

of Tyrannus (19:9)

In terms of classification, the various synagogues are private (vs. public/political space).
Because of their informality, it is unclear who had voice in them, surely local synagogue
rulers (13:15; 18:8, 17) and other males with enough learning to read the scrolls and to
exhort the group. Paul belongs to this second class; he appears to be a messenger of
significant news. But a second classification of synagogue seems also to be operative,
pure/polluted. Speakers who speak a word in keeping with traditional understanding of
Scripture and Judean practice are pure and have voice in the synagogue. But speakers who
bring strange, novel, and even blasphemous words are pollution to the synagogue. The
guardians of tradition, then, rise up to restrict this voice and to direct violence against it.
They may also hail such speakers into the political court and chase them from the city. Here
the model of territoriality shows its worth, for it allows us to grasp the classification of the
local synagogue in gender terms as male space which is private but not in the sense that
household is private. Moreover, it indicates how space when classified can be controlled;
when Paul is perceived as polluting the synagogue by his speech, the synagogue rises up
to control his speech, expel him from their midst and the like. At stake here is the social
issue of who has public voice? What role and status of the speaker are acknowledged? Not
all males have public voice; not all who begin to speak are allowed to continue.
House as Private and Private. House, while clearly private, might be classified as
private in two senses: 1. private as space for unrelated males who assemble for
symposia
and the like and 2. private as household residence for kinship-related
males and females. It seems that Luke makes just this sort of distinction when he narrates
the reasons for Pauls presence in private houses: 1. either hospitality or 2. invitation to
speak. Certain narratives locate Paul in private houses under the rubric of hospitality. For
example, when Paul lodged in the house of Judas (9:11, 17), he appears to be a guest of
Judas, although no details are given about how Paul came to this place. While there, he
prayed, but after Ananias correctly classified him as Gods elect, he found his voice in the
synagogue (9:20-22). Similarly, under the rubric of hospitality Lydia invites Paul to lodge
at her house (16:15), with implicit permission to continue speaking about God. At Caesarea,
Paul entered the house of Philip the deacon. . .and stayed with him (21:8), which house
became the locus of dire prophecies. We classify these houses as private/household
space, which extends hospitality to those of the household of God. While Paul surely spoke
in them, they do not appear as the formal venue of his bold public speaking. No control is
exercised on his speech.

387

A different scenario obtains in other houses, which are private both as residences for
kinship-related persons and as forums for non-kinship-related folk. It is not hospitality
which characterizes them so much as a new venue for Paul to speak. For example, when
Paul was chased from the synagogue in Corinth, he left there and went to the house of a
man named Titius Justus (18:7). Thus the house of Titius replaces synagogue as the
place where Paul has voice; it is less a residence for Paul than the forum for his speech.
Similarly, the third-story room where Paul preached through the night (20:8-9) was
probably some ones residence in the insula (hence, private as household), but with nonkinship related people assembled there, it became private as place of assembly.
Finally, at Rome Paul was allowed to stay by himself (28:16), which was his private
household. But Acts also tells us that this is the space where Paul received Judeans and
spoke with them (28:17, 23). His private household space became private space for
males to assemble. And Paul, of course, enjoyed public voice there. In none of these
house settings does Paul ever experience control of his speech and message; his role and
status as an authorized exponent of Gods gospel is acknowledged in house. He enjoys
public voice.
Hall of Tyrannus: Private Space. When Paul was excluded from the Corinthian
synagogue, he withdrew with his new disciples to the hall of Tyrannus. Scholars cannot
decide if Tyrannus is the nickname for a tyrannical teacher, the landlord of the property,
or Pauls patron. As regards the size and shape of this hall, we can only guess whether
the aule is an independent building or a room of a building; moreover, Luke does not say if
there was any cost incurred to argue daily in the hall of Tyrannus. . .for two years (19:9).
Nevertheless, it should be classified as private space where males assemble. Moreover,
not all in the schole have voice: surely Paul, but probably no one else. Stowers argues that
Pauls role and status would have been that of a philosopher.
Only moderate control
was exercised over this space: only some people were invited to enter and listen.
Jerusalem Temple: Public Space. The Jerusalem temple was the unique shrine of the
political religion of Israel. Pauls single appearance in it occurs on his return to Jerusalem in
21:17. Because Pauls presence in Greco-Roman synagogues has been vigorously
controlled by the Israelites, the elders at Jerusalem urge Paul and company to undergo
public rites of purification, and thus provide Judeans with a classification of Paul different
from that of the diaspora synagogues. The following chart indicates how territoriality
when applied to Jerusalems Temple shows a high degree of classification and especially
control. The Temple, so rigorously controlled in the case of Peter and Stephen, continues to
be so with Paul.

A 3:2

Classification

Communication

gate of the temple which is

called
Beautiful
-unclean beggar is excluded
from the holy temple

the very temple system strong control: see gates,

communicates by means of walls, restricted entrance ways;
gates,
walls,
restricted
entrance ways, etc. that only yet no restriction on voice

388

Control

the holy/whole may enter

A 3:11

Solomons Portico a large place of assembly; a likely no control, once one is past the
stoa on southern end of gathering place out of sun or perimeter scrutiny;
complex; a meeting place
rain; usual gender restrictions
voice unrestricted

A 4:1

Solomons Portico

Priest, captain of the Temple very strong control:

and Sadducees confront and
arrest them;
their voice about
Jesus
is
deviance (4:17-18) and hence
they are removed from
Solomons Portico

A 21:26

Paul took the men, and the

next day he purified himself
with them and went into the
temple, to give notice when
their days of purification
would be fulfilled and the
offering presented for every
one of them

by virtue of purification and

offerings, Paul accepts (much
of) the classification of the
Temple as a place of prayer
and even sacrifice (i.e.,
thanksgiving offerings)

strong control: the usual gates,

walls, internal demarcations;
in the perception of some that
Paul has violated these 21:2730; having declared Paul a
deviant, they dragged him out
of the temple and at once the
gates were shut 21:30

In Acts 21, those who classify Paul as a pollutant of the Temple start a public process to
label him as such. They charge him with total corruption of the Judean way of life: "Men of
Israel, help! This is the man who is teaching men everywhere against the people and the
law and this place; moreover he also brought Greeks into the temple, and he has defiled this
holy place" (21:28). Whether in private synagogue or house, the speech of Paul corrupts
because it is against this place. And Pauls behavior in the public space of the Temple
likewise corrupts because he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy
place. Because certain people classify Paul as utterly unacceptable in sacred space, they
act to control he access: The people ran together; they seized Paul and dragged him out of
the temple, and at once the gates were shut (21:30). According to our model of
territoriality, the three basic elements are clearly in view: 1. classification: the temple is
for holy, observant Israelites only; 2. communication: accusations of deviance in 21:27-29;
and 3. control: expulsion of Paul from temple and attempts to kill him (21:30-31). Thus
while Paul has voice in public Greco-Roman space, he is denied it both in Israelite
public (Temple) space and private (synagogue) space.
5. Territoriality, Honorable and Public Space and Acts.
The classification of space as honorable/non-honorable can add much to our interpretation
of Pauls remark in Acts 20:20, in public and from house to house. We suggest that
public space is also honorable space. Many public spaces that Paul refers to are
political spaces, either the residences of proconsuls (13:7), the chief man of the island
(28:7), and Roman procurators (24:1-26:32), which are in and of themselves honorable
spaces because of the elites who occupy them. Thus honor accrues to Paul by his
389

appearance in these venues and especially by the fact that he enjoys voice there. Second,
Paul is frequently portrayed as speaking the agora, likewise a public and honorable
space.
Although agora is generally translated as market place, this represents an incomplete
interpretation of this space.
The Greco-Roman agora should be understood as a
central, public meeting place.

It was the social and political center of a polis,, the

place where the polis elites gathered to gossip, debate issues pertaining to the polis
welfare, and to conduct courts of justice.
As center of public life, the agora was
adorned with statues and colonnades, surrounded by temples and other public
buildings.
In and around it were built the most impressive buildings of the city,
which suggest the wealth, power and sophistication of the elite, by whom and for whom
such facilities existed. Likewise, the Greco-Roman agora was honorable space,
frequented by persons of honorable roles and status who signaled their honor by the quality
of their dress and adornment, special seating arrangements, retinue of servants and clients
accompanying them, and permission to speak. Honorable people are found in honorable
space.
As we saw, Acts relates only two appearances of Paul in the agora. At Philippi, he is
dragged before the magistrate (16:19-20). Public trials are invariably shaming, as the
ancients inform us.
Hence, Paul gains no honor from appearing in this honorable
space.

But in Athens, he spoke with whomever came to the agora (17:17). Athens, a

no low-status city, accords him voice, and so Paul gains honor from speaking in
Athens agora. But by far the more noble Athenian space was the Areopagus, a place of
colonnades which housed philosophers such as Stoics and Epicureans. Males assembling
here would be of the elite or retainer class, with philosophical education, and of respected
roles and statuses to have public voice. Thus Paul, who speaks there, is accorded honor
from discoursing with worthy people in an honorable location at least in Lukes eyes.
Public space in Acts, then, refers to political and civic space; those who appear there and
speak there are considered honorable. Public, then, includes honorable.
Paul in No Low-Status Cities. Public also refers to the cities in which Paul resides, as
well as to civic and political spaces within them. But not all cities are honorable. Luke
comments on the status of various cities: for example, "Tarsus, a no low-status city" (21:39)
and Philippi, "the leading city of the district of Macedonia" (16:12). But what makes a city
honorable? In general, certain cities were renown as major centers of learning and
commerce, such as Antioch, Ephesus and Tarsus. Archeological data concerning them
indicate that they had public buildings, gymnasia, theaters, marketplaces, etc., i.e.,
Pausanius criteria for noble cities. Although specific information may or may not have
been available to general audience of Acts, Luke presumes some common lore or fame for
various cities mentioned,
such as the following material.

390

In terms of the honor rating of cities, we must be aware of the intense "vanity and rivalry of
cities in the matter of rank and titles."
Cities in Asia Minor
regularly made
honor claims to titles such as "metropolis" (), "First and Greatest" (
), "autonomous" (), "Warden of the (Imperial) Temple" (),
"Inviolable" (), "Friend of Rome" ( or ), and the like.
According to Dio Chrysostom, Nicea and Nicomedia "contended for primacy" (;
Or. 38.24). Dio says, moreover, that Nicea was rightly flattered to be known as:
. . . noble and worthy of renown . . . both as to its power and grandeur, for it is
inferior to no city of distinction anywhere, whether in nobility of lineage or in
composition of population, comprising as it does, the most illustrious families, not
small groups of sorry specimens who came together from this place and from that,
but the leaders among both Greeks and Macedonians, and, what is most significant,
having had as founders both heroes and gods (Or. 39.1).
Ephesus and Smyrna engaged in rivalry to be called "the First and Greatest Metropolis of
Asia."
Miletus was known as "First Settled City of Ionia, Metropolis of Many Great
Cities in Pontus and Egypt and in Many Places of the Inhabited World."

The titles

mattered to the ancients, for they drew part of their personal honor from the honor of the
renown city in which they lived. And they were highly jealous of sharing this honor with a
neighboring city (see Dio Chrysostom, Or. 38.39). Public space, when referring to cities,
then, might be honorable.
Tarsus. Let us briefly examine three cities Paul visited with a view to their honor rating and
the importance of this for Paul.
Luke records that Tarsus, the place of Paul's
birth,

was a "no low-status city."Climaxing a glorious history, Tarsus became the

capital of the Roman province of Cilicia. Cicero, when proconsul of the province, resided
there (Att. 5.20.3; Fam. 2.17.1).
Augustus exempted it from taxes and fostered its
development as a center of philosophy and rhetoric (Dio Chrysostom, Or. 34.7 and 25). Dio
Chrysostom
spoke of its rank as a "metropolis" from the start and as "the greatest of
all the cities of Cilicia" (33.17; 34.7).

Strabo praised it as a premier center of

learning, surpassing Athens and Alexandria (Geog. 14.5.13). Excavations there inform us
that Tarsus enjoyed the typical theater, gymnasia, marketplaces, fountains, and the
like.
Antioch. Of Antioch Josephus said: ". . . a city which, for extent and opulence,
unquestionably ranks third among the cities of the Roman world" (Wars 3.29).
It was
famous for its elegance ("Antioch the Great,"

"the Beautiful"

), size,

wealth and importance. Coins from Antioch record "Antioch, metropolis, sacred, and
391

inviolable, and autonomous, and sovereign, and capital of the East."

With the Roman

conquest, it maintained it importance as a major city, becoming the capital of Roman

Syria.
As befitted a major city, it was encircled with great walls
and enjoyed
the typical public buildings of a noble city, namely, a great colonnaded street, circus,
theater, forum, agora, palace, baths, and the like.
Ephesus. Strabo called Ephesus the largest commercial center in Asia Minor west of the
Taurus (Geog. 641). It enjoyed extensive public buildings: the great temple of Artemis
(Acts 19:24, 27-28),
a splendid theater (Acts 19:29), as well as several market
places, a number of gymnasia, and many fountains.

Since Augustus, it enjoyed the

honor of being the capital of the Roman province of Asia, and was acclaimed as "First and
Greatest Metropolis of Asia." Strabos encomium on Ephesus lauded the city for its famous
temple, its environment and harbor, and finally its famous citizens.
What does this tell us about Pauls claim in 20:20? First, Luke portrays Paul as traveling to
and residing in provincial capitals, "no mean cities."
Thus Paul is presented as a
citizen of the world, at home in the important cities of the empire. Luke's positioning of
Paul in the major cities of the empire constitutes a rhetorical strategy that would have his
readers accept Paul as a sophisticated person, at home in all parts of the Hellenistic world
and truly an honorable person. Honorable people come from and reside in honorable cities.
Thus, we suggest, public as a Lukan classification includes honorable cities.
6.Voice and Territorial Control
Thus far we have examined classification of space, especially public/private. To be
complete, we now take into account the control exercised in virtue of this classification.
The precise question is: who may speak to whom, when, and in what context? Who has
voice? In Acts 20:20-21, Paul states that his activity in public and from house to house
was speech: I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable,
and teaching you in public and from house to house, testifying to Jews and Greeks of
repentance to God. The US constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech to everyone was
most definitely not the case in antiquity.
Plutarch implies this in his remark: "Nature
has given us two ears and one tongue, because we ought to do less talking than listening"
(Listening to Lectures39B). Not everyone had voice in the agora, the synagogue or the
house where the Messianic assembly gathered. First of all, in the ancient gender-divided
world, males in private space outside the household have varying degrees of voice,
depending on age, honor and social role and status; but females do not, a distinction all the
more true of the public/political world.
Thus space is controlled in terms of who
has voice. Who, then, did the talking?

392

Factors such as age, status, and the classification of space as public/private serve as
indicators of who has voice and may speak. Age, for example, served as a chief factor in
determining who had voice. Young males generally do not enjoy voice, as Lysias indicates:
Some people are annoyed at me merely for attempting at too early an age to speak before
the people (Defense of Mantitheus 16.20). It was thought arrogant and unseemly for
youths to address elders.
Luke could have had this cultural criterion in mind when he
stated that Jesus was about thirty years of age (3:23) when he went to the Jordan. Some
scholars read this, not as calendar age, but as a claim that Jesus was sufficiently mature to
be considered an elder.
Second, social status factored into who had voice. Elite
citizens had public voice, but not male peasants. In general, then, elders enjoyed public
voice, not youths; males of certain status had voice, but not ordinary males.
Certain threads of the territoriality model can be woven together to clarify who has voice.
Both public space and private space accord voice to someone with sufficient honor.
Worthiness, excellence, and standing of a potential speaker are recognized by those in such
spaces and so he is accorded voice. When the venue is classified as public/political and is
therefore intrinsically honorable and when the would-be speaker is of a certain honorable
status and role, then no control is exercised over him; he has voice. But when the speaker is
classified as lacking honor or even corrupting the assembly, then control is exercised over
him; he loses voice. He is then unsuited for that space. In terms of Acts, Luke tells the story
this way:
1. Public/political space: in the residence of proconsul (13:7), governors (25-26),
chief man of the island (28:7-8) Paul enjoys voice: no control of space. Evidently his
role and status are honored.
2. Private/non-house space: in the hall of Tyrannus (19:9) and places where
Christians assembled, Paul has voice; his role and status are respected. No control of
space. But in synagogues, Paul is eventually denied voice and expelled from the
place; his role and status are rejected: now control enters (see figure on p. 18).
3. Private/households: although few households are mentioned as Pauls residence,
he enjoys respect and honor; Paul may speak, space is not controlled. It is unclear in
Acts who else enjoys voice.
Luke does not presume that Paul has voice everywhere; after all, Acts narrates how Paul
lost voice in city after city and had to flee.
Several patterns emerge in Acts which relate directly to the control or non-control of Pauls
speaking. In certain public spaces, elites summon Paul to speak (13:7; 24:24) or invite
him to address them (17:18-20). Paul thus is acknowledged as having sufficient elite
standing to have voice there. But in private synagogues, Paul is sometimes invited to
give a word of exhortation (13:15), but more frequently he simply stands up, speaks,
exhorts and argues with the audience (14:1; 17:2; 19:8). Although initially granted voice in
393

this setting by virtue of his status, Paul loses his voice as control is exercised over
synagogal space. He is silenced and expelled. In general, Paul has voice in many public
venues as well as in private households; but he lacks voice in the private space of the
synagogue.
Summary and Conclusions.
What have we learned? 1. Interpretative Model. If one wants to examine space in Acts so
as to understand as fully as possible what is communicated both in 20:20 and in the
narrative of which it is a summary, then the anthropological model of territoriality proves
to be a reliable and productive tool. It does what no amount of linguistic sifting or
archeological recovery can provide, namely, it provides patterns of the social perception of
space: 1. classification, 2. communication, and 3. control of space. 2. Classification of
Space. Although we identified seven classification patterns at the beginning of this study,
two proved most useful, 1. public/private and 2. honorable/non-honorable.
3. Public/private. The examination of nine ways of expressing public vs. private in the
Greco-Roman world provide a solid data base for interpreting how Luke and other New
Testament authors might be using these terms. And the key to properly interpreting these
data requires awareness of the two chief ancient institutions (polis, household) and social
patterns of interaction. 4. Nuanced Understanding of Public/Private. We can now
distinguish three spaces for males: 1. public/political, 2. private (non-household
association), and 3. private (household). These are gender-shaped classifications.
5. Public and Polis. When in Acts 20:20 Paul says that he spoke in public and from
house-to-house, the whole narrative of Acts indicates that public refers to the residences
of governors and kings and city centers, and that house-to-house refers primarily to
household space used for assembly (although synagogue is not far removed as another
private space). Paul may receive hospitality in the private households of Judas, Lydia
and Philip, but they are private household spaces. Paul, however, declares, teaches,
testifies in other private locations, possibly even houses now classified as suitable for
non-kinship members. 6. Paul, an Elite in Public Space. It is part of the Lukan rhetorical
strategy to tell the reader that Paul resides and speaks in the most noble cities of the Greek
East, sometimes in the most honorable parts of the cities. Hence, honor and non-honor,
another native classification of space, confirms Lukes presentation of Paul, a citizen of no
low-status city and even a citizen of Rome (22:25-27). 7. Voice or No Voice. We noted that
when in public, Paul enjoys voice and no control is exercised over him to silence him; on
the other hand, he is both silenced and controlled in the private synagogue. While Pauls
voice in the private assemblies of believers is significant for Lukes portrayal of his role
and status, his voice before governors, proconsuls and kings is also a significant datum in
Lukes apology for the Gospel of Jesus. Not everyone had voice in public or in
private.

Abstract: Scholarship with difficulty interprets teach in public and from house to house
because it lacks scientific understanding of space. The anthropological model of
territoriality can guide our reading according to: 1) classification of space, 2)
394

communication of this, and 3) control based upon it. Acts primarily classifies space as
public/private, male/female, and honorable/mean. In terms of public/private, Paul appears
in three distinct spaces: 1) public-civic (agora, governors residences), 2) private-nonkinship (synagogue, Tyrannus aule), and 3) private-household space. As regards control,
Paul has voice in public-political forums and in private-household contexts, but not in
private-non-kinship synagogues. Thus Terrioriality serves as an index of Pauls social
status, both in terms of where he goes and before whom he has voice.

Luke's
Social
Location
of
Paul:
Cultural Anthropology and the Status of Paul
in Acts
Jerome
University
Notre Dame, IN 46556

H.
of

Neyrey
Notre

Dame

1.0 Introduction,
Focus
and
Hypothesis
When scholars study the relationship of Luke's description of Paul to that
found in Paul's authentic letters, they tend to work out of either a strictly
historical or an ideological framework.(1) Is Acts a reliable source for the
history of Paul's life and times? Is Acts the "synthesis" of the conflict
between conservative Jewish christianity and liberal Pauline thought? More
recently scholars have examined the literary structure of Acts with attention
to the parallels between Jesus and Paul (Luke and Acts) and Peter and Paul
(Acts).(2) Thus a shift is occurring in the study of Acts, with more attention
given to the perspective of the author and his rhetorical agenda. (3) This
article belongs in that latter stream.
Historical questions about the veracity of Luke's portrait of Paul are
important and valid. But I focus here on the social status which the author of
Acts attributes to Paul. In terms of the highly stratified society of his world,
where did Luke(4) imagine Paul fitting? Where did he wish to locate him? I
suggest that Luke portrays Paul in the company of the elite of his world,
395

acting comfortably in the role of a citizen trained for public duties. (5) In
terms of his social status, Paul appears as a retainer to the elites of
Jerusalem and as a person who can speak eloquently to Greek philosophers,
Roman proconsuls and Jewish kings. He enjoys the patronage of elites. He
resides, moreover, in many of the most honorable cities of the Empire,
suggesting a high level of sophistication for him.(6)
Thus I am bringing to the study of Acts questions treated more
appropriately in cultural anthropology and social description. (7) How does
one discern Paul's status?(8) What does this mean in the cultural world of
Luke? What value is given in terms of honor to Paul's social location or to
the cities which he either visits or in which he resides? Such social and
cultural questions require historical scholars to supplement their traditional
methods of inquiry and bibliography. The present study will use the work of
Gerhard Lenski to map out the levels of social stratification common to the
type of society to which Paul belonged. (9) In addition to this, considerations
of honor, especially as this relates to cities and citizenship, will be employed
from the field of classical studies and cultural anthropology with a view to
locating Paul in an honorable environment. (10) New questions warrant new
methods of investigation, and the materials used here are increasingly being
employed by traditional scholarly investigation.

2.0 Prosopography and Social Stratification

Gerd Theissen and Wayne Meeks have each attempted to describe the social
composition of Pauline urban groups. (11) Theissen's interest lies in the social
description of the Corinthian congregation, namely, its composition of
mostly "lower classes" with some "upper class" people. He basically
performs a prosopographical analysis both of the persons named in 1
Corinthians and the offices mentioned. He concludes that "the majority of
the Corinthians known to us by name probably enjoyed high social
status."(12) His study employs little in terms of formal sociological modeling
to differentiate various strata both among the upper and lower classes. And
it is no fault of his that we learn nothing about Paul's own status.
Meeks, on the other hand, attempted to describe "the social level of Pauline
Christians" using more explicit measurements of social stratification. Noting
that "class" is an inappropriate category for close description of ancient
populations, he suggests that we examine references to the Roman "orders"
396

and inquire about what constitutes "status." (13) He then presents a

prosopographical survey of named figures in both the Pauline letters and the
Acts of the Apostles.(14)
Theissen, Meeks and others(15) have pioneered new scholarly approaches to
social description. But their particular studies are limited to strictly
historical issues(16) and tend to focus on the data in the letters of Paul. The
guiding issue behind most of these studies has been the question of whether
the early christians belonged to upper or lower classes. (17) Rarely does a
scholar engaged in this sort of study ask about the rhetorical strategy of the
author of Acts, i.e., whether he consciously attempts to portray Paul and the
people in his documents as belonging to a more respectable social stratum.
The rhetorical importance of names, offices and labels is outside the
concerns of social description. Prosopography, moreover, has its limits.
(18)
Nor is social description always possible or adequate without more formal
appreciation of social theory. Thus, this study asks a set of questions and
employs a method different from investigations which were either strictly
historical inquiry or rigorous social description.
This study, moreover, even though it will employ concepts and methods from
cultural anthropology, aims at interpretation, not simply history or
description.(19) It also considers the rhetoric of Luke's social location of Paul.
It is our hypothesis that Luke has positioned Paul in the retainer level of the
social strata common in ancient cities. As such, Luke portrays him in the
employ of upper-strata elites; he states that Paul was educated to perform as
a citizen at home in both the public courts and the halls of political power.
Luke consciously presents him as an urbane person, at home in the great
cities of the empire, the client of elites, and a very honorable person. This
sort of information simply cannot be gleaned from Paul's letters and would
appear to be at variance with the presentation of himself in those documents.
But such seems to be the Lukan rhetorical aim in his presentation of Paul's
social location.

3.0 Social Location: Toward a Useful Model

Many recent scholars have begun to use the work of Gerhard Lenski (20) as a
useful tool for gaining a sense of the radical stratification of the social world
of antiquity.(21) The part of Lenski's work pertinent to this study is the
description of advanced agrarian societies, which adequately describes at a
397

macro level the Roman empire of the time of both Paul and Luke. It was
characterized, he argues, by "marked social inequality . . . pronounced
differences in power, privilege and honor" associated with mature agrarian
societies.(22) Thus Lenski sets out to describe nine levels of social status,
beginning with the imperial and urban elite at the top of the pyramid and
concluding with artisans, untouchables and expendibles at the bottom.
Lenski's description of social stratification involves another model, the preindustrial city, which has been adequately described for New Testament
readers by Richard Rohrbaugh.(23) The importance of Rohrbaugh's studies
lies in its appreciation of the fact that the elites lived safely and elegantly in
cities and that they were assisted by a retainer class which served their
interests. Yet the bulk of the city's population consisted of merchants and
artisans, some of whom were well off, but most of whom lived at a
subsistence level, at best. This model of the ancient city presupposes that the
bulk of the total population dwelt in villages and lived as subsistence peasant
farmers (90%), while the remaining 10% (elites, their retainers, merchants
and artisans) lived in cities. Acts describes Paul as an urban person, who,
while he may travel through the countryside (16:1-7), lodges in cities and
deals with all the levels of the ancient stratified city, especially the elites.
Briefly, then, how does Lenski describe the social stratification of an
advanced agrarian society?
(1) Ruler. At the top is the ruler,(24) who might have been a Seleucid or
Ptolemy, but in Luke's world was the Roman emperor, Caesar. He enjoyed
vast wealth and power; Roman armies pillaged the East in their
conquest(25) and all that wealth and newly acquired lands made Caesar the
ultimate elite figure in the world. There were, of course, numerous client
kings in the East who held their positions through imperial patronage.
(2) Governing Class. This small majority(26) of aristocrats(27) served as the
officers and advisors of the ruler.(28) They might be civic as well as military
figures. Most held their appointments directly from the ruler.(29) They tended
to have vast grants of land, which supported their elite lifestyle and
facilitated their civic responsibilities. Lenski estimates that as a group they
received at least a quarter of the national income, and together with the
ruler, they acquired not less than half of the wealth drained from the land or
commerce.
(3) Retainer Class. The governing class maintained in their service "a small
army of officials, professional soldiers, household servants and personal
398

retainers."(30) They mediated relationships between the governing elites and

the common people.(31) If the governing class was small (1-2%), their
retainers constituted another 5% of the population.
(4) Merchants. Although this society was basically agrarian and wealth came
from land and farming, there was a modest amount of trade and commerce.
Merchants(32) could be quite wealthy, especially those dealing with luxury
goods,(33) but generally the majority were poor. Wealthy entrepreneurs were
not despised, since elites used them to increase their own wealth, (34) whereas
smaller scale merchants were held in contempt.
(5) Priests. In the Greco-Roman world there were many famous temples and
shrines, frequently associated with important cities. These "political"
structures were maintained by a priestly class, (35) whose food, clothing,
shelter, etc. were provided by taxes from the land or benefactions from the
elite. Their buildings were often richly endowed and served frequently as
repositories of wealth. Priests could perform the role of clerk and diplomat,
depending on their literacy and social standing.
(6) Peasants. The subsistence farmers who worked the land and produced
the agricultural surplus constituted the bulk of the population. (36)
(7) Artisans. Because they had no land and thus no status or means of
making advantageous marriages, the artisans of the city are ranked below
peasants.(37) In most agrarian societies, this stratum was recruited from the
ranks of landless peasants, either dispossessed or non-inheriting ones. Their
ranks were continually replenished from migrants from the countryside.
While the urban population represented 5-10% of the total population of the
empire, the artisan class constituted about half of that.(38)
(8) Unclean, Degraded and Expendibles. At the very bottom of the social
scale were the untouchables, who lived just outside the city. Below them
were the expendibles, such as petty criminals, outlaws, beggars, itinerant
workers, and those who lived by charity or their wits.(39)
The value of this model lies in its accurate description of the world of urban
elites and non-elites, as well as the differences between urban and rural
populations in antiquity. When we survey the data in Acts about the people
with whom Paul has contact, we can begin to discern a definite pattern in
the Lukan rhetoric which portrays Paul exclusively as an urban person of
the "retainer" class, who has access to rich merchants, members of the
399

retainer stratum, and even the governing class. Let us use Lenski's model as
a template for assessing Luke's social location of Paul according to Acts.

4.0 Reading the Status of Paul in Acts According to the Lenski Model
1. Ruler. Although the narrative never tells us whether Paul ever had his
requested audience with the Roman Emperor, he did "appeal to Caesar"
(25:11, 21; 26:32). An angelic messenger told Paul in a dream, "You must
stand before Caesar" (27:24); and in the Lukan schema of prophecyfulfillment, a reader might be expected to imagine that the prophetic word of
the Lord was fulfilled. At least on the narrative level, Paul is a suitable
person to appear before the Emperor.
In regard to client kings, when Ananias is instructed to attend to Paul upon
his arrival in Damascus, the appearing Lord says of Paul, "He is my chosen
instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of
Israel" (9:15). This prophetic remark is amply fulfilled by Paul's appearance
before King Agrippa and his queen, Bernice. Although in the presence of the
Roman governor Festus, Paul addresses his remarks directly to the
monarch, "I think myself fortunate that it is before you, King Agrippa, I am
to make my defense today" (26:2, 19). Having heard Paul, the king declared
him innocent (26:32). Although Agrippa is clearly a client king of the Roman
emperor, the narrative accords him the status of a ruler in his own right.
2. Governing Class. It will be important to distinguish as best we can
between three distinct groups with whom Paul is associated: (a) the
governing Jewish elite classes in Jerusalem, (b) the Roman authorities
(consuls, proconsuls, governors, tribunes), and (c) the leading citizens of
various Greek cities. When Luke introduces Saul, he is a retainer of the
governing class in Jerusalem. Paul himself goes to the "high priest" for
letters authorizing him to act (9:1-2), apparently a publicly known fact "as
the high priest and the whole council of elders bear me witness" (22:5). He
persecutes the Way "with the authority and commission of the chief priests"
(26:12). Luke, then, portrays Paul as a retainer of the governing class in
Jerusalem, who acts as their agent, with their authority, and with official
documents from them to legitimate his activities and to support his claims. It
is, moreover, no minor item that Paul later appears before the elites of
Jerusalem, "the chief priests and all the council" (22:30). Among them Luke
lists representatives of the governing elite of Jerusalem: chief priests (23:1-5;
400

24:1), aristocratic Sadducees (23:6), and elders (24:1). Luke would have us
believe that he is no stranger to this group.
The first Roman member of the governing class before whom Paul appears
is Sergius Paulus, "proconsul and man of intelligence" (13:7). This person of
very high status summoned Paul and sought to hear the word of God. The
narrative says that Sergius "believed" (13:12), suggesting that Paul found
favor while speaking before this elite person. In Corinth Paul was dragged
before Gallio, proconsul of Achaia, in circumstances less than favorable
(18:12). Although dismissed by Gallio, Paul was a significant enough person
to warrant the attention the highest governing official in the area.
His stay with the two Judean governors, Felix and Festus, was more
auspicious. Felix was informed that Paul was a Roman citizen and so
deserved special protection from assassination (23:26-33). He had "a rather
accurate knowledge of the Way" (24:22) and so deferred judgment until
another official, Lysias the tribune, arrived (24:22). Yet Felix kept Paul in
custody for two years, and on occasion heard Paul "argue about justice and
self-control and future judgment" (24:25), topics hotly debated by the major
philosophical schools of the Stoics and Epicureans. (40) Paul then pleaded his
case before Festus, the new governor (25:6-12), and was given a full, formal
hearing (26:1-32). Although the narrative indicates that Paul remained in
prison (24:27), he nevertheless had occasional access to the highest
governing authorities in the province and engaged at least one of them
regularly in formal conversation.
As regards others, Luke narrates that on one occasion Paul was the guest of
a person whom we have reason to evaluate as a member of the governing or
elite class. After his shipwreck, "the leading man of the island," Publius,
offers Paul hospitality (28:7) and even seeks his influence to cure his ailing
father (28:8-9). And he remarks that at Thessalonika, Paul was persuasive to
a great number of Greeks and "not a few of the leading women" (gynaikn
tn prtn, 17:4). This cryptic remark does not allow much elaboration, for
no details whatsoever are given us; it may be a parallel to Luke 8:2-3.
3. Retainer Class. Both the retainer and the merchant class contain higher
and lower ranking retainers, as well as richer and poorer merchants. We
take this into account as we investigate the persons with whom Paul typically
had social relations.
In recent publications, Anthony Saldarini has argued persuasively that the
Pharisees of Judea in the time period described by the gospels and the letters
401

of Paul were themselves members of the retainer class who served the needs
and interests of the governing elite.(41) Paul, at least, appears in Acts as a
literate person, even a scribe. He claims formal training as an educated, and
so literate Pharisee, under a famous teacher, Gamaliel (22:3). As noted
above, he acts as agent for the Jerusalem elite, functioning not only as
"ambassador" with letters of authorization, but possibly also as "bailiff."
When he enters synagogues in the cities of Asia Minor, he is regarded as a
literate person, with the ability to discourse on the Scriptures and exhort the
group (13:15-16; 14:1).
Luke portrays Paul as sufficiently literate and rhetorically eloquent to
engage both Stoics and Epicureans in a formal discourse on the Areopagus
in Athens (17:16-31). His discourse contains a description of the Stoic deity
in terms of the topos on "providence."(42)
Excluding Cynics, it seems safe to suggest that philosophers in the GrecoRoman world themselves belonged to the retainer class, serving as advisors
and teachers to the elites. Luke would have us think of Paul as being a
worthy member of this retainer class and as someone to whom they would
listen.
When Paul begins his public career at Antioch, he is mentioned in the
company of four other persons, some of whom probably belong to the
retainer class. Barnabas, a native of Cyprus and a Levite, owned property
(4:36-37), which he sold and the proceeds of which he donated to the
Jerusalem church. He later acts as the trusted agent of the Jerusalem church
to the new foundation of disciples at Antioch (11:22-26), and as their agent to
convey funds to the Jerusalem church during famine (11:29-30). These are
not the actions of a mere artisan, but of a person of some wealth and
standing. Although we are ignorant of the status of "Simeon who is called
Niger and Lucius of Cyrene," we are on safer ground concerning "Manaen a
member of the court of Herod the tetrarch" (13:1). This translation
of syntrophos may be too strong, for it may more modestly mean that
Manaen was "reared together with" Herod in the royal residences.
(43)
Perhaps not himself a member of the governing class, he was likely a
retainer in the royal household.
In Philippi, Paul ran afoul of certain persons in the city, who first hailed him
before the city leaders (archostas, 16:19), and then before the civic
"magistrates" (stratgoi). These persons function as the military and civic
officials charged with the order of the city (Herodotus 5.38). They in turn
can employ the services of "police" (rabdouchoi), that is, those who "carry
402

the rod," viz., lictors who carry the fasces. The "magistrates" have authority
to arrest Paul, chastise him, and then release him. As the narrative unfolds,
they simply expel Paul from the city as a troublemaker, but Paul demands of
them much more. Humiliated and shamed as a Roman citizen (16:37), he
demands from these public officials a formal public apology. Luke does not
claim that Paul associated with these "magistrates," but rather that he
recognized their social status as members of the retainer class responsible
for public order and public reputation. They in turn are made to recognize
Paul's own status (citizen) and offer a public acknowledgement of Paul's
honorable position.
4. Merchants. The most notable merchant with whom Paul has social contact
appears to be Lydia of Philippi. On the sabbath, Paul approached a sacred
grove where devout women gathered ("there was a place of prayer") and
attracted the attention of Lydia, "from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple
goods" (16:14). Wayne Meeks cites three things which indicate that she was
no minor merchant, but enjoyed some wealth and status. (44) "Purple goods"
(porphyrplis) may mean that she engaged in the dyeing of these goods or
the sale of the dyed item. Either way, purple was a luxury item and was
bought and worn by the elite.(45) Second, she prevails upon Paul and
associates to accept hospitality in her house (16:15), which does not appear
to be a small shop on a narrow street with meager living quarters behind or
above it. Finally, her name, occupation and origin suggest that she belongs to
the Greek-speaking merchants who have settled alongside Italian, agrarian
colonists. But these clues do not allow us to designate her a "rich" merchant,
yet she acts as a kind of patron to Paul.
5. Priests. The priests most frequently associated with Paul in the early part
of his career were the elite high priests of Jerusalem, whom we located above
in the governing class. Priests in other cities also had dealings with Paul.
During the riot at Ephesus, "some of the Asiarchs (Asiarchn), who were
friends of his (philoi)," sent messengers to him to prevent his engagement in
the riot (19:31). According to Lily Taylor, "Asiarchs were the foremost men
of the province of Asia, chosen from the wealthiest and the most aristocratic
inhabitants of the province."(46) As leaders of a religio-political organization,
they promoted the cult of the reigning emperor and with him the goddess
Roma.(47) The "asiarchs" mentioned by Luke are said to be "friends" of
Paul, which term can readily bear the meaning of patron.(48)
From an historical perspective one must wonder how aristocrats dedicated
to the promotion of the cult of the Emperor were possibly interested in Paul
and his monotheism. Yet Luke's rhetorical strategy concerning Paul's social
403

location indicates that they were his "friends" and patrons. Moreover, if
Luke's own portrayal of these figures as leading aristocrats is correct, then
they hardly belong in the priestly class, but should be ranked higher in
the governing class.
Luke narrates that after Paul's healing of a crippled man at Lystra, the
populace acclaimed Barnabas "Zeus" and Paul "Hermes," because he was
the chief spokesman (14:11-12). At this point, "the priest of Zeus," whose
temple was in front of the city, came forward with oxen and garlands to
honor Paul and Barnabas (14:13). This priest quite accurately fits Lenski's
description of a person in charge of the sacred rites at a local shrine. Paul
forestalled the reverence offered by this priest, but the incident is
noteworthy for two reasons. Paul was in contact with this class of person.
More importantly, he was honored as a deity by them (see also 28:6).
6. Artisans. When Paul arrived in Corinth, he "found" a Jew named Aquila
and his wife Priscilla. "Because he was of the same trade he stayed with
them" (18:2-3). They are tentmakers, or workers in leather; and so, they are
clearly artisans. We cannot tell whether they were well off or penurious
artisans. This association was entirely natural: Paul found people of his own
ethnos (Jews), who plied his trade, and who presumably spoke his language.
We may assume that Aquila and Priscilla did not live in the exclusive part of
the city reserved for elites, but in one of the many artisan neighborhoods. A
certain Crispus lived in that quarter as well. He was the "ruler of the
synagogue" (archisynaggos), and became a believer as well (18:8). Crispus,
because of his social position, is probably to be considered an artisan of some
means and status.
Although Paul was on good terms with the artisans mentioned above, he
becomes the dedicated enemy of Demetrius the silversmith at Ephesus. The
latter "brought no little business to the craftsmen," and was able to
persuade this group of artisans to riot against Paul (19:23-27). They are
persuaded to bring their grievances before the civic magistrates (19:38). The
narrative does not indicate that Paul resided in the quarter of the city where
Demetrius and his artisan associates worked or that he had any social
relations with them.
Luke comments once more about Paul's association with artisans in the
story of his final visit to Troas. Paul and his Christian disciples are
apparently meeting in an artisan's rooms in an insula. The young boy
Eutychus falls from the window on the third story (tristegou, 20:9). We are
hardly to imagine a multi-storied house of an aristocrat, for which three
404

stories would be most unusual. Rather, this appears to be an insula, a

residence of poor artisans.
Placing Lenski's model as a template over the social relationship in Acts, we
gain a sense of the author's rhetorical strategy. Luke claims that Paul was at
home with the elites of his world. He depicts him as sufficiently educated so
as to engage in philosophical discourse and as trained in forensic rhetoric so
as to make numerous public speeches,(49) which is one of the duties of a
citizen. Paul is clearly the retainer of the elites of Jerusalem and privy to
their circle. In his own right, he is a worthy person suited to discourse with
Roman proconsuls and client kings. His patrons are said to be asiarchs, elites
of Ephesus, and well-to-do merchants (i.e., Lydia at Philippi). In short, Paul
is a very honorable person of relatively high social status, who associates
with the elites of his world and is trained to perform suitably at that level of
society.

5.0 The Urban and Urbane Paul

One's status and honor were related to one's place of origin. Jesus was
dismissed by Nathanael simply because he came from the village of Nazareth
(John 1:46), whereas Paul claimed honorable status because he was from
Tarsus, "no mean city" (Acts 21:39). We investigate now the honor rating of
the various cities which, according to Acts, Paul either visited or in which he
resided.(50)As R. Rohrbaugh has shown, there is considerable confusion in
Luke-Acts over what is a village, a town, and a city.(51) He quotes Pausanias
on what the ancients considered a "city," which native description will serve
us well in evaluating the cities of Paul's labor and residence:
. . . if indeed one can give the name of city to those who possess no public
buildings, no gymnasium, no theatre, no market-place, no water descending
to a fountain, but live in bare shelters just like mountain huts on the edges of
ravines (10.4.1).
Pausanias points to the public arenas where honorable males speak, act, see
and are seen. Such places denote a vibrant civic life and a sophisticated
cultural ambiance. They are the natural places of urban elites. (52) Such
buildings, monuments and temples might take up 35 to 50 per cent of the
area of an walled city.(53) Apart from death, the worst punishment that could

405

be meted out to a Roman citizen was banishment from Rome to some

obscure island or region.
5.1 Honor Rating of Cities. Several sets of evidence help us to appreciate the
honor rating of the cities in Acts which Paul visits. (54) First, the author
himself comments on the status of the various cities: for example, "Tarsus,
no mean city" (21:39) and Philippi, "the leading city of the district of
Macedonia" (16:12). Second, other cities were well known as major centers
of learning and commerce, such as Antioch, Ephesus and Tarsus. Finally,
there are archeological data on these and other cities, indicating that they,
too, had public buildings, gymnasia, theaters, market-places, etc. Specific
information may or may not have been available to general readers of Acts,
but the author presumes some common lore or fame for various cities
mentioned.(55)
In terms of the honor one derived from being born and raised in a certain
city, we cite the rules from the progymnasmata of Menander Rhetor for
composing an encomium on a city. These rules were commonplaces in
antiquity, and all who learned to write Greek were schooled in these
exercises. They represent, then, general cultural expectations from the
Hellenistic world. The very first thing an author should note when
composing an encomium on someone is the honor which accrues from being
born in an honorable city (or country). Because of its relevance for this
study, we cite Menander in full:
If the city has no distinction, you must inquire whether his nation as a whole
is considered brave and valiant, or is devoted to literature or the possession
of virtues, like the Greek race, or again is distinguished for law, like the
Italian, or is courageous, like the Gauls or Paeonians. You must take a few
features from the nation . . . arguing that it is inevitable that a man from
such a [city or] nation should have such characteristics, and that he stands
out among all his praiseworthy compatriots.(56).
Thus it was "inevitable" that a person from such an honorable city would
have its honorable characteristics.
Moreover, in terms of the honor rating of cities, it is helpful to note the
intense "vanity and rivalry of cities in the matter of rank and
titles."(57) Cities in Asia Minor regularly made honor claims to titles such as
"metropolis" (mtropolis), "First and Greatest" (prt kai megist),
"autonomous" (autonom), "Warden of the (Imperial) Temple" (nekor),
"Inviolable" (asyl), "Friend of Rome" (phil or symmach Rmain), and
406

the like.(58) According to Dio Chrysostom, Nicea and Nicomedia "contended

for primacy" (prtein; Or. 38.24). Nicea, moreover, was rightly flattered to
be known as
. . . noble and worthy of renown . . . both as to its power and grandeur, for it
is inferior to no city of distinction anywhere, whether in nobility of lineage or
in composition of population, comprising as it does, the most illustrious
families, not small groups of sorry specimens who came together from this
place and from that, but the leaders among both Greeks and Macedonians,
and, what is most significant, having had as founders both heroes and gods
(Dio Chrysostom, Or. 39.1).
Ephesus and Smyrna engaged in rivalry to be called "the First and Greatest
Metropolis of Asia."(59) Miletus was known as "First Settled City of Ionia,
Metropolis of Many Great Cities in Pontus and Egypt and in Many Places of
the Inhabited World."(60) The titles mattered to the ancients, for they drew
part of their personal honor from the honor of the renown city in which they
lived. And they were highly jealous of sharing this honor with a neighboring
city (see Dio Chrysostom, Or. 38.39).
The scope of this study does not allow us to investigate thoroughly all of the
cities of Paul's sojourns and travels.(61) We examine four of them in the light
of Pausanias' remarks about what constitutes an honorable city in the
popular mind. Since Tarsus is the place of Paul's birth(62) and Luke claims
that it is "no mean city," it is a fitting place to begin.
5.1.1 Tarsus. Climaxing a long and glorious history, Tarsus became the
capital of the Roman province of Cilicia after its conquest by Pompey.
Cicero, when proconsul of the province, resided there (Att. 5.20.3; Fam.
2.17.1).(63) Augustus favored Tarsus(64) by exempting it from taxes and
fostered its development as a center of philosophy and rhetoric. In his
speeches to Tarsus, Dio Chrysostom(65) spoke of its rank as a "metropolis"
from the start and as "the greatest of all the cities of Cilicia" (33.17; 34.7).
(66)
Strabo praised it as a premier center of learning:
The people of Tarsus have devoted themselves so eagerly, not only to
philosophy, but also to the whole round of education in general, that they
have surpassed Athens, Alexandria, and any other place that can be named
where there have been schools and lectures of philosophers (Geog. 14.5.13;
see also 14.5.15).

407

From excavations at Tarsus, we know that it enjoyed the typical theater,

gymnasia, marketplaces, fountains, and the like.(67) Apollonius of Tyana
found the city more concerned with luxuries than learning, and so left it
(Vita 1.7). But he attests to its wealth, and so its prestige and honor.
5.1.2 Antioch. Josephus called Antioch the third city of the empire, after
Rome and Alexandria: ". . . a city which, for extent and opulence,
unquestionably ranks third among the cities of the Roman world"
(Wars 3.29).(68) It was truly famous for its elegance ("Antioch the
Great,"(69) "the Beautiful"(70)), its size,(71) wealth and importance.(72) From
coins, we know that Antioch called itself "Antioch, metropolis, sacred, and
inviolable, and autonomous, and sovereign, and capital of the East." (73) Its
population has been estimated between 200,000 and 400,000. (74) With the
Roman conquest, it maintained it importance as a major city, becoming the
capital of Roman Syria.(75) As befits a major city, it was encircled with great
walls(76); it enjoyed the typical public buildings of a noble city, namely, a
great colonnaded street, circus, theater, forum, agora, palace, baths, and the
like.(77)
5.1.3 Ephesus. Strabo called this city the largest commercial center in Asia
Minor west of the Taurus (Geog. 641). From archeological investigation, we
know that it had extensive public buildings: the great temple of Artemis
(Acts 19:24, 27-28),(78) a splendid theater (Acts 19:29), as well as several
market-places, a number of gymnasia, and many fountains. (79) Since
Augustus, it enjoyed the honor of being the capital of the Roman province of
Asia, and was acclaimed as "First and Greatest Metropolis of Asia." When
Ephesus was praised by Strabo, he followed the conventions of the
encomium and lauded the city for its famous temple, its environment and
harbor, and finally the famous men from it. (80) In a recent article, Peter
Lampe has argued that Luke, at least, was quite familiar with the social and
topographical features of Ephesus.(81)
5.1.4 Corinth. This famous and wealthy(82) city was refounded as a Roman
colony under Julius Caesar in 44 b.c.e. It enjoyed considerable imperial
patronage, first under Augustus and then under Tiberias, when a vast public
building program was accomplished. As a result, Corinth was a truly
honorable city, with extensive walls (Strabo, Geog. 8.6.21), numerous springs
and fountains, an upper and a lower marketplace, theater, temples,
(83)
fountains, monuments, baths and the like (Pausanias 2.2.6-3.6). (84) It
hosted the Isthmian games, second most pretigeous Panehellenic games. (85)

408

From our investigation of these four cities and from other data in Acts, we
can discern how Luke portrays Paul as travelling to and residing in
provincial capitals, "no mean cities."(86) Tarsus, Antioch, Ephesus and
Corinth were wealthy cities, which enjoyed considerable imperial patronage,
and which were for the most part centers of learning. Thus Paul is presented
as a citizen of the world,(87) at home in the important cities of the empire.
Given the known data about the public buildings in these cities, we are led
by Luke to envision Paul under the stoa in the marketplaces, at the theater,
and in the various public arenas of the city. Luke tells us that in Corinth
Paul "argued in the hall (schol) of Tyrannus" (Acts 19:10), a recognized
place for educated disputation.(88)Luke's positioning of Paul in most of the
major cities of the empire constitutes a rhetorical strategy that would have
his readers accept Paul as a sophisticated person, at home in all parts of the
Hellenistic world and truly an honorable person. Honorable people come
from and reside in honorable cities.
5.1.5 Parts of the City. More specifically, in what part of the city does Luke
present Paul residing when he arrives or stays? We know from studies of
ancient and pre-industrial cities that they were divided into numerous
neighborhoods: a central part for the few elites and their retainers and the
periphery for the many poor artisans. Thus it matters in what part of the
city persons are found and where they belong.(89)
Only three times are we told about Paul's place of residence. Lydia, the
dealer in purple clothing, invites Paul to "my house" (16:15). Our problem
lies in knowing whether Lydia is a wealthy merchant or an average artisan.
At a minimum, she appears to be a person of some means, not the typical
struggling artisan; this will reflect on where she lives in Philippi. At Corinth
Paul stayed with the artisans Aquila and Prisca (18:2-3), presumably in the
artisan part of the city, and even there, one for workers in leather. Finally,
Paul was the guest of Publius, "the chief man of the island" of Malta (28:7).
He is presumably a landed aristocrat with a fine house. On balance, Paul
seems to find patronage in honorable residences, even the homes of wealthy
persons. But we note quickly that Paul never resides long in the houses of
elites.
Although we know that Paul enters synagogues, (90) Luke presents him in
other public places. At Athens, he is frequently found in the marketplace
(agora, 17:17); the only other reference to marketplace is that of Philippi,
where Paul faces the city magistrates (16:19). Then Luke reports that some
philosophers brought Paul to the Areopagus, the site of the council of
Athenian elders, who were wealthy oligarchs (19:19).(91) Paul is warned not
409

to enter the theater at Ephesus (19:31), a place frequented by elites and nonelites alike. Finally, at Lystra he seems to be standing before the local temple
outside the city (14:13), but it is difficult to determine whether this temple
was as famous as the great temple of Artemis at Ephesus (19:27). At a
minimum, Luke portrays Paul as a typical male of considerable social
status: he regularly appears in public space; he frequently does traditional
elite male tasks such as argue, debate and speak boldly in public. Luke
would have us think of him as a person at home in places reserved for elites.

6.0 Paul, the Roman Citizen.

In a world of elaborate social hierarchy, it is no minor thing that Luke
claims for Paul that he is both a citizen of Tarsus, no mean city (Acts 21:29),
and a citizen of Rome (16:37; 22:27-28) (92). As we noted in regard to Paul the
urban person, if one's prestige and standing are determined by the city of
one's birth, all the more is it related to being a citizen of that city, and
especially a Roman citizen. Such an honor was particularly rare among the
population of the eastern Mediterranean in this period, and so, as F.F. Bruce
remarked, ". . . the few Roman citizens, whether Greek or Jews by birth,
would constitute a social elite."(93)
When Paul's citizenship is discussed, scholars have tended to ask strictly
historical questions,(94) such as, "If he was born a citizen (Acts 22:28), how
did his father gain the honor?" and "How could he prove his citizenship?
Did he carry a libellus recording the honor?"(95) There simply are no data for
answering these questions; and in this inquiry, we focus on the social status
Luke claims for Paul, not the historical verifiability of his claims. More
importantly for us are questions touching the "rights and duties" of citizens
and the social position implied by citizenship.
Although Sherwin-White regularly speaks of the duties and privileges
(munera et honores) of citizenship,(96) these are not clearly spelled out in his
study. In terms of rights and privileges, Paul only claims Roman citizenship
in forensic contexts: when beaten by the magistrates in Philippi (16:37),
when threatened with scourging by the Roman tribune (22:25-27), and when
demanding a trial before Caesar (25:10-11, 21; 26:32). Thus we infer that
one of the rights Paul claimed was that of "a fair public trial for a citizen
accused of any crime, exemption from certain ignominious forms of
punishment, and protection from summary execution."(97) Acts says nothing
410

more about the rights of a citizen, but from other studies we infer that some
citizens were exempt from certain taxes.(98)
What, then, of the duties? This involves some scenario of what citizenship
meant and how it was acquired. Since in all probability, Paul's father or
ancestor purchased this rare status,(99) we are allowed to imagine a person of
considerable influence and wealth to pay the right bribe to the right official.
Such a well-placed person would have had civic obligations to act as patron
and benefactor to his city, support its public buildings, and provide for
certain of its feasts. None of this is even hinted at in Acts, but Luke surely
appreciates the snobbery index that Roman citizenship brings.
The recent study by John Lentz examines the social significance of Paul's
"appeal to Caesar" in Acts 25:11, 21 and 26:32. In keeping with the thrust of
his study, Lentz argues that on the rhetorical level, whatever the historical
situation might have been, such an appeal is best understood as Luke's claim
for Paul's high social status.(100) He builds his argument on the following
observations: (a) only a very small fraction of cases ever came before the
emperor (p 144); (b) the various laws concerning trials favored those of high
social status (p 144); (c) Paul's appeal to Caesar is not a legal protest against
the abusive authority of a local magistrate, which is the normal rationale for
a change of jurisdiction (p 146); and (d) numerous historical examples of
change of jurisdiction all involve persons of high rank and status (pp 14849). Thus Lentz concludes that an appeal to Caesar or to higher legal
authority was common for persons of "high social status and reputation, or
personal ties to the emperor."(101)

7.0 Conclusions and Further Conversation.

We have used several models from the social sciences to give as much
precision as possible to the Lukan presentation of Paul's status and social
location. Both Lenski's model about the stratification of ancient agrarian
societies and the perspective of honor articulated in cultural anthropology
have served to give reliability to the intuitive perception that Luke perceives
and presents Paul as a person of considerable honor and social status.
This brief study is but a voice in a chorus, a part of a conversation. It
supplements Lentz's recent monograph on the status attributed to Paul by
his presentation in terms of the classical virtues of antiquity.(102) If it adds
411

anything to the conversation about Acts, two important questions then

surface. First, how historically accurate is Luke's portrait of Paul? In
addition to study of the differences between the chronology of Paul's letters
and that of Acts and between the theology of his letters and that of his
speeches in Acts, we should further investigate the social level of Paul as
claimed or implied in his letters and that articulated by the author of Acts.
Second, whatever the historical reality, further inquiry should be made
concerning the rhetorical strategy in the presentation of Paul, both in his
own letters and in Luke's portrait of him. It is part of Paul's own rhetorical
strategy to present himself as weak in public speaking and lacking in
rhetoric (1 Cor 1:17; 2:1-5), whereas we have seen that it is characteristic of
the Lukan rhetorical argument to present Paul as forensically adept. In his
own letters, Paul calls attention to his lack of honor (1 Cor 4:8-13; 2 Cor 4:712; 11:21-33).(103)
In contrast, Luke calls attention at every turn to Paul's honorable status in
terms of the cities where he lives, his associates and "friends," his
citizenship, and the like. Much remains to be done, therefore, in terms of the
rhetorical stragegy of each author. Nevertheless, this article has advanced
the conversation on the portrait of Paul in Acts by its careful use of reliable
models for the recovery and articulation of Paul's social status and location.

NOTES
1. P. Vielhauer, "On the 'Paulinism' of Acts," Studies in Luke-Acts (ed. L.
Keck and J. L. Martyn; New York: Abingdon, 1966) 33-48; C. Burchard,
"Paulus in der Apostelgeschichte," TLZ 100 (1975): 881-95; J. Roloff, "Die
Paulus-Darstellung des Lukas," EvT 39 (1979): 510-31.
2. See Charles H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the
Genre of Luke-Acts (SBLMS 20; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974); A. J.
Mattill, "The Paul-Jesus Parallels and the Purpose of Luke-Acts: H. H.
Evans Reconsidered," NovT 17 (1975): 15-45; and Walter Radl, Paulus und
Jesus in lukanischen Dopplewerk: Untersuchungen zu Parallelmotiven im
Lukasevangelium und der Apostelgeschichte (Frankfort: Peter Lang, 1975).
3. Jacob Jervell, Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972)
153-83 and his The Unknown Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984) 52-67 and
412

68-76; William R. Long, "ThePaulusbild in the Trial of Paul in

Acts," SBLASP 1983 87-105 and Robert L. Brawley, "Paul in Acts: Aspects
of Structure and Characterization," SBLASP 1988 90-105. See especially,
Earl Richard, "Luke--Writer, Theologian, Historian: Research and
Orientation of the 1970s," BTB 13 (1983): 3-15.
4. On the social location of the author of Acts, see Vernon Robbins, "The
Social Location of the Implied Author of Luke-Acts," The Social World of
Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation (Jerome H. Neyrey, ed.; Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1991) 305-32; see also Richard L. Rohrbaugh,
"Methodological Considerations in the Debate over the Social Class Status
of Early Christians," JAAR 52 (1984) 519-46.
5. In a recent study, John C. Lentz (Luke's Portrait of Paul [Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1993]) has argued basically the same thesis as I
am advancing here. The two studies, however, are worlds apart in terms of
the manner in which they describe social status (i.e., the formal use of social
science models) and in the items in the text of Acts which might illustrate
high status. This is not to disparage Lentz's study, but to indicate that this
social-science analysis finds support from more historical studies such as his.
6. Paul's own letters indicate that he visited noble cities such as Corinth (1
Cor 1:1), Ephesus (1 Cor 15:32; 16:8), Philippi (Phil 1:1), and Rome (Rom
1:7). But from these documents we never learn anything about the city,
whether it has temples, fountains, schools of philosophy, and the like; nor
does Paul comment about the status of the city, either "no mean city" or
"leading city of the district," as he does in regard to Tarsus and Philippi
respectively. Luke would seem more interested in the honor rating of these
cities, as part of his rhetorical agenda.
7. See Jerome H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for
Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991). For the
letters of Paul, see Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians. The Social
World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983).
8. See Ronald F. Hock, "Paul's Tentmaking and the Problem of His Social
Class," JBL 97 (1978) 55-64.
9. Gerhard Lenski, Power and Privilege. A Theory of Social
Stratification (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press,
1984).
413

10. Basic expositions of the cultural meaning of honor are: J.G.

Peristiany, Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean
Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966); David D.
Gilmore, Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean (Special
publication of the American Anthropological Association no. 22;
Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1986);
adaptations of this material for biblical studies are found in Bruce J.
Malina, New Testament World. Insights from Anthropology (rev. ed.;
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993) 28-62 and Bruce J. Malina and
Jerome H. Neyrey, "Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the
Mediterranean World," The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for
Interpretation (J.H. Neyrey, ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 25-65.
11. Gerd Theissen, "Soziale Schichtung in der korinthischen Gemeinde; Ein
Beitrag zur Soziologie des hellenistischen Urchristentum," ZNW 65 (1974)
232-72 translated and reprinted in his The Social Setting of Pauline
Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), and Wayne A. Meeks, The
First Urban Christians. The Social World of the Apostle Paul, 52-73.
12. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 95.
13. Meeks, First Urban Christians, 53-55. In a subsequent study, Meeks
enumerates observable indices of status: "Some of the indices of higher
status were these: Roman citizenship, especially in the early years of the
empire, when it was rare; citizenship in the local polis, compared with
resident aliens; among the citizens, the decurions or city councillors of
smaller cities; wealth, more and more, preferably inherited rather than
worked for, and invested in land rather than trade; family and origin: the
older the better, the closer to Rome the better, Greek better than
"barbarian"; military office or the status of veteran in a colony; freedom by
birth . . ." (Wayne A. Meeks,The Moral World of the First
Christians [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986] 34).
14. Meeks, First Urban Christians, 55-73.
15. See E.A. Judge, "The Early Christians as a Scholastic
Community," JRH 1 (1960) 4-15, 125-37 and "The Social Identity of the
First Christians: A Question of Method in Religious History,"JRH 11 (1980)
201-17.
16. For example, Erastus "the city treasurer" (Romans 16:23) has been
interpreted both as a slave (see Meeks, First Urban Christians, 58) and as a
414

citizen who was performing an office which was part of the municipal cursus
honorum (see Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 76-83).
17. See Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House, 1965) 144; and E.A. Judge, The Social Pattern of Early
Christian Groups in the First Century(London: Tyndale Press, 1960).
18. See Thomas F. Carney,
Payoffs," Phoenix 27 (1973) 156-79.

"Prosopography:

Pitfalls

and

19. For recent descriptions of social status in antiquity adapted for New
Testament readers, see Wayne A. Meeks, The Moral World of the First
Christians, 32-38 and John C. Lentz, Luke's Portrait of Paul, 7-22.
20. Gerhard Lenski and Jean Lenski, Human Societies: An Introduction to
Macrosociology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974), and Gerhard E.
Lenski, Power and Privilege. A Theory of Social Stratification.
21. See Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in
Palestinian Society. A Sociological Approach (Wilmington, DL: Michael
Glazier, 1988) 35-49; David A. Fiensy, The Social History of Palestine in the
Herodian Period (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1991) 155-76; Dennis
C. Duling, "Matthew's Plurisignificant 'Son of David' in Social Science
Perspective: Kinship, Kingship, Magic, and Miracle," BTB 22 (1992): 99-116
and his The New Testament. Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and
History (3rd ed.; New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1994) 4950, 55-58, 141-42; and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, "The Social Location of the
Marcan Audience," BTB 23 (1993): 114-27.
22. Lenski, Power and Privilege, 210.
23. Richard L. Rohrbaugh, "The City in Luke-Acts, "The Social World of
Luke-Acts. Models of Interpretation (Jerome H. Neyrey, ed.; Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers 1991) 125-50 and "The City in the Second
Testament," BTB 21 (1991): 67-75.
24. Lenski, Power and Privilege, 210-19.
25. John H. Kautsky, The Politics of Aristocratic Empires (Chapel Hill, NC:
The University of North Carolina, 1982) 51-56 and 65-66.

415

26. Lenski, Power and Privilege, 219-30. The Roman governing strata was
extremely small in numbers, as Ramsey MacMullen points out: "The
senatorial stratum amounted to something like two-thousandths of one
percent...Equites probably totalled less than a tenth of one percent. Senators
had to have property worth 250,000 times the day's wage of a
laborer; equites qualified for their rank by less than half of that estate. In
Italy, at its richest moment, in its second largest city (Padua),
the equites constituted no more than one percent of the inhabitants; in
poorer regions of the empire and in the rural population of every
region, equites were of course much scarcer" (pp. 88-89 in his Roman Social
Relations; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984). Comparably, the local
aristocracy in the cities of the East would be quite small, perhaps only one
percent of the population.
27. MacMullen (Roman Social Relations, 89-90) writes of the local
aristocracies: "Between the top and bottom, taking into account in a single
glance the entire empire, a range of intermediate wealth made up the
aristocracy of small cities. In a given city, however, the aristocracy
nevertheless stood upon the summit of a very steep social pyramid." On
aristocrats, see J.H. Kautsky, The Politics of Aristocratic Empires, 89-98,
and Reinhard Bendix, Kings or People: Power and the Mandate to
Rule (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1978) 106.
28. Fiensy (The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period, 160-61)
offers a further definition of this stratum. One can distinguish between the
ruler and his circle of elites and another group of lay aristocrats: "They are
called 'elders' (presbyteroi) (Mk. 15:1, Acts 4:5), 'leaders' (proesttes)
(V 194), 'first men' (prtoi) (V 9, 185), MK 6:21, 'NOTABLES' (gnrimoi)
(B 2.410, 318), 'powerful ones' (dynatoi) (B 2.316, 411), 'those first in rank
(tim) and birth (genos) (A 20.123), and 'honored men' (Yoma 6:4)."
29. On the Herodian aristocracy in the first century, see David Fiensy, The
Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period, 157-61.
30. Lenski, Power and Privilege, 243; his full treatment is found on pp. 24348.
31. Saldarini,Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 87-88, 92-94, 137-43 and
155-67.
32. Lenski, Power and Privilege, 248-56.
416

33. Lenski, Power and Privilege, 253.

34. The attitude of Cicero (De Officiis 1.42.151) is typical in this regard.
35. Lenski, Power and Privilege, 256-66; see also Bruce J. Malina,
"'Religion' in the World of Paul: A Preliminary Sketch," BTB 16 (1986) 92101.
36. Lenski, Power and Privilege, 266-78; Douglas E. Oakman, Jesus and the
Economic Questions of His Day (Lewiston: Edwin Mellon Press, 1986) 100102 and his "The Countryside in Luke-Acts," The Social World of LukeActs, 152-64. David Fiensy (The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian
Period, 157) calls attention to the "the essential bifurcation of peasant
society into aristocrats and peasant." This allows us to appreciate the
ancient distinction between urban and rural populations, with the attendant
snobbery by urban peoples toward the rural, peasant peoples (Fiensy, 16869). Thus it matters greatly whether Luke presents Paul as just another
"uneducated, common man" from the countryside like Peter and John (Acts
4:13) or as an urban dweller in major cities of the empire.
37. Lenski, Power and Privilege, 278-80.
38. Lenski, Power and Privilege, 279.
39. Lenski, Power and Privilege, 281-84.
40. See J. H. Neyrey, "Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy. A Study in
Stereotypes," Greeks, Romans, and Christians (D. Balch, E. Ferguson, W.
Meeks, eds.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 118-34.
41. Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian
Society. A Sociological Approach (Wilmington, DL: Michael Glazier, 1988)
277-97; and "The Social Class of the Pharisees in Mark," The Social World
of Formative Christianity and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988)
69-77.
42. See Jerome H. Neyrey, "Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy," 124-26.
43. LSJ, 1728.
44. Wayne A. Meeks, First Urban Christians, 62.

417

45. See Frederick W. Danker ("Purple," ABD 5. 557-60) indicates that fine
purple clothing, of course, was a luxury item of the rich; he also notes that
inexpensive mineral and vegetable dyes were also used to produce
approximations. He concludes that "it is not possible to determine that
Lydia limited her sale to luxury items or to a specific clientele," p. 558). G.
H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity [Macquarie
University, 1982] 2.26-28) notes that the name "Lydia" suggests a person of
servile status, who drew her name from her place of origin. He hints,
moreover, that she may well have been of "Caesar's household" (Phil 4:22),
an ex-slave working in Philippi in an industry over which emperors from the
time of Nero exercised an imperial monopoly (see Eusebius, H.E. 7.32.2-3).
46. Lily Ross Taylor, "Note XXII. The Asiarchs," The Beginnings of
Christianity (Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury, eds.; Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House, 1979) 5.256-62. Yet there continues to be a critical debate
over whether an asiarch was also an archiereus; see R.A. Kearsley,
"Asiarchs, Archiereis, and the Archiereia of Asia," GRBS 27 (1986): 183-92
and his "Asiarchs," ABD 1.495-97.
47. Whether an asiarch was necessarily a high priest is controversial; but as
Kearsley notes ("Asiarchs," 496), they were highly prominent people:
Roman citizens, members of important families, benefactors of the city,
supporters of the Roman rulers, and honored by the city as patronbenefactors. They clearly belong to the ruling elite.
48. Examples of clients being called "friends" of kings and the aristocracy
include: John 19:12; Josephus, Ant. 12.134 & 298; Philo, Flac. 40; 1 Macc
2:18; 3:38 and 10:65. See also Ernst Bammel, "Philos tou Kaisaros," TZ 77
(1952) 205-10 and P.A. Brunt, "'Amicitia' in the Late Roman
Republic," Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 191 (1965) 120.
49. Jerome H. Neyrey, "The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul's Trial
Speeches in Acts 22-26: Form and Function," Luke-Acts. New Perspectives
from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar(C.H. Talbert, ed.; New York:
Crossroad, 1984) 210-24.
50. See William Ramsey, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1903) and The Cities of St. Paul (London: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1907); see also A.H.M. Jones, The Greek City ; David
Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
418

1950); and Sherman E. Johnson, Paul the

Cities (Wilmington, DL: Michael Glazier, 1987).

Apostle

and

His

51. Richard L. Rohrbaugh, "The Pre-Industrial City in Luke-Acts: Urban

Social Relations," The Social World of Luke-Acts, 125-27.
52. Rohrbaugh, "The Pre-Industrial City in Luke-Acts," 133-36.
53. Rodney Stark, "Antioch as the Social Situation for Matthew's
Gospel," Social History of the Matthean Community (David Balch, ed.;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991) 192.
54. One author of ancient progymnasmata, Menander Rhetor, has left
explicit rules for the "praise of a city" (Menander Rhetor [trans. by D.A.
Russell and Nigel Wilson; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981] 33-75). Examples
of this praise of cities can be found in the two speeches of Dio Chrysostom on
Tarsus, especially Or. 33.17-18, 21. Unfortunately, Luke has given very few
details about the various cities of Paul to test whether he was familiar with
such encomia. Many of Dio Chrysostom's orations are directed toward cities
such as Tarsus and Alexandria, and so offer valuable data on their
reputations and how public speakers praised them.
55. Further investigation needs to be done in the Lukan shift of focus from
Jesus, peasant of the countryside to the early church, artisans of the urban
world. See Harvie M. Coon, "Lucan Perspectives and the
City," Missiology 13 (1985)415-18. The change of social location in LukeActs has been investigated in terms of a shift from the political-religious
institution of the temple to the kinship institution of the family; see John H.
Elliott, "Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts: A Contrast in Social
Institutions," The Social World of Luke-Acts, 211-40.
56. Menander Rhetor, Treatise II 369.17-370.10.
David57.Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1950) 2.1496 # 17.
58. Athenaeus contains an excellent illustration of this: "Athenaeus speaks of
Rome as 'the populace of the world,' and says that one would not shoot wide
of the mark if he called the city of Rome an epitome of the civilized world; so
true is it that one may see at a glance all the cities of the world settled there.
Most of them he details with their individual traits, such as the 'golden' city
of Alexandria, the 'beautiful' city of Antioch, the 'very lovely' city of
419

Nicomedia, and beyond and above these, 'the most radiant of all the towns
that Zeus created" (Deipnosophistae 1.20b).
59. See Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, 636.
60. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, 636 and 1496 # 19.
61. See William M. Ramsey, The Cities of St. Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B.
Eerdmans, 1961); Sherman E. Johnson, Paul the Apostle and His
Cities (Wilmington, DL: Michael Glazier, 1987); John McRay, Archeology
and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991) 225350; and Wayne A. Meeks, First Urban Christians, 9-16, 40-50.
62. Acts 22:3; see W. C. van Unnik, Tarsus or Jerusalem? The City of Paul's
Youth (London: SCM, 1962) 6-14; for a revisionist point of view, see Martin
Hengel, The Pre-Christian Paul(Philadelphia: Trinity Press International,
1991) 18-39.
63. For a convenient history of Tarsus, see W. Ruge, "Tarsos," PW 2.4 (1932)
2413-39.
64. See Dio Chrysostom, Or. 34.7 and 25.
65. Dio's two encomia to Tarsus (Or. 33 and 34) are valuable sources of what
was considered praiseworthy by the ancients; on these orations, see C.
Bradford Welles, "Hellenistic Tarsus,"Mlanges de l'Universit Saint
Joseph 38 (1962): 62-75.
66. It was also known as nekoros, or "Warden of the (imperial) Temple
(Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, 637). On its acclamation as a
"metropolis," see Strabo, Geog. 14.5.13.
67. Dio Chrysostom (Or. 33.18) seems to be describing the public buildings
of Tarsus when he mentions the praise of a city for its "rivers and baths and
fountains and porticoes and a multitude of houses and a wide extent of
space." See F.F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids,
MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1977) 32-36.
68. Strabo remarked, "Antiocheia is the metropolis (mtropolis) of Syria. It
does not fall much short, either in power or in size, of Seleuceia-on-theTigris or Alexandria in Egypt" (16.2.5).
69. Philostratus, Vita Apol. i.16.
420

70. Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 1.20b; Libanius, Or. 31.9; see Bruce M.

Metzger, "Antioch-on-the-Orontes," BA 11 (1948) 72.
71. Libanius remarked, "There is no city in the world in which big size has
been united in equal measure with such beautiful situation" (Or. xi.196).
72. John Malalas, The Chronicle, as cited in George Haddad, Aspects of
Social Life in Antioch in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (unpublished diss.,
University of Chicago, 1949)
20-30.
73. See E. T. Newell, "The Pre-Imperial Coinage of Roman
Antioch," Num. Chron. 19 (1919) 69-113; see also John Malalas, The
Chronicle, as cited in George Haddad, Aspects of Social Life in Antioch in
the Hellenistic-Roman Period, 16. Strabo also reports that Antioch was
rightly called a "metropolis" (Geog. 16.2.5).
74. See C. Kraeling, "The Jewish Community at Antioch," JBL 51 (1932)
130-60??
75. See A.H.M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (2nd ed.,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971) 241-42.
76. Strabo says, "Antiocheia is . . . a Tetrapolis, since it consists of four parts;
and each of the four settlements is fortified both by a common wall and by a
wall of its own" (Geog. 16.2.4).
77. For a thorough survey of the public buildings erected in Antioch during
the Augustan empire, see Glanville Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria
from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest(Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1961) 169-184; see also his Ancient Antioch (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1963) 75-77, 81-84.
78. Antipater of Sidon ranked the temple of Artemis over all the other
honorable wonders of the ancient world: "I have set eyes on the wall of lofty
Babylon on which is a road for chariots, and the statue of Zeus by the
Alpheus, and the hanging gardens and the colossus of the Son, and the huge
labor of the high pyramids, and the vast tomb of Mausolus; but when I saw
the house of Artemis that mounted to the clouds,those other marvels lost
their brilliancy, and I said, 'Lo, apart from Olympus, the Sun never looked

421

on aught so grand'" (The Greek Anthology 9.58); see also Strabo, Geog.
14.1.22.
79. Richard Oster, "Ephesus," ABD 2.542-48.
80. Strabo, Geog. 14.1.22-25.
81. Peter Lampe, "Acta 19 im Spiegel der ephesischen Inschriften," BZ 36
(1992) 59-76.
82. Strabo repeatedly calls attention to its great wealth (Geog. 8.6.20), which
in antiquity was also a claim to great honor.
83. Especially the elegant art work in the temple of Dionysus, see
Strabo, Geog. 8.6.23.
84. See Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, St. Paul's Corinth (Wilmington, DL:
Michael Glazier, 1983) 25-26 and "The Corinth that Saint Paul Saw," BA 47
(1984) 147-59; J. Wiseman, "Corinth and Rome I: 228B.C.-a.d.
267," ANRW 7.1: 438-548.
85. See Oscar Broneer, "The Apostle Paul and the Isthmian Games," The
Biblical Archaeologist Reader (D. N. Freedman and E. F. Campbell, eds.;
New York: Anchor Books, 1970) 393-428.
86. See J.L. Kelso, "Key Cities in Paul's Missionary Program," BS 79 (1922)
481-86; M. H. Conn, "Lucan Perspective and the Cities," Missiology 13
(1985) 409-28.
87. See Abraham J. Malherbe, "'Not in a Corner': Early Christian
Apologetic in Acts 26:26," SecCent 5 (1985) 193-210.
88. See Stanley K. Stowers, "Social Status: Public Speaking and Private
Teaching: The Circumstances of Paul's Preaching Activity," NovT 26 (1984)
60-63.
89. See Rohrbaugh, "The Pre-Industrial City in Luke-Acts," 134-136, 14445. See Wayne A. Meeks, "Saint Paul of the Cities," Civitas. Religious
Interpretation of the City (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 20.
90. See Acts 13:14; 14:1; 17:1; 18:19; it is very difficult to determine whether
any of these synagogues were in elite or wealthy parts of the city. We do not
know whether they were actual buildings dedicated to this purpose or
422

whether the Jewish worshippers gathered in the house of a patron. If the

latter, then this person had some means, namely, a residence large enough to
host a sizeable body of people and sufficient wealth to act as a patron.
91. See Hubert M. Martin, "Areopagus," ABD 1.371.
92. Among the standard works on Roman citizenship, see A. N. SherwinWhite, The Roman Citizenship (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937) and
his Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Book House, 1978) 144-93; and Fritz Schulz, "Roman Registers
of Births and Birth Certificates," JRS 32 (1942): 78-91 and 33 (1943) 55-64.
On dual citizenship, see H.W. Tajra, The Trial of Paul (WUNT 35;
Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1989) 76-89.
93. F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B.
Eerdmans, 1977) 38. The remarks of William M. Ramsay (St. Paul the
Traveller and Roman Citizen [7th ed.; London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1903] 30-31) remain valid: "According to the law of his country, he was first
of all a Roman citizen. That character superseded all others before the law
and in the general opinion of society; and placed him amid the aristocracy of
any provincial town. In the first century, when the citizenship was still
jealously guarded, the civitas may be taken as a proof that his family was
one of distinction and at least moderate wealth. It also implies that there was
in the surrounds amid which he grew up, a certain amount of friendliness to
the Imperial government (for the new citizens in general, and the Jewish
citizens in particular, were warm partisans of their protector, the new
Imperial rgime), and also of pride in a possession that ensured distinction
and rank and general respect in Tarsus. As a Roman, Paul had
a nomen and praenomen, probably taken from the Roman officer who gave
his family civitas."
94. The most recent challenger to the Lukan attestation of Paul's Roman
citizenship is Wolfgang Stegemann, "Was der Apostel Paulus ein rmischer
Brger?" ZNW 78 (1987) 200-29. As arguments against the historicity of
Luke's claim, he cites: (1) Paul's low social class and Jewish background, (2)
Paul's silence on this point in his letters, and (3) the apologetic nature of
Lukan composition in the parts of Acts where citizenship is affirmed.
95. See A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New
Testament, 147.

423

96. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 144-47; at
various places in his study, Claude Nicolet (The World of the Citizen in
Republican Rome [Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1980])
discusses the rights and duties of citizens: duties (as soldiers, as munificent
benefactors) and rights (basically civic and juridical safeguards; exemption
from taxation). See Cicero, de Off. 1.17.53.
97. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 39. See Stegemann, "War der
Apostel Paulus ein rmischer Brger?" 222-24.
98. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament,
147.
99. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament,
154-55. The Roman tribune who arrested Paul in Acts 22:27 remarks that he
paid a considerable sum (pollou kephalaiou) for his citizenship; see James H.
Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek
Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1974) 342. In a later study,
A. N. Sherwin-White ("The Roman Citizenship. A Survey of its
Development into a World Franchise," ANRW I.2:23-58) indicates how
Rome bestowed citizenship on provinces both west and east as a mode of
building and confirming its imperial conquests.
100. John C. Lentz,Luke's Portrait of Paul, 139-53.
101. Lentz, Luke's Portrait of Paul, 151.
See Lentz, Luke's Portrait of Paul, 14 and 62-104.
103. See John T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in the Earthen Vessel. An Examination
of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence (SBLDS
99. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).

Epicureans and the Areopagus Speech:

Stereotypes
and
Theodicy
424

Jerome

H.

Neyrey

University of Notre Dame

The New Testament documents were written in a milieu permeated with the
ideas and slogans of Greek thinkers, whether Stoics, Cynics or Epicureans.
As the followers of Jesus moved steadily into the Graeco-Roman world, they
inevitably came in contact with these groups and their ideas in a variety of
ways. Christians either found points of agreement with them, imitated them
in terms of style and form, or engaged them in controversy. Considerable
work has been done on Stoic background of Romans 1-2 and Acts 17.
(1)
Furthermore, much attention has been given by Abraham Malherbe and
several of his students to the Cynics, (2) their preaching style and modes of
argument.(3)
In regard to the Epicureans, few scholars have paid much attention to them,
perhaps because their name occurs but once in the collection of New
Testament writings, namely Acts 17:18.(4)Malherbe himself is unusual for his
interest in the Epicureans vis--vis the New Testament. (5) For in spite the
single reference to them in the Areopagus Speech, Malherbe has paid
attention, not simply to the label "Epicurean," but to the ideas and slogans
attributed to them, against which Paul, at least, seems to have reacted.
Despite lack of attention from modern scholars, the Epicureans were well
known in the Hellenistic world which cradled the New Testament, and
known because of a variety of opinions credited to them. (6) This study deals
with the Epicureans in the Areopagus Speech in Acts 17, especially in terms
of Christian preaching on "theodicy" as this met with Epicurean denials of
the same. By "theodicy" I mean the argument that God's providential
relationship to the world entails a just judgment of mortals, especially a
judgment which takes place after death where rewards and punishments are
allotted.
Paul's speech in Athens is the clearest place in the New Testament where
Christian theodicy is explained to Epicureans and their reaction to it
recorded. Whether Acts 17 record an actual address by Paul to these very
people or a creation of the author, Luke sees Christian doctrine being
compared and contrasted with an alternate doctrine, Epicureanism. It is the
hypothesis of this study that Christian preaching about theodicy seems
regularly to have come in conflict with denials of it, denials which are
typically and even specifically characteristic of Epicureans.
425

A. Introductory Matters and Acts 17

Before we examine Luke's narrative about the Epicureans and their reaction
to Christian theodicy, we must clarify some perceptions of the Areopagus
Speech. The initial questions are not immediately those of cultural or
intellectual background, but issues of Lukan redaction and focus. As regards
the content of the Areopagus Speech, Luke describes Paul presenting in
Hellenistic modes of thought "new teaching" (Acts 17:19) to Greeks at
Athens, comparable to the way Paul heralded the Christian gospel in a
Jewish mode of expression in the cultural contexts of synagogues. The
subject matter in Acts 17, moreover, is situation specific; it is unlike Paul's
speech to the synagogue in Antioch which operated on a prophecyfulfillment motif which was suited to a Jewish audience where questions of
genuine leadership (Jesus) over the authentic covenant (via Abraham,
David) were central, and could be argued by recourse to the Hebrew
Scriptures. Acts 17 talks in a Greek mode to Greeks to make a point more
relevant to the Hellenistic situation Luke perceives.
Different, too, is the modest place Jesus plays in the Areopagus speech. No
mention is made of his signs and wonders, which would signal his role as a
prophet attested by God (Acts 2:22). In fact, scant mention is made of Jesus'
crucifixion and death, beyond the simple note about God raising him from
the dead (17:31). Absent here is the pattern "you rejected/killed him, but
God raised him,"(7) which functioned in other contexts to urge the hearers to
"change their minds" and correct their judgments about Jesus.(8)
The God of the Scriptures, who is the Christian God, is the focus of Paul's
speech,(9) in itself not an unusual focus in Paul's authentic preaching (see 1
Thess 1:9; 1 Cor 8:4-6).(10) The literary occasion of the Areopagus speech is
Paul's "provocation" at seeing a city "full of idols" (17:16), which suggests
that the speech will have a polemical cast to it concerning the true God. And
the specific audience contains two contrasting schools of Greek thinkers
about God, Stoics and Epicureans (17:18). In one sense, critical readers of
Acts 17 are well aware that by and large Paul's speech reflects Stoic ideas
about God, but up to a point. What sets Paul's presentation of the Christian
God apart from well known Greek understandings of god is the very issue of
Christian theodicy, the role of Jesus as Judge who will judge all peoples after
death to render reward and punishment (17:30-31). But the issue from start
to finish is God and God's providential action in the world, which includes
theodicy.
B. Old Conclusions and New Hypotheses
426

Previous examinations of Paul's speech on the Areopagus have yielded a

number of important observations and conclusions. For example, we readily
recognize that the doctrine of God or natural theology in the speech is
common theology,(11) common to Stoics, as well as to Jews and Christians.
(12)
Second, the critical remarks about the foolishness of idols (17:29) and the
vanity of temples (17:24-25) are stock-in-trade, Jewish polemic against
paganism.(13) Third, some commentators, reminded of Paul's critical remarks
about preaching Christ in terms of "worldly wisdom" in 1 Cor 1:17 and 2:15, see Paul trying just such a foolish move in Acts 17 and deservedly failing.
(14)
But this last remark is clearly misguided, as the following discussion will
show. However one reads Paul's own apologetic remarks in 1 Cor 2:1-5,
(15)
Luke does not consider it wrong to speak of Christian doctrine in ways
that would indicate compatibility and agreement with right-thinking people
elsewhere.
As valid and valuable as these insights are, they do not adequately satisfy the
Lukan logic and purpose of the Areopagus Speech. I suggest the following
hypotheses which refine and sharpen the above-mentioned consensus:
1. Luke's theology in Acts 17 is his clearest instance in Acts of the Apostles of
his regular presentation of God in terms of "providence," which was not just
a Stoic idea but a general, traditional understanding of God.
2. In addition to the presentation of God's providence, Luke emphasizes a
distinctively Christian view of theodicy in 17:30-31. This is the forensic issue
with which the hearers must grapple, the "question for judgment."(16)
3. Epicureans were popularly known in terms of stereotypes, in particular
their "atheism," their denial of providence, and their rejection of theodicy.
Luke understands the Epicureans in Acts 17 precisely in terms of a
stereotype, namely, their denial of theodicy.
4. The speech, which is a set piece of traditional theology, is delivered to
contrasting groups of noted theologians, Epicureans and Stoics. Their
contrasting reactions are both predicable to and desired by Luke.
5. Typical of Lukan narrative style, he portrays a divided reaction to Paul's
speech: a division (schisma) takes place and some listeners respond
favorably (Stoics), while others reject it (Epicureans).
6. Since Luke does things in pairs and with parallels, (17) he intends the reader
to link the diverse reactions by Stoics and Epicureans to the issue of theodicy
427

in Acts 17 with the contrasting reactions by Pharisees and Sadducees to the

issue of the resurrection in 23:6-10.
7. The common point in Acts 17 and 23 is "theodicy," a doctrine of three
element: (a) a divine judge, (b) survival of death/ resurrection, and (c) postmortem retribution. This precise doctrine, Luke urges, is acceptable to
leading Jewish and Hellenistic thinkers. Conversely, those who reject this
part of Christian preaching are to be labelled as eccentric, strange and
wrong, either the Epicureans or the Sadducees.
These are but hypotheses, which need to be stated more clearly and more
formally argued.
C. Acts 17 and Theology
We turn first to consider the doctrine of God in Acts 17. Obviously the
speech has a polemical thrust, for the narrative describes Paul being
"provoked" at the city "full of idols." Hence part of the speech criticizes
idols and their shrines and temples (17:24, 29) in service of proclamation of
the "unknown God" to be revealed (17:23). These are important aspects for
Luke, who argues throughout the speech that there is a correct theology and
a wrong one; the multiplicity of pagan idols is clearly wrong, while the
remarks on "the unknown god" (17:23) point in the direction of a correct
theology.(18) Yet this is not the critical "question of judgment" in the speech.
D. Acts 17 and Providence
Paul's speech is logically structured to present the Christian God under the
traditional, acceptable category of "providence." In Hellenistic theology,
"Gods" might be understood in a variety of ways, one of which is the
complex category of god-as-provident. This synthetic idea of God would
include the following elements. (1) Gods exist and are active. (2) They are
wise and good, and so when they act, they act wisely and in goodness. (3)
Their actions can be summarized in two ways: (a) they create, order and
maintain the world and (b) they exercise executive and judgmental
functions. (4) Hence, the Gods must be both benevolent and just. (5)
Providence, moreover, is shown in a variety of ways in the world: (a) the
order and regularity of creation, (b) the giving of oracles and revelations to
mortals, and (c) the protective care given to good individuals and (d) the just
judgment of evildoers. Furthermore, a deity who is "provident" knows the
future and controls the world; this deity, then, can predict the future and
428

issue prophecies and oracles, bring things to pass, intervene in history etc.
Such actions befit a deity who is wise, benevolent and just.
In the Areopagus Speech, Luke underscores several aspects of the popular
doctrine of God's providence: a) God is creator: "God, who made the world
and everything in it . . ." (17:24); b) God isbenevolent orderer: "God made
from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having
determined allotted periods and boundaries of their habitation" (17:26); and
c) God is just judge: "God has fixed a day on which he will judge the world
in righteousness" (17:30). As noted above, this material draws heavily on
Stoic materials and would be heard by Luke's audience as traditional and so
respectable theology.
Luke's concern to present the Christian doctrine about God in terms of
providence is not confined to the speech in Acts 17. Time does not allow for a
full exposition of the Lukan portrait of God in Acts of the Apostles in terms
of "providence," but the following chart suggests the fullness of fit between
the abstract description of a provident deity and the Lukan God.
The Doctrine of Providence in Acts of the Apostles
1. Creation: 4:24; 14:15; 17:24
2. Divine Foreknowledge and Plan:
a) 2:23; 4:28
b) dei: 14:22; 17:3
3. Oracles of the Future:
a) prophecy-fulfillment: what God prophecied
long ago has come true in Christ & his followers
(2:14-21, 25-30; 3:19-22; 4:25-28)
b) oracles delivered during the narrative of Acts which
come true (11:27-30; 21:10-14; 22:17-21; 27:23-27)
4. Benevolent Control of History:
429

a) the rescue of good people:

Peter (4; 5; 12:1-12)
Stephen (7:54-56)
Paul (16:19-39; 17:1-9, 12-15; 18:5-11;
19:23-20:1; 21:27-39; 22:22-29;
23:12-31; 27:9-44; 28:1-6)
5. Just Judgment of Sinners:
a) judgment of Ananias & Sapphira (5:1-6)
b) judgment of Herod (12:23)
6. Theodicy: post-mortem judgment:
a) Jesus, judge of the living and dead (10:42; 17:31)
b) future judgment (24:25).
It would be a mistake to drive a too sharp a wedge between Hellenistic godtalk and Jewish theology on the issue of providence. All of the above
material would be quite intelligible to a Jewish audience in terms of its
Scriptures, but equally clear to Greeks in terms of Hellenistic discussions of
God. In fact, certain Jewish and Christian authors intentionally cast their
traditional god-talk in terms of Hellenistic doctrine of providence. (19) Luke, I
suggest, intentionally portrays the God of Israel in terms of providence,
either because that is in fact how he, a literate person of the Hellenistic
world, views the matter or because he seeks to portray Christian doctrine as
traditional and acceptable to all.
E. Acts 17 and Theodicy
We are arguing two points here. First, like discussions of many topics in the
ancient world, discussions of "theodicy" come to us in the form of a topos.
Complex ideas were regularly digested and reduced to simple formulae
which were easy to remember. From many discussions of theodicy, we can
piece together the shape of the arguments which both defended theodicy and
attacked it. Luke is quite aware of such topoi or summaries, especially in
430

regard to theodicy. Second, Epicureans in particular were known by their

opponents in terms of stereotypes, especially the stereotype of those who
deny providence and theodicy. Again, Luke is aware of this, for on these two
points the Areopagus Speech hinges the topos on theodicy and the stereotype
of the Epicureans.
What comprises the topos on theodicy? What regular elements were seen to
make up an argument for it? A convenient discussion of this traditional
doctrine can be found in Plutarch's "The Delay of Divine Judgment," which
was written at the end of the first century, and so is roughly contemporary
with the author of Luke-Acts. In this tractate, Plutarch first voices standard
anti-theodicy polemics, statements which are formally attributed to
Epicureans.(20) Their objections are then dealt with vigorously, although not
conclusively. Finally, one of the speakers makes bold to expose the
presuppositions of one of the parties to the dispute; and by doing so, he gives
a succinct precis of what comprises a belief in divine theodicy:
It is one and the same argument that establishes both the providence of God
and the survival of the human soul, and it is impossible to upset the one
contention and let the other stand. But if the soul survives, we must expect
that its due in honour and in punishment is awarded after death rather than
before.(21)
From this and many other examples of the argument for theodicy, we infer
that traditional belief in divine theodicy entails three elements: (1) a judge,
(2) survival of death, and (3) post-mortem retribution by God.
If this is the positive presentation of belief in theodicy, the denial of it is
equally informative for learning the shape of a topos on theodicy. In the
ancient world, the Epicureans were accounted as the chief antagonists of
belief in divine theodicy. From the writings attributed to Epicurus we can
cull the relevant elements which, when stitched together, form a coherent
argument against theodicy. First, Epicurus' doctrine of God denies
"providence." God is neither kind nor angry, for God is not moved by
passions: "A blessed and eternal being has no trouble and brings no trouble
upon any other being; hence he is exempt from movements of anger and
partiality, for every such movement implies weakness." (22) God, then, is not
Judge!
Epicurus' second Sovran Maxim affirms the finality of death: "Death is
nothing to us; for the body, when it has been resolved into its elements, has
no feeling; and that which has no feeling is nothing to us." (23) There is, then,
431

no survival after death! It follows that there can be no post-mortem

retribution, if God does not judge and if there is no survival after death.
(24)
Just as traditional theodicy affirms three items (judge, survival of death,
post-mortem retribution), Epicurus was perceived as denying all three.
Lactantius provides a convenient and popular summary of the perception
that Epicurus denies all three elements, and so denies theodicy:
If any chieftain of pirates or leader of robbers were exhorting his men to acts
of violence, what other language could he employ than to say the same things
which Epicurus says: that the gods take no notice; that they are not affected
with anger or kind feeling; that the punishment of a future state is not to be
dreaded, because the souls die after death, and the there is no future state of
punishment at all.(25)
Therefore, both proponents of theodicy and its adversaries regularly cast
their argument in terms of three interrelated items which they either affirm
or deny: (1) God as judge, (2) human survival after death, and (3) postmortem retribution. Such is the popular shape of the way theodicy was
discussed.
Paul's presentation in the Areopagus speech of God's providential judgment
fully coincides with the three expected elements of the traditional topos on
theodicy. Paul declares:
(1) God as judge: "God has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in
righteousness by a man whom he has appointed" (17:31a);
(2) human survival of death: First, it must be noted that Paul preached "the
resurrection" (17:18), which is not simply the announcement of Jesus'
resurrection but the survival of death for all (see Acts 10:42). Second, Paul
specifically states that God gave assurance of the coming judgment by
raising Jesus from the dead, not simply to constitute him as judge, but also
to give proof that there will be a resurrection unto judgment (17:31b);
(3) post-mortem retribution: The "resurrection" which Paul proclaims is
"resurrection unto judgment." And on that future day, God will "judge the
world in righteousness" (17:31) by Jesus, whom God has appointed to
"judge the living and the dead" (Acts 10:42). Those to be judged are not just
Christians who are alive and Christians who have died (see 1 Thess 4:14-17),
but all peoples, including and especially the dead (see Acts 24:25).

432

The Areopagus Speech, then, is about right and wrong theology. It criticizes
idols, but positively affirms God's providence and especially theodicy.(26)
F. Confirmation by Comparison: Acts 24
The typical modern reader might hear Luke's doctrine in Acts 17 as vintage
Christian eschatology and so pay no special attention to it as theodicy. And
to forestall this, Luke returns to just this material in two of Paul's speeches
to the governor Felix.
In the first instance, Luke records Paul delivering a forensic defense of his
doctrine during a solemn trial before the governor Felix (24:10-21).
(27)
Tertullus, the spokesman for Ananias and the priestly party, charges Paul
with being a deviant ("pestilent fellow. . .agitator among all the Jews. .
.ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes," 24:5). He implies that Paul stands
totally out of the mainstream of Jewish theology, and that he propounds
heretical doctrines. Paul's apology defends his orthodoxy, in this case, his
claim to be solidly loyal to the traditions about Israel's God. The issue is
Paul's theology, his doctrine of God; more specifically, the issue is theodicy.
In the course of Paul's speech, he shapes the trial so as to make the formal
"question for judgment" the general issue of "the resurrection": "With
respect to the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you this day"
(24:21). Although Paul can be presumed to allude to Jesus' resurrection, his
speech before Felix contains no explicit mention of Jesus at all. Rather, the
reference to "the resurrection" is cast here in terms of traditional faith in
the Jewish God; it is exclusively about the correct doctrine of God. As Paul
says, "I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by
the law or written in the prophets" (24:14). More specifically, Paul focuses
his claim to orthodox theology on the precise issue of theodicy: ". . . having a
hope in God which these themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection
of both the just and the unjust" (24:15). This "resurrection," moreover,
comprises both survival of death ("resurrection") and port-mortem
retribution (". . . of the just and unjust"). Paul's apologetic remarks in 24:15
can be seen to contain the three traditional aspects of theodicy:
(1) a judge: "a hope in God,"
(2) survival of death: "there will be a resurrection,"
(3) post-mortem retribution: "of the just and the unjust."(28)

433

Paul, therefore, develops his apology to Tertullus' charges with a claim to

orthodox theology in general and with belief in traditional theodicy in
particular.
According to Luke's narrative, Felix does not resolve this trial. He is said to
have "rather accurate knowledge of the Way," and later summons Paul to
"hear him speak upon faith in Christ Jesus" (24:24). But Luke's account of
Paul's further remarks to Felix has nothing whatsoever to do with "faith in
Christ Jesus," rather they are still on the theme Paul propounded in the
recent trial: "He argues about justice, self-control, and future judgment"
(24:25). Using 17:31 and 24:15 as interpretative keys, we find in 24:25 the
same three components of traditional theodicy:
(1) a judge: "justice"; dikaiosune is essentially forensic judgment, and
implies a judge who dispenses this justice; that judge is God or God's agent,
Jesus;
(2) survival of death: "future judgment"; the future aspect of
this judgment implies that all will survive death so as to
be there;
(3) post-mortem retribution: "judgment" (krimatos tou mellontos); this
judgment, moreover, is a just forensic judgment rendered on the basis of the
moral principle of self-control (egkrateia).
If Felix was curious about Jesus in 24:24, he is portrayed as "alarmed" by
Paul's words because the narrative suggests that he is evil ("he hoped that
money would be given him by Paul," 24:26). By his reaction, Luke indicates
that Felix fully understood the thrust of Paul's remarks about post-mortem
retribution. Whereas the Epicureans "mocked" Paul in Acts 17, Felix is
upset and dismisses him for his uncomfortable message about theodicy.
G. Acts 17, "Division" and Contrast
The whole episode in Acts 17:16-34 is so carefully crafted that notice of its
narrative logic will assist in its interpretation. As has been noted, the speech
itself is prefaced and concluded by Luke's note of contrasting reactions to
Paul.(29) Luke notes that Paul was "met by some Epicurean and Stoic
philosophers," among whom there are initial, contrasting opinions: "Some
said, 'What would this babbler say?' Others said, 'He seems to be a preacher
434

of foreign divinities'" (17:18). The text suggests that the Epicureans call Paul
"a babbler," while the Stoics consider him "a preacher of foreign divinities."
The point lies, however, in polarized opinions from contrasting groups. At
the end of the speech, moreover, Luke narrates further contrasting opinions,
"Some mocked, but others said, 'We will hear you again about this'" (17:32).
The rhetoric here supports this, for Luke uses the men - de construction to
distinguish and contrast two groups.
I suggest that Luke intends us to understand the Epicureans, who initially
called Paul "a babbler," as the latter group who "mock him," and the Stoics,
who formerly evaluated him as "a preacher of foreign divinities," as those
who react more positively, "We will hear you again." (30) The text states,
moreover, that from the assembled crowd of Epicureans and Stoics, "some
men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite"
(17:34). These can hardly be Epicureans, and the text might be read to infer
that they were Stoics. The speech itself, then, is bracketed by contrasting
opinions about Paul's doctrine.
More importantly, however, is the issue of whether these contrasting
reactions to Paul's speech in 17:32 derive from the contrasting viewpoints of
Epicureans and Stoics? The answer in large measure rests on our
observation of how Luke regularly presents characters and issues. For
example, Luke frequently notes that the audience of Jesus or Peter or Paul is
"divided" over what it hears.(31) Even in Acts 17, this pattern is quite
pronounced: in Thessalonika Paul first meets with success (17:2-4) but then
with failure (17:5-8); likewise in Beroea, his initial success (17:10-12) is
juxtaposed with failure (17:13-14). Luke has conditioned the reader to
expect the same pattern of "division" among the crowds on the Areopagus
during the subsequent climactic episode at Athens. Some show favor (Stoics),
while others mock him (Epicureans).
Luke does things in two's and he favors parallels. He would seem to offer a
parallel to the contrasting reactions to Paul's theodicy speech in Acts 17 in
the description of the reactions to Paul's confession of "the resurrection" in
Acts 23:6-10. The similarities are immediately compelling. (1) Contrasting
audiences Just as there are contrasting Epicureans and Stoics listening to
Paul in Athens, so in Jerusalem Paul's audience consists of Sadducees and
Pharisees, two groups who can be said to disagree on most things: "One part
were Sadducees and the other Pharisees" (23:6a). (2) Allies and enemies Just
as Paul cast his doctrine in a way to elicit the favor of the Stoics as well as
the mockery of the Epicureans, so in Jerusalem Paul identifies himself as a
Pharisee, allying himself with them, while ensuring the rejection of the
435

Sadducees: "I am a Pharisee, the son of Pharisees" (23:6b). (3) Resurrection

Just as the point of Paul's speech in Athens was the resurrection (he
"preached . . . the resurrection" (17:18), so Paul declares before the Jews
"the resurrection of the dead" as the forensic point of judgment: "With
respect to the . . . resurrection of the dead I am on trial" (23:6c). (4)
Theodicy Just as Luke could presume that his readers clearly distinguished
Epicureans and Stoics on the issue of providence and theodicy, so the trial in
ch 23 works precisely because the Sadducees and Pharisees are known to
hold opposite views on the central issue: "For the Sadducees say that there is
no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them
all" (23:8). From a study of the way Luke typically presents characters and
issues, then, these parallels between the contrasting reactions to Paul speech
seem persuasive enough for us to infer that Luke intends the reader to see
Epicureans and Stoics holding contrasting views on theodicy in Acts 17, just
as Sadducees and Pharisees differ on "the resurrection" in Acts 23.
H. Acts 17 and Stereotypes
It is important for a modern reader to grasp an important fact about the
world of Luke. How do people in Luke's world tend to know and describe
themselves and other people? Basically, in terms of stereotypes. (32) For
example, nations and towns were perceived in terms of stereotypes: (1)
"Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons" (Titus 1:12) and (2)
"Jews have no dealings with Samaritans" (John 4:9). Likewise towns, "Can
anything good come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:46).
Individual people as well are known in terms of stereotypes. (1) Jesus' new
wisdom and power are incompatible with the village perception of what a
carpenter's son should be like (Mark 6:2-3); (2) Sadducees do not believe in
"the resurrection," but Pharisees do. God also is known in terms of a
stereotype, namely in terms of providence and theodicy, that is, as just
judge. The topos on theodicy, then, is another example of stereotypical
perception. Stereotypical perception characterizes Luke's world and is true
of Luke as well. From Acts 23, we conclude that Luke obviously employs this
mode of perception in regard to Sadducees and Pharisees, just as I argue
that he does the same in Acts 17 in regard to the Epicureans and Stoics.
More importantly, Luke and others in his world know both pairs,
Epicureans-Stoics and Sadducees-Pharisees, stereotypically in terms of their
contrasting positions on the same issue of theodicy.
Since the stereotypical perception of characters in Acts is so important to the
argument of this study, let us pursue it further. Any reader of the Synoptic
436

Gospels comes to know the Sadducees, for example, in terms of a stereotype,

namely, their denial of "the resurrection":(33)
(1) "The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is
no resurrection" (Matt 22:32);
(2) "And Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no
resurrection" (Mark 12:18);
(3) "There came to him some Sadducees, those who say that there
is no resurrection" (Luke 20:27).(34)
Nothing in the Synoptics suggests that this is a post-factum reaction to Jesus'
own resurrection, but rather a well known denial by Sadducees of survival
after death. It is not a position attributed to them in reaction to Christian
claims, rather it is the stereotypical way in which people know them.
The stereotypical perception of Sadducees and Pharisees is not confined to
the Gospels or Acts. Josephus provides a remarkable description of the
Sadducees and the Pharisees which likens them respectively to Epicureans
and Stoics, and this precisely in terms of their stereotypical stand on
theodicy. To explain the Pharisees to non-Jews, Josephus compares them to
the Stoics,(35) relying on the stereotype of a recognized Hellenistic group
(Stoics) to explain an unknown Jewish group (Pharisees). (36) In several
places, Josephus describes the Pharisees (i.e., Stoics) in terms of providence
and theodicy. For example,
The Pharisees, who are considered the most accurate interpreters of the
laws, and hold the position of the leading sect, attribute everything to Fate
and to God . . . Every soul, they maintain, is imperishable, but the soul of the
good alone passes into another body, while the souls of the wicked suffer
eternal punishment.(37)
In this description, we find the three familiar elements of traditional
theodicy. (1) God is Judge ("Fate or God is all powerful"); (2) survival of
death ("the soul is immortal, and survives death); and (3) post-mortem
retribution ("the soul of the good passes into another body, while the souls of
the wicked suffer eternal punishment").(38) This text serves several purposes.
First, Stoics are themselves known by their stereotypical theodicy beliefs.
437

Second, the same stereotypical beliefs are thought adequately to describe the
Pharisees. And the topos on theodicy was well known. Stereotypes are useful
all around.
Although when Josephus describes the Sadducees he never explicitly
compares them to the Epicureans, this is a safe assumption. (39) He likewise
describes them in stereotypical form as those who reject theodicy. For
example,
The Sadducees, the second of the orders, do away with Fate altogether, and
remove God beyond, not merely the commission, but the very sight of
evil . . . As for persistence of the soul after death, penalties in the
underworld, and rewards, they will have none of them.(40)
Again, the three elements of the topos are evident. (1) No Judge ("They
remove God even from the sight of evil," i.e., judgment). (2) No survival of
death ("As for the persistence of the soul after death . . . they will have
none") ; and (3) no post-mortem retribution ("As for . . . penalties in the
underworld, they will have none").(41) Josephus' description of the position
held by the Sadducees corresponds exactly with stereotypical descriptions of
the Epicureans.(42)
Josephus is Luke's contemporary. He is proof positive of the stereotypical
presentation of Pharisees = Stoics and Sadducees = Epicureans, and both
groups precisely in terms of the stereotype of theodicy. This is the type of
understanding which Luke can assume, even if the reader did not follow the
parallels between Acts 17 and 23.
Thus far we have looked at specific groups who are described in terms of
stereotypes. May I present one further example, this time, not of specific
groups but of stereotypical arguments to help modern readers be quite clear
both on the typical content of the topos on theodicy and on the widespread
knowledge of the stereotype or topos. The example comes from certain
targumic elaborations on Gen 4:8, the conversation between Cain and Abel
about the justice of God.
Cain answered and said to Abel:
"I know that the world was not created by love,
that it is not governed according to the fruit of good deeds,

438

and that there is favor in Judgement.

Therefore your offering was accepted with delight,
but my offering was not accepted from me with delight."
Abel answered and said to Cain:
"I see that the world was created by love,
and is governed according to the fruit of good deeds.
And there is no favour in Judgement."
Cain answered and said to Abel:
"There is no Judgement,
there is no Judge,
there is no other world,
there is no gift of good reward for the just
and no punishment for the wicked."
Abel answered and said to Cain:
"There is Judgement,
there is a Judge,
there is the gift of good reward for the just
and punishment for the wicked."(43)
The conversation between Cain and Abel revolves around two issues,
providence and theodicy. Cain denies that God acts providentially, that is,
benignly and fairly: "The world was not created by love and is not governed
according to the fruit of good deeds." And like others who attacked the
notion of providence, Cain cites injustice as his evidence against divine
providence: "There is favor in Judgement." (44) Conversely, Abel defends
providence.
439

From our examination of other examples of the topos on theodicy, we can

readily discern the traditional three elements that comprise the argument
against and for theodicy:
THEODICY DENIED (CAIN) THEODICY AFFIRMED (ABEL)
1. God is not Just Judge: 1. God is Just Judge:
"There is no Judge" "There is a Judge"
2. No Survival of Death 2. Survival of Death:
"There is no other world" "There is another world"
3. No Post-Mortem Retribution 3. Post-Mortem Retribution
"There is no Judgement" "There is Judgement"
Just as Josephus described Sadducees and Pharisees in terms of their
opposing points of view on theodicy, so we find Cain and Abel distinguished
point-for-point on the same topic.
Some scholars have attempted to identify Cain and Abel with various
historical groups. Sheldon Isenberg, for example, argued that the midrash
on Gen 4:8 represents a Sadducee-Pharisee controversy.(45) He based his
argument on the stereotype which we have already noted that Sadducees
deny the resurrection. Henry Fischel, however, argued that the midrash is
Epicurean, citing in support numerous passages from the Rabbis which
parallel in form and content the anti-theodicy sayings attributed to
Epicureans.(46)
Although the question of provenance, whether Sadducean or Epicurean,
may be impossible to solve, that should not deter us from noting the
persistence and pervasiveness of the topos either against or for theodicy. It
matters little whether Epicureans = Sadducees = Cain or Stoics = Pharisees
= Abel, for the issue is that God was perceived in terms of a stereotype, the
topos about theodicy. We have ample evidence that on the topic of theodicy,
there were stereotypical responses and that certain well known parties in the
Hellenistic and Jewish worlds were readily perceived in terms of their stand
on theodicy. Stereotypes, then, describe both doctrine discussed and those
who discussed it.
I. Summary and Conclusion
440

In regard to the hypotheses stated earlier in this study, we may now

conclude:
1. Among the many theological elements in the Areopagus Speech, the chief
issues which Luke highlights are providence and theodicy.
2. Luke presents characters and issues in contrasting pairs and by parallel
examples. The Epicureans and Stoics of Acts 17 are balanced by the
Sadducees and Pharisees of Acts 23.
3. Like other ancient writers, Luke portrays groups and parties in terms of
stereotypes.
4. Luke knows of and presents a stereotypical description of theodicy, a
topos on it (Acts 17; 23; 24).
5. Luke is not ignorant of the stereotypical perception of Epicureans and
Stoics,(47) and has told the story in Acts 17:16-34 in such as way that these
two parties react in contrasting fashion to Paul, both at the beginning of the
speech and at its end. The stereotypical perception of Epicureans and Stoics
is based on contrasting assessments of theodicy.
From this analysis, we conclude that Luke has cast the characters and the
issues in such as way as to argue that Christian theology belongs to the
common, acceptable doctrine of God held by good and reasonable people,
whether Hellenistic Stoics or Jewish Pharisees. In regard to Paul's speech in
Acts 17, we noticed that belief in providence and theodicy, while congenial to
the Stoics, is not exclusive to them, but is a common, orthodox doctrine.
Paul's speech in Acts 24, moreover, argues that his Christian belief in God is
also vintage Jewish theology, although the Sadducees, guardians of Israel's
shrine, would not agree. At least Luke makes this claim to orthodoxy
through Paul.
Luke, then, presents certain aspects of Christian thought, i.e. theodicy, is
terms acceptable to Greek and Jew alike; he would argue that this doctrine
is orthodox, common and traditional. And so, the charge in Acts 17:6 that
Paul and the Christians "turn the world upside down" must be false, for
their doctrine is quite in conformity with what all intelligent, good people
think.(48) In fact, to be mocked by the Epicureans and then to be dismissed by
the Sadducees plays into this strategy. If mockery and dismissal come from
groups which can be shown to be wrong, that in itself is further confirmation
of the correctness of what they mock and dismiss. Comparably, to find
441

common ground and perhaps endorsement from groups generally

considered the guardians of the basic tradition (Stoics, Pharisees) can only
shed that approbation to the new group of Christians as well. At least they
are not mavericks.

NOTES
1. For example, Max Pohlenz, "Paulus und die Stoa," ZNW 42 (1949) 69104.
2. Abraham J. Malherbe, The Cynic Epistles (SBLSBS 12; Missoula Mt.:
Scholars Press, 1977); Benjamin Fiore, The Function of Personal Example
in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles (AnB 105; Rome: Biblical Institute
Press, 1986).
3. For example, the Cynic diatriabal style was examined by Stanley K.
Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans (SBLDS 57; Chico
Ca.: Scholars Press, 1981).
4. When they are discussed, it is generally without any precise sense of their
presence in Acts 17. See, for example, Richard B. Rackham, The Acts of the
Apostles (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Baker Book House, 1964) 303-305; but even
here, Rackham lists miscellaneous ideas attributed to the Epicureans,
without indicating which Epicurean idea was operative in this particular
context.
5. Abraham Malherbe, "The Beasts at Ephesus," JBL 87 (1968) 71-80;
"Self-Definition Among Epicureans and Cynics," Jewish and Christian SelfDefinition. Volume Three (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 46-48; "'Not in a
Corner': Early Christian Apologetic in Acts 26:26," The Second Century 5
(1985-86) 196, 204-206; and Paul and the Thessalonians. The Philosophic
Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 40-43 and 101-106.
6. Epicureans were positively known for their (1) fellowship (Abraham
Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians, 40-43; and Bernard Frischer, The
Sculpted Word [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982] 46-66) and
(2) communal meals (Dennis Smith, Social Obligation in the Context of
Communal Meals (unpublished dissertation; Harvard, 1980, 56-68). They
were negatively criticized for beliefs such as (1) "eat, drink and be merry"
442

(Malherbe, "Beasts at Ephesus," 75-77); and (2) "atheism," the denial of

belief in a providential god (Neyrey, "The Form and Background of the
Polemic in 2 Peter," JBL 99 [1980] 409-12), about which this study is
concerned.
7. See C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Development (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1936); J. Dupont, "Les discours missionaires des
Actes des Aptres," RB 69 (1962) 37-60.
8. See J. H. Neyrey, The Passion According to Luke (New York: Paulist
Press, 1985) 89-107.
9. See Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1956) 26-77; Eduard Schweizer, "Concerning the
Speeches in Acts," Studies in Luke-Acts (eds. L.E. Keck and J.L. Martyn;
London: SPCK, 1966) 212-214; and L. Legrand, "The Areopagus Speech, its
theological kerygma and its missionary significance," La Notion biblique du
Dieu (ed. J. Coppens; BETL XLI; Leuven: Gembloux, 1976) 337-50.
10. See Charles H. Giblin, "Three Monotheistic Texts in Paul," CBQ 38
(1975) 527-47.
11. See, for example, H.P. Owen, "The Scope of Natural Revelation in Rom I
and Acts XVII," NTS 5 (1958-59) 133-143.
12. See especially, Bertil Grtner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural
Revelation (Uppsala: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1955) 73-143.
13. Ibid., 203-228; but it should be noted that a polemic against idols and
even temples as fit places for gods is conducted also in Greek philosophy; see
Hans Conzelmann, "The Address of Paul on the Areopagus," Studies in
Luke-Acts (eds. L.E. Keck and J.L. Martyn; London: SPCK, 1966) 221.
14. See L. Legrand, "The Areopagus Speech: Its Theological Kerygma and
Its Missionary Significance," La Notion biblique de Dieu, 338-341 and
Jacques Dupont, "Le discours l'Aropage (Ac 17,22-31) lieu de rencontre
entre christianisme et hellnisme," Bib 60 (1979) 535.
15. See J. H. Neyrey, Christ Is Community (Wilmington, Del.: Michael
Glazier, Inc., 1985) 204-13.

443

16. In terms of forensic rhetoric, speeches necessarily build toward the

decision
of
the
judged,
which
in
classical
rhetoric
is
called judicatio/krinomenon (see Cicero Inv. 1.13.18 and QuintilianInst.
3.11.5-6). In the speeches in Acts, this "point of judgment" is always "the
resurrection"; see my article "The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul's Trial
Speeches in Acts 22-26: Form and Function," Luke-Acts. New Perspectives
from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar (ed. C.H. Talbert; New York:
Crossroads, 1984) 214-216.
17. See Charles H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the
Genre of Luke-Acts (SBLMS 20; Missoula Mt.: Scholars Press, 1974),
Walter Radl, Paulus and Jesus im lukanischen Doppelwerk:
Untersuchungen zu Parallelmotiven im Lukasevangelium und in der
Apostelgeschichte (Frankfort: Peter Lang) 1975) and A.J. Mattill, "The
Paul-Jesus Parallels and the Purpose of Luke-Acts: H.H. Evans
Reconsidered," NovT 17 (1975) 15-45.
18. C. K. Barrett, "Paul's Speech on the Areopagus," New Testament
Christianity for Africa and the World (eds. Mark Glasswell and Edward
Fashol-Luke; London: SPCK, 1974) 72-75. Barrett sees Paul's criticism of
idols and his search for a correct doctrine of god (i.e. the "unknown god") as
theological moves by the author to show some compatibility with Epicurean
attacks on superstition.
19. See Philo, Prov.; Harold W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical
History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR 7; Missoula
Mt.: Scholars Press, 1976); G.F. Moore, "Fate and Free Will in the Jewish
Philosophies according to Josephus," HTR 22 (1929) 371-89.
20. Although many arguments are alleged against divine providence, the
Epicurean remarks in De Sera 548D-549D and 556E-557E urge that God is
an unjust judge because punishment does not come upon the culprit himself
or is visited on his children and grandchildren.
21. Plutarch, De Sera Numinis Vindicta 560F (trans. Phillip H. De Lacy and
Benedict Einarson; Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1948) 257. See my article, "The Form and Background of the Polemic
in 2 Peter," 411-14.
22. Diogenes Laertius X.139; see Cicero, N.D. I.85; Lucretius, R.N. I.44-49
and II.651. See Herman Usener, Epicurea (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1966) 242-44.
444

23. Diogenes Laertius X.139; see Lucretius, R.N. III.830ff; Lucian, JConf. 7;
Cicero, Fin. II.xxxi.100; Plutarch, Non Posse 1103D and 1104E; see
Usener, Epicurea, 226-228. Important studies on this topic include: Traudel
Stork, Nil Igitur Mors Est ad Nos, Der Schlussteil des dritten Lukrezbuchs
und sein Vermchtnes zur Konsolations Literatur (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt,
1970) and Barbara P. Wallach, Lucretius and the Diatribe Against Fear of
Death, De Rerum Natura III 830-1094 (Mnemosyne 40; Leiden: Brill, 1976).
24. We have presented the negative or reactionary side of Epicurus. In his
writings he aimed at "freedom from anxiety" (ataraxia), a freedom which
found traditional notions of a provident God and post-mortem retribution
all too anxiety producing. The gist of this freedom from anxiety is
summarized in the famous tetrapharmakon: "God is not to be feared. Death
is not frightful. The good is easy to obtain. Evil is easy to tolerate." See
Diogenes
Laertius
X.133;
F.
Sbordone, Philodemi
Adversus
Sophistas (Naples: Loffredo, 1947) 87; A.J. Festugire. Epicurus and His
Gods(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955) 44; and Henry Fischel, Rabbinic
Literature and Graeco-Roman Philosophy (Leiden: Brill, 1973) 33.
25. Lactantius, Div. Inst. III.17; the translation is that of William Fletcher,
The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1970)
VII.88.
26. On the very issue of right and wrong theology in Acts 17, see C. K.
Barrett, "Paul's Speech on the Areopagus," 72-75.
27. For a detailed analysis of this speech, see Neyrey, The Passion According
to Luke, 102-7 and "The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul's Trial
Speeches," 211-16.
28. The reader is reminded that in the New Testament, when "resurrection"
is mentioned, it often explicitly means "resurrection unto judgment." See
John 5:28-29; Luke 14:14; Heb 6:2; Rev 20:5-6. See Ulrich Wilkens, "The
Tradition-History of the Resurrection of Jesus," The Significance of the
Message of the Resurrection for Faith (ed. C.F.D. Moule; SBT 2nd series 8;
London: SCM, 1968) 65-66.
29. See Robert O'Toole, "Paul at Athens and Luke's Notion of Worship," RB
89 (1982) 186.

445

30. See Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1971) 526, and C. K. Barrett, "Paul's Speech on the
Areopagus," 71.
31. See Jerome Kodell, "Luke's Use of LAOS, 'People,' Especially in the
Jerusalem Narrative (Lk 19,28-24,53)," CBQ 31 (1969) 330-32; Jacob
Jervell, Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing
House, 1972) 41-74; and Neyrey, The Passion According to Luke, 121-24.
32. See Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural
Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981) 53-59.
33. The Pharisees likewise are know by Christians in terms of certain
stereotypes; they may be perceived as "legalists" or "hypocrites" for their
perceived concern for keeping Torah in a strict way. In certain strands of the
tradition, Jesus and his followers are perceived in comparable stereotypes,
as those who do not keep Torah strictly. See Bruce Malina and Jerome
Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names (Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1988) 59-60.
34. I am presuming in this discussion that when the Sadducees are said to
deny "the resurrection," this does not simply mean Jesus' resurrection but
all post-mortem survival. Denying "the resurrection," then, is shorthand
code for rejection of afterlife and post-mortem retribution. See note 28
above.
35. Josephus, Vita 12.
36. Josephus also likens the Essenes to the Pythagoreans, Ant. XV.371.
37. Josephus, B.J. II.162-163 (trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, Loeb Classical
Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947) 385-87.
38. Although the primary text is Josephus, B.J. II. 162-163, see also Ant.
XIII.172 and XVIII.12-15.
39. He does, after all, call the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes "three
philosophies" (B.J. II.119), indicating as we noted that Pharisees = Stoics
and Essenes = Pythagoreans; it is not an unwarranted assertion that
Sadducees = Epicureans.
40. Josephus, B.J. II.164-165.
41. See also, Josephus, Ant. XIII. 173; XVIII.16.
446

42. See my unpublished dissertation, The Form and Background of the

Polemic in 2 Peter (Yale, 1978) 176-90.
43. Tg. Neof. Gen 4:8; the translation is that of G. Vermes, "The Targumic
Versions of Gen 4:3-16," Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1975)
96-100; see also P. Grelot, "Les Targums du Pentateuque -- tude
comparative d'aprs Gense, IV, 3-16," Sem 9 (1959) 59-88.
44. Epicureans often cite either injustice or delay of judgment as evidence
against divine providence. See Neyrey, The Form and Background of the
Polemic in 2 Peter, 174-79.
45. Sheldon Isenberg, "An Anti-Sadducee Polemic in the Palestinian Targum
Tradition," HTR 63 (1970) 433-441.
46. Henry Fischel, Rabbinic Literature and Graeco-Roman Philosophy
(Leiden: Brill, 1973) 35-50.
47. Because of the focus of this study, I have not attended to the stereotypical
understanding of the Stoics, a task usually done adequately in the
commentaries; I remain impressed with Barrett's suggestions about the
typical doctrines of the Stoics alluded to in Acts 17 ("Paul's Speech on the
Areopagus," 72-74).
48. See Malherbe, "'Not in A Corner,'" 195-201.

Role and Status in the Fourth Gospel:

Cutting Through Confusion
JEROME
University of Notre Dame

H.

NEYREY,

S.J.

(Forthcoming in Jouette M. Bassler Festshrift, The Impartiality of God, Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press, 2007)

Introduction: Problem, Solution and Hypothesis

447

Scholarship on characters in the Fourth Gospel has exploded in recent times, but
like most explosions, the energies released travel helter-skelter with no
coordination of method or agreed results. We are told of
symbolic,1 representative,2 and
even
narrative 3 study
of
Johannine
4
characters, all of which avoid any analysis of them in terms of their social,
cultural role and status. Even when some current studies of Peter treat his role
or status, the interpreters do not bother to tell us what is meant by role and
status. 5 Comment on Mary Magdalene and the Samaritan Woman labors with
imprecision because of misguided efforts to ascribe to them some role. Part of the
problem lies in the way such scholars value only role, but not status. Hence
we find Mary Magdalen variously described as an apostle, a quasi-apostle, an
apostle to the apostles, a mediator and a witness. 6 Moreover, some explicitly
refuse to use social and cultural materials, in favor of a reading free from
academic controls and constraints:
This article is an attempt to outline some significant female features in the picture
as a whole and as far as possible in an article of limited extent to indicate a
coherent view of the roles and functions of women in the Gospel of John. My
emphasis is on description rather than on explanation, the description not being
dependent on any specific terminology or methodological frame of reference. 7
Result: impressionistic guesses. Thus previous use of social concepts such as
role and status to interpret Johannine characters is either absent, imprecise,
or rejected. What readers need, then, is rigor in their reading of the dramatis
personae of the Fourth Gospel, which we propose to do by means of careful use
of the social concepts of role and status.
In most of the studies I have examined, even if role and status are mentioned,
these concepts are not well understood and so are used loosely, resulting in
imprecision and vulnerability to exaggeration or ideological advancement.
Moreover, one finds a bias in scholarship that values only role, but ignores
status a perilous opinion in regard to the Fourth Gospel. But if we employ
formal notions of role and status, what problem will this solve? What
advantage grained from it? First, precision which can rescue the project from the
Kingdom of Hunch and Guess. In place of the conflicting and subjective
interpretations mentioned above, shared critical understanding of role and
status will provide a solid basis for reading with rigor. Second, the ancient
world was acutely aware of roles and statuses. In a world whose pivotal value is
honor, worth, regard, and esteem, role and status located people in horizontal
relationships as well as vertical evaluation. This self knowledge was vital for
all those playing the game.

448

In this study, we will argue the following hypotheses:

1. 1. Status is vastly more important in the Fourth Gospel than role.
2. 2. Characters, who in the synoptics enjoy identifiable roles, lack them in
the Fourth Gospel. It is almost as if this Gospel were anti-traditional in
terms of leadership roles.
3. 3. In fact, although there are many roles evident in the Fourth Gospel
(kinship and political roles), there are few roles in view within the Jesus
Group
4. 4. We can identify 12 criteria for status, which are not all of equal
importance; nor does it matter if characters do not have all such status
markers, provided they have the right ones.
Eventually, this study will yield a social map, a ranking of persons as having
elite, moderate and low status within the Jesus group.
And so, our argument contains four steps: 1. clarify the meaning and use of
role and status, for which we turn to social and cultural studies; 2. apply the
concepts of role and status to seven figures: the Samaritan Woman, the man
born blind, the Beloved family at Bethany, the disciples, Mary Magdalene,
Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciples; 3. extract criteria for evaluating status;
4. draw a socialmap locating by status hierarchizes the Johannine characters as
enjoying elite, moderate and meager status, based on the twelve criteria
identified.
Role and Status: the Theory
Role. The concept of role, borrowed from the stage, involves behavior and the
socially recognized position of a person, entailing rights and duties. A role
implies a set of expectations for interaction between a person who holds one
position in a group and another person who holds a reciprocal position. 8 In other
words, there can be no role of leader without a follower role, no mother
without child.9as several anthropologists define it, role is
. . . a set of expected behavior patterns, obligations, and norms attached to a
particular status. The distinction between status and role is a simple one: you
occupy a certain status, but you play a role. . . as a student you occupy a
certain status that differs from that of your teacher, administrators, or other staff.
As you occupy that status you perform by attending lectures, taking notes,
449

participating in class, and studying for examinations. This concept of role is

derived from the theater and refers to the parts played by actors on the stage. If
you are a husband, mother, son, daughter, teacher, lawyer, judge, male or female,
you are expected to behave in certain ways because of the norms associated with
that particular status.10
Thus the role of mother refers to her status and duties to her children; in
politics: kings vis--vis subjects; in economics: bankers to borrowers; and in
education, teachers to students. 11 As Malina states, roles are indicative of
institutional location, hence of the status of that person within that institution. 12
Examination of certain roles in the Fourth Gospels can give flesh to this
abstraction. Here we are considering various roles which members of the Jesus
group do not play or value. In the institution ofkinship, we know of family roles,
those of Jesus and then of other characters.13 Jesus family consists of Joseph,
his father (6:42); God, his Father; (Mary) his mother (2:1-12; 19:26-27); his aunt
(19:25) and his brothers (7:3-5). Other blood relationships include: the brothers
Andrew and Peter (1:40); the sisters Martha and Mary and their brother Lazarus
(11:1) and the sons of Zebedee (21:2). All persons in familial roles have
reciprocal duties and their roles last as long as the relationship does. Furthermore,
in the institution of Israelite politics, various roles of Jesus are either
acknowledged or denied such as prophet (6:14; 7:52; 9:17), king (6:15;
12:13; 18:33-37), Messiah (1:41; 4:25-26; 7:31, 41-42 ) and teacher (1:38;
3:2; 20:16). Inasmuch as Israelite religion was embedded in politics, we
recognize other roles, such as a Judean leader (?????, 3:2) and high priests
(11:49-51; 18:13-26); Joseph of Arimathea belongs here as well, because of his
wealth (19:40-41). Similarly, we know of roles in the institution of imperial
politics: Caesar and a Roman prefect, who owes the loyalty of his imperial
friend (19:12). Of concern to this study are the potential roles played by the
seven characters of the Jesus group mentioned above.
Status. Whereas persons play certain roles, they occupy or have status. Status
differs from role in that status is a recognized position that a person occupies
within society. . .[which] determines where he or she fits in relationship to
everyone else.14 In addition, one scholar defines status as a quality entailing
deference and precedence in interaction, a quality of professional or public honor.
. .Status systems are generated by bases or dimensions of honor power, wealth,
knowledge.15Status suggests verticality, a ranking of people according to
cultural criteria of worth or excellence. 16 It indicates the honor, respect, or worth
a person enjoys.17 Thus statuses are thought of as polar or reciprocal: any
particular status always implies at least one other to which it is related. 18 For

450

example, some statuses may be first or last, highest or lowest, most or least or
best or worst.
To visualize status, imagine an elongated pyramid (e.g, Bank of America
building in San Francisco). By custom, the higher ones floor, the more elevated
ones status. This pyramid has fifty floors, such that the lower ones status, the
lower ones floor: Bank of America occupies the top ten floors, whose CEO has
his office on the top floor; ten floors below is the office Dewey, Cheetum and
Howe, Esq., and well below them is the office of the political action committee to
re-elect Arnold.
It will help if we add another piece of information to this status pyramid, taken
from the inscriptions on the temple at Delphi. On the entrance to the temple at
Delphi three pithy sayings were engraved: Know thyself (???? sea?
t??),.Nothing overmuch (?d?? ??an), and A pledge, and ruin is nigh. 19 The
man who knows himself knows his honor and status and so his social position
on the pyramid. This is social knowledge, not conscience awareness. The wise
man who knows himself avoids extremes, that is, he does not strive for higher
status nor allow himself to pushed below what society deems appropriate to a
person of his social location (Plutarch, Letter to Apollonius 116D-E). 20 Thus all
persons should know just where they belong and so give deference to those
above and expect the same from those below.
To assess status, an examiner must know the particular criteria used for ranking
and evaluation, either 1) extrinsic-institutional criteria or 2) intrinsic-personal
criteria. Extrinsic criteria evaluate someone in terms of basic societal institutions,
which in ancient Judea consisted of politics and kinship. Hence, in the system
of politics, people may be ranked as powerful or weak (Do you not know that I
have power to crucify you? John 19:10)21; in kinship, one is either a blood
relative or an outsider (It is not right to take the childrens bread and give it to
dogs Matt 15:26); in economics, few are rich, but many are poor (a rich man
clothed in purple and fine linen who feasted sumptuously every day. . .a poor
man full of sores desired to be fed with what fell from the rich mans table,
Luke 16:19-20).22 In the world of antiquity, status was immediately related to
these three binary opposites: male/female; Greek/barbarian and
free/slave.23 Males, simply by birth, were thought of as having a position in life
superior to that of females, as is evident from study of the pervasive, radical
gender division characteristic of antiquity.24 Greeks considered themselves the
only civilized people in the world, all others being barbarians; free elites with
leisure ranked over the working poor who ranked over slaves, of whom Aristotle
said that they were not human at all.
451

Intrinsic criteria look to personal qualities or achievements. Personal qualities

evaluate an person in terms of cultural values (beautiful, witty, wise, strong,
pious, possessed by spirits).25 For example, A. W. K. Adkins describes how in an
early period of life in Greece the aggressive virtues were valued, but with
stable polis life, the agreeable virtues rose in importance. More to our point,
persons in the Fourth Gospel are regularly evaluated in terms of values such as
courage, whether one associates with Jesus in daylight or nighttime (3:1-2) or
whether one publicly confesses him or remains silent in fear (9:4-33 vs 9:22;
12:42). Achievements speak to culturally valued acts, for example, endurance of
pain or deprivation (ascetical achievements of monks and hermits) prowess
(military, athletic or aesthetic), skills, intellectual insights or commercial
successes.26
Persons may be further evaluated in terms of their position in each of kinship and
political institutions. Thus they may be ranked as highest or lowest, first or last,
and rich or poor. Moreover, even when power is stratified, various roles can be
ranked. The Fourth Gospel knows of 1) Caesar, the Emperor, 2) Pilate, procurator
and friend of Caesar, 3) Roman soldiers and slaves. 27 Kinship roles are always
high stratified: at the head, the father or patriarch of the family, his wife and the
mother of his children; among these children sons rank higher than daughters and
among the sons one stands out as major.
To give flesh to the abstract definition of status, let us examine several GrecoRoman texts which can illustrate the matter. In one place Josephus describes the
composition of a deputation:
The scheme agreed upon was to send a deputation comprising persons of
different classes of society but of equal standing in education. Two of them,
Jonathan and Ananias, were from the lower ranks (d??t????) and adherents of
the Pharisees; the third, Jozar, also a Pharisee, came of a priestly family (?e?at???
??????); the youngest, Simon, was descended from high priests (????e???)
(Josephus, Life 196).
So, we identify three level of status or three floors in our pyramid: lower, priestly,
and high priestly strata. Josephus presumes that all will know how to rank these
levels of status in their proper hierarchy, from lowest to highest.
Similarly Cicero distinguishes various levels of his society in terms of their honor
rating. First he states that it our duty to honor men conspicuous for conduct in
keeping with their high moral standards, and who, as true patriots, have rendered
or are now rendering efficient service to their country. Continuing with persons
worthy of honor, it is our duty also to show proper respect to old age, to yield
precedence to magistrates, to make a distinction between a fellow-citizen and a
452

foreigner, and, in the case of the foreigner himself, to discriminate according to

whether he has come in an official or a private capacity (de Officiis 1.149). Next
in regards to trades an other means of livelihood, he distinguishes which ones
are to be considered becoming to a gentleman and which ones are vulgar. He
then catalogues the vulgar trades at great length:
First, those whose means of livelihood are rejected as undesirable. . .as those of
tax-gatherer and usurers. Unbecoming to a gentleman, too, and vulgar are the
means of livelihood of all hired workmen whom we pay for mere manual labour,
not for artistic skill. . .Vulgar we must consider those also who buy from
wholesale merchants to retail immediately; for they would get no profits without
a great deal of downright lying; and there is no action meaner than
misrepresentation. And all mechanics are engaged in vulgar trades; for no
workshop can have anything liberal about it. Least respectable of all are those
trades which cater for sensual pleasures: "Fishmongers, butchers, cooks, and
poulterers, and fishermen," as Terence says. (de Officiis 1.150).
In view here is the old prejudice that those who work with their hands have
insufficient leisure to be literate and so civilized. Yet in contrast to vulgar
laborers, Cicero describes honorable professions (artibus) which are
honorable:
The professions in which either a higher degree of intelligence is required or
from which no small benefit to society is derived -- medicine and architecture,
for example, and teaching -- these are proper for those whose social position they
become. Trade, if it is on a small scale, is to be considered vulgar; but if
wholesale and on a large scale, importing large quantities from all parts of the
world and distributing to many without representation, it is not to be greatly
disparaged. . .But of all the occupations by which gain is secured, none is better
than agriculture, none more profitable, none more delightful, none more
becoming to a freeman (de Officiis 1.151).
Thus Cicero identifies and ranks those to whom we have a duty to honor: elites
conspicuous for high moral standards or service of the state; elites, of course, do
not labor for wages which characterizes a low social group performing vulgar
labors, who are then contrasted with a middle group whose professions require
artistry and skill. These three groups, we suggest, occupy different statuses in
Ciceros elite perspective.
If roles in the Fourth Gospel were easy to spot, not so status. Our task now is to
discover the criteria whereby the author of the Fourth Gospel evaluates the
people in his narrative. In the narrative, we find two antithetical sets of evaluative
criteria: those representative of insiders in the Jesus group and those of the
dominant society outside the group (i.e., Temple and synagogue).28 Depending
453

on ones point of view, each group divides the world into insiders and outsiders.
Insiders and outsiders are recognizable according to the criteria of honor and
shame: for one group, such-and-such is praiseworthy, even if reviled by its
antithesis; and first group may hold in contempt what the second one honor. In
the eyes of his followers, Jesus the Insider deserves great honor, worth and
respect. In addition to statements that God has glorified Jesus and will glorify
him again (8:54; 12:23; 13:31-32; 17:1, 4), God himself mandates that All. .
.honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son
does not honor the Father (5:23). But in the eyes of outsiders, he is a disgrace
and his credentials refused. Like most prophets, Jesus receives no respect in his
homeland (4:44). Some even accuse him of demon possession (8:49). The
evangelist provides a culturally based reason for denial of honor: many value
more what the synagogue or their neighbors think of them, than what God thinks.
Hence they prefer the glory that comes from one another (5:44) to the praise of
God. Our task, then is to determine who is an insider or outsider and who
constitutes this in terms of antithetical criteria for honor and shame.
The Fourth Gospel provides an insider point of view; from which we recognize
insiders and outsiders, by what criteria insiders are worthy of honor and respect
and outsiders little or no honor. criteria.29
This article cannot hope to examine all of the dramatis personae in the narrative,
and so we focus on certain elite insiders to see more accurately why they are
honored: 1) the Samaritan woman, 2) the disciples, 3) the man born blind, 4)
Martha, Mary and Lazarus, 5) the Beloved Disciple, 6) Mary Magdalene and 7)
Peter. We begin by according these persons insider status, which means that they
are all honorable persons in the Johannine Jesus Group in differing ways and
some more so than others. By what criteria can we know status in the Fourth
Gospel? In our reading of the seven characters mentioned above, we will look for
what makes them special or distinctive. And, as each character is examined, we
would expect to find similar markers identifying characters. What to look for in
the first place? Readers of the Fourth Gospel are schooled already in that virtues
and vices count here; and because we are so often urged to compare and contrast
characters, we gain assurance of what is important or detrimental. The paper ends
with an extended synopsis of the characters being studied, in which the major
section deals with role and status, especially an inventory of criteria. If readers
desire, they are welcome to peek.
The Samaritan Woman.
Role. At least one role of the Samaritan woman is clear, wife/spouse, which she
has played at least five times, but no longer (4:18). Her household duties
454

included clothing production, child rearing, and food preparation, the last of
which explains her presence at the well.30 But some scholars have tout her as
witness and apostle. Apostle? Although Jesus said Go, call your husband
(4:16), he did not commission her to recruit the inhabitants of Sychar; nor do we
know if she in fact called her husband. If a speaking role was authorized, why
does the author not deal with the novelty of a woman addressing non-related
males in public? If Jesus did not authorize her, she acts on her own and without
authorization. Schneiders delights in this, namely, that she assumes on her own
the mission of witness.31 But making yourself something is a vainglorious
claim in the ancient culture and was universally considered folly.322 Look at the
threats to kill Jesus for making himself equal to God (5:18; 10:33), son of God
(19:7), and king (19:12; see 8:53). When authorization is important, the author
hammers us with the information that God established Jesus in his ascribed role
and status,33 but nothing is said about her authorization. To claim that the Woman
makes herself a witness etc., is simply a bad idea. The following chart
compares and contrasts the Samaritan Woman with others who are formally
sent.
Figure

John
Baptist

Authorization

Role and Purpose

the . . . a man sent from God, (1:6); . . .he who sent me to

baptize with water (1:33).

Samaritan
Woman

Go, call your husband

authorization as witness

(4:16)

not

455

1.

role: witness par excellence

2.

specific content of witnessing:

(1:15, 29, 30, 33-34)

3.

purpose: That all might believe

(1:7)

4.

duration: until he died

5.

audience: specific people suitable

for baptism

1.

role: ???
news?

2.

content: told me everything I

ever did + can this be the
Christ?

3.

no purpose of calling stated by

Jesus in 4:16.

4.

duration: after two days, her

witness is outgrown & ceases

5.

audience: call your husband; but

formal
recruiter?

bringer

of

people of Sychar?

Disciples

I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor
(4:38). . . As you sent me into the world, so I have sent
them into the world (17:18) . . .As
the Father hassent me, even so I send you" (20:21-23)

Go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to

Mary
my Father and your Father, to my God and your God
Magdalene
(20:17)

1.

role: agents

2.

content of role: purification but

presumably other tasks if they are
sent as Jesus was sent.

3.

purpose: to harvest believers and

to effect purification

4.

duration: presumably until they

die

5.

audience:
those
evangelized; insiders

1.

role: witness

2.

specific content of
(20:17)

3.

purpose: sharing unique revelation

with fictive kin

4.

duration?

5.

audience: brethren
insiders

already

message

and

so

John, the disciples and Magdalene are authorized for a specific purpose,
sometimes the dissemination of some revelation or message, 34 but the Woman has
neither message nor revelation to declare (she speaks in questions). Finally, the
villagers themselves terminate whatever witness she bore (4:39), for they
surpass her by having immediate access to Jesus. They declare, moreover, Jesus
to be superior to whatever she said about him (4:42). If a role, it is extremely
short-lived.
Witness: if not an apostle, then a witness? Witnesses are always insiders
who may speak to insiders or outsiders. Most witnesses speak as forensic
defenders of Jesus in public (1:19-28; 5:31-40; 7:7; 16:8-11), and occasionally
spread propaganda about Jesus (1:32-34). The narrative, moreover, pays
considerable attention to what makes a good forensic witness: witnessing by two
witnesses (8:13-18), the noble standing of witnesses (5:31-37) and deeds (10:25),
none of which apply, because the she is not a forensic witness. The propaganda
456

quality of witnessing, moreover, should contain specific content (some

acknowledgment of the role and status of Jesus: 1:34; 9:17). Informants
witness about Jesus (11:46). And indeed the villagers state that they came to
believe because of her witness (4:39), i.e., the ????? she spoke to them. But in
the parameters of the narrative, this strange ????? is her thricefold argument that
Jesus might be the Christ because He told me everything I ever did (4:29 and
39), namely, her sexual history. One might glory in a benefaction, but touting
ones sexual history? Something indeed has happened in Sychar, but it does not
result from her authorization as apostle or witness.
Might she have an informal role, such as recruiter or one who carries news or one
who brings gossip? In regard to recruitment, in 1:35-51 we find a pattern
whereby a believer speaks a word about Jesus and invites the hearer to come
and see (John to Andrew, Andrew to Peter, Philip to Nathanael). They are
certainly not apostles here, even if they recruit others. In regard to those
who carry news, we find a pattern whereby X tells Y some news: Martha tells
Mary that Jesus is there (11:28; see 11:3); Philip tells Andrew about the Greeks
and both tell Jesus (12:21-22); the disciples tell Thomas about the risen Jesus
(20:25). In a world without media, news is spread informally by means of a
gossip network.35 Gossip as news network is the right term here. If the
Samaritan Woman has a recognized place in her social network, it is most likely
that of one who brings news or who plugs into a gossip network.
Status. One of the premiere status markers in the Fourth Gospel is knowledge: 1)
what one has been told or revealed; what secrets one knows; and what selected
disclosures one enjoys. Although Jesus says many things to her, what she
does not know remains a problem at the end of conversation is significant For
half of the dialogue she misunderstands Jesus (4:7-14); even at 4:15, she reckons
Jesus water to be a permanent thirst quencher only. In 4:16-26 she does not
strictly misunderstand Jesus so much as spar with him. Jesus is not fooled by her
attempted deception of her shamelessness, I have no husband. He is the
character with all knowledge. She mocks Jesus revelation of her sexual history
by calling him Mr. Know-it-all, a prophet, and challenges him to solve the
divisive issue of where to worship. After he informs her, she again challenges
him with a Samaritan claim to ultimate knowledge: We know that the Messiah
will tell us everything (so much for your knowledge!). Except that, I am the
Messiah. What does she know? As the saying goes, Not much. Prophet and
Messiah are not revelations to her or acknowledgments by her, but agonistic and
sarcastic remarks in her interminable sparring match. How much did Jesus
revelation penetrate? Inasmuch as she subsequently refers to Jesus only in
interrogative terms (Can this man be the Messiah? 4:29), what does she know?
How surprising, then, is Schneiders claim that she is remarkable for the clarity
457

and completeness of the presentation of the revelation process in the Fourth

Gospel.36 Her status, then, rests on what she knows and how much she
understood of what was said to her. Finally, her status takes a hit when her
villagers dismiss her witnessing. Hence, we acknowledge for her a role such as
informal recruiter and bringer of news, but her status never rises to the level of
the later great figures.
What of the other status markers? As a representative or symbolic character, her
narrative characteristics would normally be considered markers of very low
status: a female, a Samaritan, an unclean person, a sinner and even an adulteress.
Ironically these are ignored or even utilized positively in the narrative. 37 She
might well typify that the last is first, the outsider is an insider, unclean is clean,
etc. Even if she does not enjoy high status, she is certainly superior to
Nicodemus, whom the author holds in contempt. 38 Her juxtaposition with
Nicodemus increases her status: he came to Jesus in darkness (cowardice?), but
she appears in sunlight; he never ceased misunderstanding Jesus, but with here
there is [some] progress; the best he said about Jesus was teacher, whereas,
even if in interrogative mode, she declares Jesus Messiah; both mock Jesus, but
she is never mocked by him. Once more, role is less significant than status.
The Disciples
Included in this group are true and consistent insiders, such as: 1. the first persons
to follow Jesus who then recruit others (1:35-51); 2. those labeled
followers/disciples (a??ta? : 2:2, 11; 4:27; 13:5; 20:20-26; 21:1-2); 3. the
Twelve (6:67-71); and 4. people like the man born blind who is shamed for
being his disciple (9:28). Others were once disciples or claimed to be so: 1.
people who claim to believe but who are liars: If you continue in my word you
are my disciples (8:32) and 2. people who were once disciples but have dropped
out of the group (6:60-65). Some are named (Andrew, Simon, Philip and
Nathanael, Thomas, Judas, not Iscariot, and Judas the traitor), while others are
anonymous. The Fourth gospel, which mentions the traditional disciple Andrew
three times (1:35-40, 6:8-9; 12:22), gives special attention to disciples less well
known in other gospels: Philip (1:43; 6:5-7; 12:21; 14:8-10), Nathanael (1:45-50;
21:2), Thomas (11:16; 14:4-6; 20:24-29; 21:1). The premiere disciples have
been with Jesus from the beginning, seen his signs and are visited by the Risen
Jesus. We focus only on the named, abiding followers, who are genuine insiders.
Role. As regards their role, Jesus sends them, either to harvest where they have
not sown (4:38) or to purify in virtue of the Spirit Jesus gives them (20:21-23).
Both tasks are directed to insiders; reaping refers to what others sowed, so the
harvest is that of insiders; and forgiving and retaining sins refers to the purity of
458

the group, that is, to insiders. There can be no forgiveness of the world and its
ruler. In addition to these formal authorizations, the are told to assist at the
feeding, making the people sit down and gathering up the fragments. But these
commands (6:10, 12), symbolically significant as they may be, are not authorized
as duties or repeatable tasks as are the reaping and forgiving of sins.
According to the purpose for which they are sent and the commands given
them, they are portrayed as laboring only within the group. 39 Although they
function in the process of recruitment (1:36-51) and as brokers for people seeking
Jesus (12:20-23), they seem not to have a role to outsiders, neither traveling to
them nor heralding a word to win adherents. 40 Unlike the synoptic gospels, they
are not sent out on an apprentice mission (Matt 10:1-15//Mark 3:13-19), nor are
they formally commissioned by the risen Jesus, Go, make disciples of all
nations (Matt 28:19; see Luke 24:44-49).We are, then, reluctant to call them
apostles, the role in favor among Paul and others. and in forgiving and
retaining sins.
As regards status, because Jesus makes a parallel between the Father sending
him and his sending of them ( As you sent me into the world, so I have sent
them into the world (17:18; see 20:21), we consider them sub-brokers of Jesus,
the premiere broker of God.41 This suggests considerable status. Peder Borgen
argued that we consider Jesus as agent of God. The basic principle of the
Israelite institution of agency is an agent is like the one who sent him. 42 Hence
the disciples are like the one who sends them, i.e., Jesus. Second, the disciples
receive selected disclosure of special Johannine gnosis. They are promised a
unique vision of the Son of Man enthroned in heaven (1:51), a high status
marker. They are present at three of Jesus signs: the multiplication of water-wine
in 2:1-12 and loaves in 6:5-13 and the raising of Lazarus, the last and greatest
sign, although sign faith proves ambiguous. They hear the controversial discourse
about the Bread of Life (6:29-59). In the Farewell Discourse, they are instructed
about Jesus whence and whither, prayer, judgment, and future crises.
Ddisclosure of special information, moreover, is a high status marker. Third, they
are exhorted to practice the two premier Johannine virtues, remain and love,
loyalty being another status marker. Fourth, they are promised another Advocate,
who will broker knowledge of Jesus to them, either past things that Jesus said or
future things (14:25-26 and 15:26). They receive manifestations of the risen and
ascended Jesus (20:19-23, 24-29 and 21:1-23). Clearly they are insiders of
considerable status. But the status markers just noted are just that, status marker,
not authorizations to engage outsiders.
In summary, they are positioned at both the entrance and exit of the group:
recruiting others and determining if sins are forgiven or retained. There seems to
459

be no command to speak to outsiders. Their status, moreover, seems more

important than any role they play in the community.
The Man Born Blind
Does the remark of Jesus to him (Go, wash in the pool of Siloam,9:7) serve as
a commission to play a role? Superficially it resembles Jesus remark to the
Samaritan Woman, Go, call your husband (4:15) in that both are commands to
do a specific thing; but no role is in view. After fulfilling the command, he is
transformed from blind to sighted, but still no role is in view. But when
reaggregated with his family and neighbors, he begins to play the role of
witness, although the technical term a?t???? /??t?? is not used of him, nor
was he authorized to do so. He publicly answers a series of questions: Is this not
the man? I am; Where is he? I do not know; The Pharisees asked how he
received his sight. . .He put clay on my eyes. Finally, when asked about Jesus,
he says He is a prophet. His speech, while not formally authorized, is clearly a
full, bold, public acknowledgment of Jesus, especially when juxtaposed to the
fear of public confession in his parents (9:22). At this moment the audience
knows that a forensic proceeding is occurring, and the witnessing will become
sharp and pointed. His interrogators know that Jesus is a sinner (24), a
judgment from which he dissociates himself (Whether this man is a sinner, I
do not know). Instead he knows a legal fact though I was blind, now I see
(9:25) and that it was commanded by Jesus, even though it was the Sabbath.
After the court reviled him, he utters some of the best lines in the drama: You do
not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. . .If this man were
not from God, he could do nothing (9:31-33). As a witness, he defends Jesus to
hostile outsiders and constructs the perfect argument about the source and
meaning of Jesus signs. For him Jesus is Prophet and the one authorized by God.
As regards his role, he speaks as a forensic witness on Jesus behalf at a trial
before outsiders -- and without authorization. He is one the heroes of the Fourth
Gospel.
He enjoys, moreover, very high status for several reasons. First, he is the
beneficiary of a unique miracle (Never since the world began has it been heard
that any one opened the eyes of a man born blind, 9:32). Second, in contrast to
those afraid to confess Jesus publicly (9:22; 12:42; Nicodemus and Joseph of
Arimathea), by his feisty dialogue he manifests great courage. Third, he suffers
for his witness by being subject to the very sentence which is parents sought to
avoid, being ostracized from the synagogue, which Jesus predicts will be the fate
of authentic disciples (16:1-2; see 12:24-25). Finally, he receives a special
revelation from Jesus (9:35-38). Jesus found him and asked him: Do you
believe in the Son of man? To his honest reply, Who is he. . ? Jesus then
460

makes a selected disclosure of unique information: You have seen him. . it is he

who speaks to you (9:37), which he appropriates, Lord, I believe (9:38). Thus
the status of the man born blind hinges on four elements: 1. favored with a
remarkable sign (9:32); 2. bold, public acknowledgment of Jesus; 3. suffering for
the sake of Jesus, and 4. recipient of special revelation. His role is that of witness;
he enjoys very high status.
The Beloved Ones.
The author tells us of a crisis in Bethany in a family consisting of one brother and
two sisters. Lazarus, Martha, and Mary already enjoy high-status inasmuch as
they are all called beloved of Jesus. Do any of them play a role? Lazarus plays
no role. Yet his status seems to be quite high. First, he is beloved by Jesus and
the beneficiary of Jesus last and greatest sign. Because sitting at table with Jesus
is so rare in this gospel, his sitting beside Jesus in 12:1-2 signals significant
status. Finally, we are told that the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death
because he is a living and public witness to Jesus power (12:9-11). He is
targeted, then, to suffer and die for Christ. So, in one sense he will die because of
Jesus and even die with Jesus, very high status indeed (see 12:24-25). Thus,
Lazarus, while playing no role, nevertheless enjoys very high status.
Just because the sisters send news of Lazarus illness to Jesus does not of itself
indicate they have a role (11:3). Many bring new to others but have no formal
role, such as the unnamed person who tells Martha that Jesus has come to town
(11:20).43 We focus, then, on the conversation between Jesus and Martha in
11:20-27. Formally, this looks like another statement-misunderstandingclarification exchange, suggesting that Jesus teaches and Martha learns. She
begins the dialogue with a reproach (If you had been here, my brother would not
have died) and a petition (I know that whatever you ask from God, God will
give you). Her I know is no empty claim, and acknowledges Jesus close
relationship to God. Jesus statement to her seems obvious: Your brother will
rise again. Martha, however, misunderstands Jesus words in terms of traditional
knowledge about resurrection and last day. She knows old knowledge, but
not the new knowledge of Jesus. Jesus then makes a clarification, which is a
select disclosure of remarkable knowledge: I am the resurrection and the
life. . . (11:24-25). But the narrative suggests that Martha does not entirely
understand what Jesus said to her. At first her response is of a lower order than
Jesus self-revelation: I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, he who
is coming into the world (11:27). The problem is that in this gospel the claim to
be or have resurrection and life is part of an elitist understanding based on
Jesus claim that he enjoys full eschatological power and so equality with
God.44 Marthas response does not include anything of this sort. Yet, asked if she
461

believed this, she stated that she does believe, a confession of significance,
although not what was asked of her. Thus as a student, she cannot be said to have
learned her lessons well.45
Thus according to the criteria for status, she is neither lowest nor highest. First,
she enjoys special status as beloved because of a relationship with Jesus.
Second, she is the recipient of revelation which , however, she does not grasp.
Third, her brother will be favored with the greatest of signs, although she will
need coaching at tomb-side (11:39). Beloved is balanced by mediocre
understanding of revelation and need for coaching.
Mary Magdalene
Most recent discussion of Mary Magdalene centers around whether she has a role
and if so, which one. We know that Jesus sent her to an elite group in a speaking
capacity with a specific message: Go to my brethren and say to them, I am
ascending to my Father. . . She is authorized; in this regard she is similar to the
disciples whom Jesus sends to retain or release sins (20:21) and Peter whom
Jesus established as the shepherd to feed my lambs. . .sheep (21:15-18). All of
these, moreover, are directed ad intra, that is, to insiders of the group. Except for
15:27 and 17:18, the Fourth Gospel mentions no authorization to speak to
outsiders unlike Matt 28:18-20.
What role? Either witness or apostle or prophet. Inasmuch as no other
person in the Fourth Gospel other than Jesus is ever considered an
apostle,46 prima facie we find it extremely difficult to ascribe this role to
Mary. We are also hesitant to ascribe the role of witness to her. Witnesses may
speak to outsiders as well as insiders, but speak of what they already know at
special times and circumstances. Mary is sent to tell my brethren unique
knowledge, which no one else knows. She is then, a conduit of specific
information of the highest significance. This distinguishes her speaking role from
all others in the Fourth Gospel. Her message is not just news, but the handing
on of a unique disclosure. She has, then, a speaking role which I consider a
prophetic role. Although the Spirit will come and remind the disciples of words
Jesus spoke long ago, her role is immediately from the Risen Jesus no function
of Spirit and she conveys new, not old information. Her role, moreover, needs
to be measured against Jesus remarks to the disciples who are authorized twice
according to the formula: As the Father has sent me, so I send you (17:18;
20:21). Mary does not belong the chain of authorized command: God ? Jesus ?
disciples; she is the mouthpiece for Jesus and she speaks as his agent, his
prophet.
462

If Mary was thought to have a public speaking role, some gender considerations
are in order. Speech. In general, females spoke only with the males of their
households or kinship groups (1 Tim 2:12; 1 Cor 14:33-36), but not with males
apart from these groups. She, however, speaks to my brethren, a fictive kin
group whom she presumably knows and who know her. Travel. Whereas the
commissioning of male disciples in the Synoptics implies that they will travel
from city to city and town to town, speaking to strangers of the House of Israel in
public space, Mary is not thus commissioned. She will not speak to strangers,
especially strange males, but to my brethren whom she knows and who know
her. Word/ Gospel. Witnesses and apostles will deliver the official message about
Jesus again and again and again as they go from group to group to group (Matt
28:19). But Mary speaks only one word, albeit an extraordinary revelation. But
having spoken it, she will have fulfilled her duty to Jesus. Duration. Whereas the
roles of witness and apostle endure as long as their holders live, can the same
thing be said of Mary? The gospel does not say that she recruits disciples or
speaks to outsiders or even continues to speak to insiders. The orientation of her
message is strictly to insiders, not outsiders. Her role, therefore, is dissimilar to
other witnesses in the Fourth Gospel; in fact, it is difficult to be precise about
what role she plays.
Mary is unique in the narrative. I think that we go in the wrong direction if we
insist on establishing a role for her; she is like on one else, which might be the
point. Instead of role, the issue seems to be one of status. Her status rests on
several criteria: 1) courage: presence at the cross; 2) attention on the body of
Jesus, even attempt to touch/hold it.; 3) being called by name; and 4) recipient of
the most significant information about Jesus.
Why is status more important than role for Mary? On the one hand, if we insist
on ascribing to her a role, it would seem to end as soon as it started. Having
fulfilled Jesus command to go and tell my brethren, now what? What duties
has she? What audience will she subsequently address? Roles have time limits of
a sort, but status does not. Once a beloved of Jesus, always a beloved of
Jesus. Once fortunate to receive a selected disclosure of the highest order, always
a favored one. We mentioned above four criteria for high status, and there is no
doubt that she enjoys exceptionally high status.47
We have argued that what one knows serves as an excellent index of ones status.
Mary Magdalene knows unique knowledge of extraordinary importance. From
the earliest parts of the narrative, the most important piece of information
concerns knowledge of whence Jesus comes and whither he goes. Most
characters struggle with this problem. In two key places, the prologues in 1:1-18
and 13:1-3, we are told that Jesus comes from God (whence) and returns to Gods
463

bosom (whither, 1:14,18; 13:1-3). Only insiders can accept this; to outsiders it is
a blasphemous claim. Whence? Jesus himself tells characters that he comes from,
that is, descends from, heaven, whether they understand it or not: no one has
ever ascended but the one who first descended from heaven (3:13); I am the
bread which came down from heaven (6:38, 41); king. . .for this I have come
into the world (18:37). Others have clues and arguments about his whence,
some insightful (if this man were not from God. . ., 9:33) or misleading (son
of Joseph, 6:42) or biased (what good can come from Nazareth, 1:46; no
prophet will come from Galilee 7:26-27, 41-42, 52), or shallow (a teacher
come from God, 3:2). Whither? Jesus promises a vision of himself when he has
returned whither he came: You will see the heavens opened and the angels of
God ascending and descending on the Son of man (1:51). Again it is Jesus who
remarks, What if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was
before? (6:62) and he prays to be glorified in your presence with the glory
which I had with you before the world was made (17:5). How hard it is for
outsiders to get this straight, for when Jesus says I go to him who sent me. .
.where I am you cannot come (7:33-34), some interpret this as departure for the
Dispersion (7:35) or even suicide (8:22). Hence, only Jesus knows whence I
have come and whither I am going (8:14). But by telling Mary that I am
returning to my Father and your Father, he provides this Mary with knowledge
about whence and whither for his whence is his whither: he
is returning whence he came. This, we maintain, is more significant than any role
she might play.
Simon Peter
In the synoptics Peter plays the role of fisher of men, i.e., an agent of
recruitment of outsiders and rock upon which Jesus builds his assembly (Matt
16:16). With the Twelve Jesus authorizes him to say and do what Jesus said and
did: preach the Kingdom, heal and exorcize (Mark 3:13-15). All consideration of
Peters role is muted or absent until 13:4-38 and 21:1-19. The purpose of Jesus
washing of Peters feet is to transform him from ordinary to extraordinary
disciple. No mere cleansing rite, this should transform him to a new status, that
is, the status of an elite disciple who is willing to lay down his life for Jesus. 48 But
shortly Peter fails and must wait for another time to assume this status. Yet we
learn that Peter ambitions to have the role of shepherd, i.e., successor of the
Noble Shepherd. This becomes evident in the similarities of the dialogue at the
beginning and ending of the scene in John 13. Recall that the qualification for a
noble shepherd is that he lay down his life for his sheep (10:11, 15).
13:6-8
"Lord, do you wash my feet?"(13:6)

13:36-38
"Lord, where are you going?"(13:36)

464

Jesus answered What I am doing you do not know Jesus answered him: Where I am going you cannot follow
now, but afterward you will understand" (13:7)
now, but afterward you will follow" (13:36b)
Peter said to him:"You shall never wash my feet" Peter said to him: "Lord, why cannot I follow you now? I
(13:8)
will lay down my life for you" (13:37)
Jesus answered him:Unless I wash you, you have no
Jesus answered: Will you lay down your life for me?
part in me"(13:8)
The cock will not crow, until you have denied me three
times" (13:38).

As we fast forward to John 20-21, we see that the traditional role of fisher of
men seems to be in view. Simon gathers others to go fishing with him his
initiative, his role. Blessed with an extraordinarily huge catch, Simon leads the
way by hauling the net ashore full of large fish (21:11). Seemingly he is
confirmed in his role of chief fisherman, a role directed to those outside the
group. Next when Jesus serves them fish and bread. While the text does not
explicitly say that Peter participated in serving this meal, the fact is that he will
immediately be told to Feed my lambs. . .Feed my sheep. Thus even in the
beach breakfast scene, Peter is an apprentice host, leaning from Jesus how to
Feed my lambs. Finally, Jesus purifies him of his failure by a triple question
about loyalty, balancing Simons triple denial. When purified, Simon is qualified
to play the role of group shepherd, another inward looking role. 49 Thus, Simons
roles are successively identified: fisherman, food provider, and shepherd. If
explicit authorization is important, Jesus commands and so commissions Peter
three times to take the role of shepherd. And by the end of the narrative, Peter
plays even the role of noble shepherd of the group. 50
But status? Does Peter enjoy respect and status? Until John 20, very little is said
of Peter that indicates high status; on the contrary, a veritable avalanche of
negative status markers buries him. If comparisons are made, he is inferior to
Andrew who called him. The Beloved Disciple surpasses him in loyalty,
knowledge, closeness to Jesus, etc. But as the story ends, although Peter is
commissioned to an important role, it remains unclear what kind of status this
traditional figure enjoyed in the non-traditional Johannine group. 51
Beloved Disciple.
Whoever this person was, does he have a role in the narrative? Reclining so close
to Jesus at the supper and having access to the identity of the traitor are important
status markers, but not indicative of a role. At the cross, however, Jesus
authorizes him for a most significant role, namely son to his mother. The
Beloved Disciple assumes the role of the male formally responsible to protect the
honor, reputation and well being of this important female. This role, moreover, is
strictly an internal role within the circle of disciples.
465

The Beloved Disciple, moreover, has another role, namely sub-broker of Jesus to
the disciples. Brokers mediate between patrons and clients goods such as power,
loyalty, material gains, and information. One would expect in this gospel to find
an emphasis on the groups most important commodity, that is, commitment
(beloved, son) and information (revelations, manifestations, etc.) The
Beloved Disciple is uniquely positioned on Jesus bosom to ask him for
significant information, the identity of the traitor (13:25); his role is that of gobetween as he seeks the answer to Peters question from the one who knows all.
He brokers entrance for Peter into the palace of the high priest (18:15-18), and he
brokers for Peter and others the recognition of Jesus on the shore (21:7). He is
not formally authorized as the purveyor of information, but that again may be
irrelevant. As a charismatic figure, he just has knowledge, insight and wisdom.
As regards status, the Beloved Disciple is identified by many, significant
markers. First, at his initial appearance, he was lying close to the breast of
Jesus (13:23), and since physical proximity to Jesus is a significant status
marker, he begins exceptionally well placed. Moreover, he is privy to restricted
information, the identity of the traitor. Third, he manifests courage and loyalty
superior to all other disciples, first by entering the high priests palace and by
standing publicly in support of Jesus at his cross. The only disciple there, he puts
his life on the line for Jesus. Fourth, he displays alacrity, running fast to the tomb;
after seeing all that Simon saw, he has great insight (he saw and he believed,
20:8). He believed despite seeing nothing that Peter had not seen; hence Jesus
makarism declaring those blessed who believed without seeing (20:29) would
extend to him. He is, then, a blessed as well as a beloved one. Fifth, a rumor
in the group suggested that the Beloved Disciple would not die (21:22). The very
hint that so eminent a person would escape death and remain until Jesus comes
would distinguish him as a unique, remarkably favored disciple. Finally, his role
as son to Jesus mother is a very high status role.
Summary and Conclusions
The following chart gathers the bits of information about the characters surveyed
and assesses it comparatively. From this, we seek to confirm roles and statuses
argued earlier. After this summary, we will try to rank in importance the
characters in the gospel in terms of their statuses.
Person

Authorization

Status

Samaritan
Woman

Role: 1.
w
Elite, but medium Status: Markers = 1. what she comes to
None; Go, call your husband and come here
recruiter
a
know, 2. her recruitment of others, 3. her remarks about Jesus,
(4:16) is not authorization for a role
bringer Duties
4. symbolism as a character who upsets expected norms.
preparation

466

Roles & Dutie

Roles: 1. age
insiders; 2. sub
Jesus.
Duties: to rea
others
to

Disciples

I send you to reap that for which you did not

labor; others have labored (4:38; 17:18)
For I have set you an example, that you also
should do as I have done to you (13:15)
As the Father has sent me, so I send you."
When he had said this, he breathed on them
and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If
you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven
them; if you retain the sins of any, they are
retained" (20:21-23)

Man Born Authorization

Blind
none

Beloved
Disciple

Roles: 1. s
hospitality:
High status: but someone has already sown the word; they are restricted to
in
second
place group
High status: imitation of Jesus; only leaders perform this Duties: to
action
hospitality ;
High status: Extension of Jesus role.
servant

Roles: agents
entrance and
group
Duties: to
gatekeepers
insiders; gua
groups bound

Ambiguous status: markers = positive 1. long encounter with

risen Jesus; 2. seeks physical presence of Jesus; 3. finally
becomes shepherd and even noble shepherd; negative: 1.
called second; 2. lukewarm acknowledgment of Jesus; 3.
failure in washing trans-formation ritual; 4. withdraws all
loyalty to Jesus in courtyard

Role: not jus

and table s
shepherd

Duties: to
Shepherd
defense)52; to l
life for the sh
19)

Role:
fictiv
Very high status 1. physical contact with Jesus; 2. secret
son of Jesus
knowledge of the traitor; 3. courage and loyalty at Jesus death;
4. blessed because he believed and did not see; 5. alone
Woman, behold your son. . .Behold your recognizes the Risen Jesus; 6. rumor that he will not die
Duties: honor,
mother (19:26-27)
defend the
Jesus
Authorization:

From these data we distill the following information about roles. Based on the
persons examined in this study, we judge that formal roles within the Jesus group
were few and of modest significance: witness, agent, son (to Jesus mother),
prophet, fisherman and shepherd, along with informal roles such as recruiter and
news bringer. Only the witnessing of the man born blind is directed to outsiders;
all other roles look to insiders already within the group. We conclude, then,
that roles were not important in the group Far more significant for the Johannine
group is status.
As regards status, we have come to identify the following markers of status in the
Fourth Gospel.
467

1. reception of revelations and Christophanies (1:51; 9:34-36; 20:16-18),

2. disclosure of esoteric information (10:25; 14:1-17:25; 20:17),
3. labeled beloved by Jesus (Martha, Mary and Lazarus and BD),
4. praise from Jesus (4:16) and being labeled as blessed (13:17; 20:29),
5. bold public confession (man born blind vs his parents, 9:22)
6. loyalty and faithfulness (Mary Magdalene, BD at the cross),
7. recipient of unique healing (man born blind, Lazarus),
8. imitation of Jesus; suffering for him (12:9-11, 24-25),
9. fictive kin: son and mother (19:26-27)
10.actual/attempted physical contact with Jesus (Mary 12:1-8; BD, 13:25,
Magdalene, 20:17),
11. never dying (21:19-23)
But let us ask another question: Whos Who in the Johannine Group? Can we
discern an order of precedence? It seems easy to distinguish three levels of status
of Johannine characters: elites, traditional figures, and marginal or fringe
dwellers. At the top of the pyramid we find the following elites, who are
positioned, not because of any role played, but according to status markers. I feel
confident about ranking the Beloved Disciple, Mary Magdalene and the man
born blind as enjoying very high status; but it becomes difficult to rank the other
elites.
1. Beloved Disciple: physical closeness to Jesus; special knowledge; courage
cross; son of Jesus mother; perhaps death-less
2. Mary Magdalene: courage; physical closeness to Jesus; called by her own
name; special manifestation; revelation of the most elite knowledge
3. Man born blind: unique healing; forensic witness for Jesus; bold, public
speech on Jesus behalf; suffers for Jesus; receives a Christophany
4. Lazarus: beloved disciple; recipient of greatest sign; targeted for death
because of Jesus
468

5. Martha: beloved disciple; special knowledge but modest acknowledgment

of Jesus
6. Mary: beloved disciple; physical closeness (anoints feet)
Other characters display admirable characteristics, but weaknesses as well.
7. Thomas: knowledge (non receptive interlocutor with Jesus: 11:15; 14:5);
physical closeness (demands to touch Jesus hands and side); confession,
My Lord and My God
8. Nathanael: overcomes difficulties to come to Jesus, praised by Jesus,
revelation from Jesus, acknowledgment of Jesus, promised a Christophany
9. Peter: never credited with being in the know; cowardice canceled by
confession of loyalty; eventually becomes shepherd; dies to glorify God
10.Andrew: first disciple; recruits others; not noticeably in the know; no
bold speaking about Jesus
11. Philip: recruits another; brokers the Greeks to Jesus; receives special
information
12.Samaritan Woman: never quite knowing what Jesus is saying; always
challenging Jesus; delivering an ambivalent confession of Jesus
Finally, the narrative tells of still other characters who lack courage, learn
nothing from encountering Jesus or fail in converting sign into faith.
13.Nicodemus: earthly knowledge; total failure to understand Jesus, lacks
courage (at night)
14.Joseph of Arimathea: no courage (secret disciple, 19:35)
15.Crippled man in 5:1-10: no loyalty to Jesus as a result of his healing;
ultimately a witness against Jesus to Jesus enemies.
Gathering the threads of this investigation, certain conclusions suggest
themselves. First, in general, roles seem considerably less important than status.
Moreover, with the exception of forensic witnessing, the roles are directed to
insiders, as opposed to synoptic and Pauline apostolic roles to spread the gospel
to outsiders. They are, moreover, roles involving speech of some sort. This
relates to the scholarly discussion that the Fourth Gospel, a maverick gospel, in
469

which its elites of high status stand in opposition to or superior to traditional

figures such as the apostles, especially Peter. One wonders, moreover, if there is a
tension between what the earthly Jesus did and what the Risen Jesus, for the
disclosure of remarkable secrets and the demonstration of public courage are
most evident in Jesus death and resurrection. There can be no denying that
knowledge, selected disclosure, revelations, and Christophanies are the coin of
the realm: persons can be ranked in terms of what they know, when they know it,
and how they know it. And knowing in this gospel is not a role but a status
marker.
Notes

1. Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel. Meaning, Mystery,

Community (Minneapolis,
MN:
Fortress
Press,
1995)
32-73.
2. Raymond Collins, Representative Figures in the Fourth Gospel, Downside
Review 94
(1976)
26-46
&
118-32.
3. R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress
1983)
10-48.
4. Even anonymous characters are studied, such as David R. Beck, The
Narrative Function of Anonymity in Fourth Gospel Characterization, Semeia
143-58; W. W. Watty, The Significance of Anonymity in the Fourth
Gospel, ExpT 90 (1979) 209-12.
5. For example, in Arthur Droges article (The Status of Peter in the Fourth
Gospel: a Note on John 18:10-11, JBL 109 [1990] 307-11), he uses the term
status only in the title and never in the text, so it is difficult to know how he
understands
it.
6. See Raymond E. Brown, The Role of Women in the Fourth Gospel , TS 36
(1975) 688-99, reprinted in Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York, NY:
Paulist Press, 1979])183-98; Elizabeth S. Fiorenza (In Memory of Her [New
York, NY: Crossroads, 1985] 326, 332-33) labels Magdalene an apostolic
witness, whereas in another place she calls her the apostle to the apostles,
Mary Magdalene: Apostle to the Apostles, USQJ, April 1975, pp. 22ff; this is
similar to the description of her by Colleen M. Conway (Men and Women in the
Fourth Gospel. Gender and Johannine Characterization [Atlanta, GA: Society of
Biblical Literature, 1999] 198) who says of her: It is clear that the message
Jesus gives to Mary to proclaim is the Johannine kerygma. . .she assumes the role
of mediator. See Sjef van Tilborg, Imaginative Love in John (Leiden: Brill,
470

1993)

200-06.

7. Turid Karlsen Seim, Roles of Women in the Gospel of John, in Lars

Hartman and Birger Olsson, eds., Aspects on the Johannine Literature (Uppsala:
Almquist
&
Wiksell,1986)
56-73,
citation
from
p.
56.
8. A. Paul Hare, Groups: Role Structure, IESS 6.283. Bruce Malina (Social
Levels, Morals and Daily Life, in ed. Philip F. Esler, The Early Christian
World [London: Routledge, 2000] 1.371) clarifies this remark, The roles that an
individual plays point to statuses within the overall system. In this sense social
roles point to stereotypical, presumed entitlements and responsibilities.
9. Hare,

Groups:

Role

Structure,

6.283.

10. Raymond Scupin and Christopher De Corse, Anthropology and Global

Perspective, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995) 280. It is
commonly said that statuses are polar or reciprocal; any particular status always
implies at least one other to which it is related, e.g., mother-child, employeremployee, doctor-patient.
11. Ralph H. Turner ( Role: Sociological Aspects, IESS 13.552) defines role as
[I]t provides a comprehensive pattern for behavior and attitudes; it constitutes
a strategy for coping with a recurrent type of situation; it is socially identified,
more or less clearly, as an entity; it is subject to being placed recognizably
by different
individuals;
and
it
supplied
a
major
basis
for identifying and placing persons
in
society.
12. Malina,

Social

Levels,

Morals

and

Daily

Life,

1.

371.

13. On the family of Jesus, see Sjef van Tilborg, Imaginative Love (Leiden: Brill,
1993) and Jan G. Van der Watt, Family of the King. Dynamics of Metaphor in
the
Gospel
according
to
John (Leiden:
Brill,
2000)
304-40.
14. Raymond Scupin and Christopher DeCorse, Anthropology and Global
Perspective (Englewood,
NJ:
Prentice
Hall
1995)
280.
15.Andrew Abbott, Status and Status Strain in the Professions, AJS 86 (1981)
820. For an easy introduction to the meaning of status, see John J.
Pilch, Introducing the Cultural Context of the Old Testament (Mahwah, NJ:
Paulist
Press,
1991)
117-50.
16. Satus has been defined as: A quality entailing deference and precedence
471

in interaction, a quality of professional or public honor. . .Status systems are

generated by bases or dimensions of honor power, wealth, knowledge. . .Status
has come to be a synonym of any position in a social system. . .Whereas
formerly superiority of status could mean any sort of hierarchical ordering -- of
power, wealth, or honor -- to many it now refers only to esteem, prestige, honor,
respect, that is, to various forms of evaluation. . . .What matters is not what you
really are but what people believe you to be (M. Zelditch, Status,
Social, IESS 15.250).
17. Paul Humphreys and Joseph Berger, Theoretical Consequences of the Status
Characteristics Formulation, AJS 86 (1981) 954-55 and Malina, Social Levels,
Morals
and
Daily
Life,
369-80.
18. Robin M. Williams, American Society. A Sociological Interpretation. 3rd ed
(New
York:
Alfred
A.
Knopf,
1970)
42.
19. Diodor of Sicily, 9.10.1-4; Plutarch, Letter to Apollonius 116D-E, Dinner of
the
Seven
Wise
Men 164B-C, Talkativeness 511A-B;
see
Helen
North, Sophrosyne.
Self-Knowledge
and
Self-Restraint
in
Greek
Literature (Ithaca:
Cornell
University
Press,
1966).
20. He will not allow others to praise him too much (Plutarch, Dinner of the
Seven Wise Men 164C). For, as was popularly thought, Fortune has a knack,
when men vaunt themselves too highly, of laying them unexpectedly low and so
teaching them to hope for nothing in excess (?d?? ??an) Diodor of Sicily
15.33.3). The practice of moderation or nothing to excess was hallowed in
Horaces ode on golden mediocrity (Ode 2.10.1-12). See R.G.M. Nisbet and
Margaret Hubbard, A Commentary on Horace: Odes. Book II (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1978) 160-61. See also Kurt Scheidle, Modus Optumum. Die
Bedeutung des Rechten Masses in der rmischen Literatur (Frankfurt am Main:
Peter
Lang,
1993).
21. In the political world of Rome, the stratification of males consisted of
Emperor, senator, equestrian, decurio, citizen, subject, slave; in Judea, high
priest, high priests, priests, Levites, landowners, peasants, artisans (Malina,
Social
Levels,
Morals
and
Daily
Life,
372).
22. Malina,

Social

Levels,

Morals

and

Daily

Life,

371-72.

23. One should reckon also the added status accruing to older members of society
simply because they are old, and the lack of status of young people. This is
472

commonly expressed in discussions of pietasand e??e?a; see also Thomas M.

Falkner and Judith de Luce, eds., Old Age in Greek and Latin Literature (Albany,
NY: SUNY Press, 1989); Tim G. Parkin, Old Age in the Roman World. A
Cultural and Social History (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2003); Thomas M. Faulkner, The Poetics of Old Age in Greek Epic , Lyrc,
and Tragedy (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995); and Bessie
Ellen Richardson, Old Age among the Ancient Greeks (New York: Greenwood
Press,
1969).
24. For a record of the ancients on gender division, see Jerome H. Neyrey, Jesus,
Gender and the Gospel of Matthew, in Stephen D. Moore and Janice C.
Anderson, New
Testament
Masculinities, Semeia45
(2003)
43-53.
25. Instructors in the rhetoric of honor describe the culturally specific values
which are deemed praiseworthy: Then, you will bring out the most important
topic of the encomium, the achievements, which you will divide into the spirit,
the body, and fortune the spirit like courage or prudence, the body like beauty,
swiftness, or strength, and fortune, like power, wealth and friends. Apthonius
(trans. Ray Nadeau, The Progymnasmata of Apthonius in Translation, Speech
Monographs 19 [1952] 264-85) Aristotle: The parts of virtue are justice, manly
courage, self-control, magnificence, magnanimity, liberality, gentleness,
prudence, and wisdomRhet. 1.9.5, trans by George Kennedy, Aristotle, On
Rhetoric (Oxford:
OUP,
1991)
80.
26. Ones reputation or worth may be either ascribed (bestowed, inherited) or
achieved). This basic idea of honor informs the way status is evaluated:
Ascribed status is that which is inherited, such as sex, race, or ethnicity, or over
time, age, and is crucial for defining the basic patterns of peoples lives [birth,
physical features, genealogy]. Achieved status, on the other hand, is acquired
through personal effort or chance, possibly from occupational or educational
attainment. [marriage, occupation, perceived acquisitions] (Charlotte Wolf,
Status, SSE,
826).
27. For the structure of the social system of the Early Empire, see Gza
Alfldy, The Social History of Rome (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1988) 94-186. See also Ramsey MacMullen, Roman Social
Relations (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974) 88-120.
28. Malina (Social Levels, Morals and Daily Life," 370) identifies four ranking
orders relative to our task: 1) the ranking structure of the non-elite quarters of a
specific local community (e.g., Corinth or Alexandria); 2) separate ranking
473

structures in small communities in specific localities inhabited by similar people

(e.g., Judean communities in Hellenistic cities); 3) ranking structures covering
the total regional society, of cities and of concern to persons and groups in
regional central places (e.g., the tetrarchy of Herod and Agrippa); 4) an empirewide tanking system (e.g., Roman elites, of little interest to most of the people in
the
empire.
29. Robert Kysar (John, the Maverick Gospel [Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox, 1993] rightly named this document maverick not only for its
antithetical stance to the synagogue, but also its apparent conflict with other
Jesus groups. Thus it may not be just different from others, but emphatically so.
30. The duties of a wife/mother are consistent among Greco-Romans and
Judeans: "These are works which the wife must perform for her husband:
grinding flour and baking bread and washing clothes and cooking food and
giving suck to her child and making read his bed and working in wool" (m.
Ket. 5.5). Before anything else I should speak about the occupations by which a
household is maintained. . .to the wife those which have to do with spinning and
the preparation of food, in short, those of a domestic nature (Hierocles, On
Duties (4:28.21ff).
31. Sandra Schneiders, Women in the Fourth Gospel and the Roles of Women in
the
Contemporary
Church, BTB 12
(1982)
39.
32. One thinks of Theophrastus characters and the stock characters of Greek and
Roman comedy (i.e., ??a???e?a and ?e??d???a); the premise of Plutarchs On
Inoffensive Self-Praise is that self- promotion is a serious social affront. In the
first line of the writing it says: It is agreed that to speak to others of ones own
importance or power is offensive (538A); praise of ourselves is for others most
distressing (539D). It provokes envy and so discord. Now the Samaritan Woman
is not praising herself, but claiming an honor utterly and hopelessly beyond her
status.
33. Peder Borgen, God's Agent in the Fourth Gospel," in ed. Jacob Neusner,
ed., Religions in Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 1968) 137-48; A. E. Harvey, Jesus as
Agent, in eds. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright,The Glory of Christ in the New
Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) 239-250). See Karl H.
Rengstorf, Apostleship (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1952) 11-24. George
W.
Buchanan,
Apostolic
Christology, SBLSP 1986:
172-82.
34. Nowhere in the Fourth Gospel do we find the kind of formal commissioning
474

of the disciples that we find in Matt 10:5-15; Mark 6:7-13 and Luke 9:1-6. There
the disciples repeat Jesus specific message, The Kingdom of God is at hand,
and they imitate Jesus by being mighty in world and deed. None of this is found
in
the
Fourth
Gospel.
35. See Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Gossip in the New Testament, in John J. Pilch,
ed., Social Scientific Models for Interpreting the Bible (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001)
239-59; Deborah Jones, Gossip: Notes on Womens Oral Culture, Womens
Studies International Quarterly 3 (1980) 193-98; Don Handelman, Gossip in
Encounters: The Transmission of Information in a Bounded Social
Setting, Man 8 (1973) 210-27; Sian Lewis, News and Society in the Greek
Polis (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1996).
36.

Schneiders,

Women

in

the

Fourth

Gospel

39.

37. See Jerome H. Neyrey, " What's Wrong With This Picture? John 4, Cultural
Stereotypes of Women, and Public and Private Space," BTB 24 (1994): 83-84,
86-88.
38. All agree that she should be understood as the antithesis of Nicodemus; see
Mary Magdalene Pazdan, Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman. Contrasting
Models
of
Discipleship, BTB 17
(1987)
145-58.
39. The Fourth Gospel differs from the synoptics on several points: whereas in
them Jesus often sends(?p?st????, (Matt 10:5, 16) them and even calls them
apostles (?p?st????, Mark 3:14; 6:30; Luke 6:13; 9:10; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10), in
the Fourth Gospel ?p?st???? is used primarily of Jesus . It is used only in an
extended sense once in regard to the disciples: A servant is not greater than his
master, nor is he who is sent greater than the one who sent him (13:16).
Apostle, then, is a restricted term, whose primary referent is Jesus.
40. Only in one place are the disciples referred to as witnesses; the Spirit will
bear witness to Jesus and you are also witnesses, for you have been with me
from
the
beginning
(15:27).
41. This gospel restricts imitation of Jesus to the disciples in terms of washing
the feet of one another ( I have given you an example, that you should do as I
have done to you, 13:15) and laying down ones life (love one another as I
have loved you, 15:12). The focus is inward, toward insiders.
42. Borgen, Gods Agent in the Fourth Gospel,122 and Buchanan, Apostolic
Christology,
172-82.
475

43. Martha will shortly play the respectable role of diakonos at the meal when
the three Beloved Disciples host Jesus (12:2). This sounds quite similar to Lukes
portrayal of Martha in Luke 10:41-42. In John, however, Martha is both meal
server and conversation partner with Jesus, whereas Mary is Jesus interlocutor in
Luke.
44. Neyrey, An

Ideology

of

Revolt,

21-29,

87-92.

45. The exchange between Jesus and Martha in 11:38-40 confirms this imperfect
knowledge; Jesus said that I am the resurrection, which Martha has quickly
forgotten
when
the
tomb
is
to
be
opened.
46. Buchanan,

Apostolic

Christology,

179-81.

47. Martin Hengel (Maria Magdalena und die Frauen als Zeugen, in Martin
Hengel and Peter Schmidt, eds., Abraham unser Vater. Juden und Christen im
Gespch ber die Bibel [Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1963] ) argues that Mary enjoys very
high status, among the female disciples, that is, she has the same priority among
the female disciples that Peter does among the males: she is mentioned in all the
lists of female witnesses, and especially first in the synoptics. Status, but not
role.
48. Jerome H. Neyrey, "The Footwashing in John 13:6-11; Transformation Ritual
or Ceremony?" in L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough, eds., The Social
World of the First Christians. Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1995) 206-9.
49.See A. H. Maynard, The Role of Peter in the Fourth Gospel, NTS 30 (1984)
531-47 and Conway, Men and Women in the Fourth Gospel, 163-77.
50. Jerome H. Neyrey, The Noble Shepherd in John 10: Cultural and
Rhetorical
Background. JBL 120
(2001)
267-80.
51. An introduction to this problem may be found in Raymond E. Brown, The
Community
of
the
Beloved
Disciple,
81-84.
52. Although the tradition knows of an anonymous disciple drawing a sword in
the garden, the Fourth Gospel identifies this figure as Simon Peter; hence he is
showcased as trying to defend Jesus, one of the marks of a shepherd; yet he is
rebuked for this and Jesus remains the shepherd to negotiates the escape of his
disciple/sheep (18:8-9).
476

"Encomium vs Vituperation: Contrasting

Portraits of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel"
JEROME
University of Notre Dame

H.

NEYREY,

S.J.

1.0 Topic and Hypotheses

Past consideration of Johannine characters considers them either as symbolic or

representative figures,1 and now according to literary theory.2 This study
contributes to those efforts with insights drawn from ancient rhetoric, in
particular from the encomium genre of the progymnasmata. The encomium, to
my knowledge, has not been used, although it ought to be, because the
encomium is the most common form in antiquity for praising a person
according to fixed, regular categories (origins, parents, nurture, virtues, and
death) and would most likely have been learned by the author of the Fourth
Gospel at the time he learned to write materials for public persuasion. Moreover,
this conventional and stereotypical 3 view of persons can be found in Judean 4 and
Greco-Roman literature.5 The encomium, therefore, is the viewpoint of the
ancients themselves, the report of a native informant who indicates what
conventional topics and their contents need be covered to amplify praise for an
honorable ancient person. This study, then, is no mere add-on to Johannine
scholarship, but a worthy contribution because it examines the Fourth Gospel in
the most likely honorable terms that author and audience would recognize.
Under the umbrella of the rhetorical presentation of characters in antiquity, I
propose to argue these two hypotheses. First, the author Fourth Gospel knows the
traditional code for praising persons as is found in the encomium exercise in the
progymnasmata. Second, the Fourth Gospel uses this rhetorical manner in a sly
and clever manner because there are two encomia in the narrative: one
characterizes outsiderswho see things literally and inadequately (= vituperation)
and another represents insiders who know what is going on, glory in their secrets
and smirk at the outsiders (= encomium). From Aristotle to Quintilian, epideictic
rhetoric focused on praise (?pa????) and blame (?????), or in
Latin laus and vituperatio.6 Of them Aristotle says: The topics for praise and
also those for blame. . .the qualities are much the same as regards both praise and
blame (Rhet. 1.9.1). Later, he remarks: These are the things from which
speeches of praise and blame are almost all derived, as well as what to look for
477

when praising and blaming; for if we have knowledge of these [sources of praise]
the opposite is clear, for blame is derived from its opposite (Rhet. 1.9.41).
Quintilian, following Aristotles discourse on the rhetoric of praise and blame,
provides us with this important idea: The same method [for praise] will be
applied to denunciations (vituperatione) as well, but with a view to the opposite
effect (Inst. 3.7.19). The same aim and method became encoded in the encomia
of the progymnasmata, which taught students to praise and to denounce. In this
article we equate encomium with praise, but vituperation with blame. The
argument, then, has two parts: 1. exposition of the contents of the encomium in
the progymnasmata ; 2. description of the antithetical encomia of Jesus in the
Fourth Gospel, a vituperation by outsiders and a genuine encomium by insiders.
2.0 Contents of the Encomium

The progymnasmata was the collection of exercises taught those in the second
level of education to train them for public discourse. 7 Recent study of education
in antiquity urges us to nuance the conventional, three-stage model found in
current scholarship, which Robert Kaster summarized and to which he offered his
qualifications. It is generally thought that ancient education consisted of:
. . .the primary school (??aat?d?das?a?e???) overseen by the primary
teacher, where one learned letters the elements of reading and writing and
some arithmetic; the secondary or grammarschool, where one received
thorough and systematic instruction in language and literature, especially poetry,
under the grammarian (??aat????); and the school of rhetoric. 8
Kaster offers the following corrections: ancient education was a socially
segmented system laid out along two essentially separate tracks. The most
important formal distinction here is the division between the two tracks or
segments: the ludus literrarius, providing common literacy for students of
relatively humble origins on the one hand 9; and the scholae liberales, catering to
a more privileged part of the population on the other.10 The scholae
liberales began with instruction in writing for a public or municipal audience,
especially epideictic rhetoric so necessary for civic life. 11As we know, the
collection of exercises for public speech and writing, namely, the progymnasmata
, contained the cultural rules and values for the encomium, the literary expression
of the rhetoric of praise and blame. Extant progymnasmata typically contain the
following exercises:12 1. myths, 2. chreia,13 3. refutation and confirmation, 4.
commonplaces on virtues and vices, 5. encomium and vituperation, 6.
comparison,14 7. prosopopoieia,15 8. description, 9. thesis for or against
something, and 10. legislation, for or against a law. Although praise and blame
runs through most of them, it is formally and explicitly taught in the
encomium. The conventional encomium instructs students where to find
478

reasons and data for praise (or blame), which genre is found widespread in
Greco-Roman and Israelite literature. With great consistency, the encomium
instructed authors how to praise someone in terms of the following five
categories:
I. Origin
o A. Geography and Generation: country, race, ancestors, parents
o B. Birth: phenomena at birth (stars, visions, etc.), oracles
II. Nurture and Training
o A. Education: teachers, arts, skills, laws, mode of life
III. AccomplishmentsA. Deeds of the Body: beauty, strength, agility,
might, health
o B. Deeds of the Soul: justice, wisdom, temperance, courage, piety
o C. Deeds of Fortune: power, wealth, friends, fame, fortune
IV. Comparison
V. Noble Death and Posthumous Honors
2.1 Geography and Generation
Each category of the encomium was itself a commonplace understood by all the
ancients. All knew the basic, invariable content of origins, i.e., origin in a noble
land (geography) and from noble stock (generation). A synopsis of four
encomiastic instructions on geography and generation yields this uniform
content.
Aphthonius
Hermogenes
Aelius
Theon
ethnic affiliation (?????)
ethnic affiliation (?????) ethnic affiliation (?????)
home locale (pat???)
nation/city-state
(p????) nation/city-state
(p????)
ancestors
(p???????)
clan/tribe (?e???)
government (p???te?a)
fathers (pate?e?)

479

Quintilian
ethnic
affiliation
(gens,
natio)
country
(patria)
ancestors
(maiores)
parents (parentes)

Thus a persons origins are expressed by two topics: 1. geography (?????, p????,
pat???, gens, patria, natio)
and
2. generation (?e???,
p???????,
pate?
e?, maiores, parentes).
2.1.1 Geography
The ancients were acutely aware of the meanings carried by geography, which
was rooted in their theory of elements. Places were known to be wet, dry, hot and
cold, 16 which elements also indicated character. A person with excessive heat
would be such-and-such a type person, whereas people with more coldness
would be another type (see (Hippocrates, Air, Water and Places, 24.1-40).
Aristotles version of this applies the four-element theory to specific geographical
regions and their capacity for ruling, arguing once more that geography equals
character.
Let us speak of what ought to be the citizens' natural character. This one might
almost discern by looking at the famous cities of Greek and by observing how the
whole inhabited world is divided up among the nations. The nations inhabiting
the cold places and those of Europe are full of spirit but somewhat deficient in
intelligence and skill, so that they continue comparatively free, but lacking in
political organization and capacity to rule their neighbors. The peoples of Asia on
the other hand are intelligent and skillful in temperament, but lack spirit, so that
they are in continuous subjection and slavery. But the Greek race participates in
both characters, just as it occupies the middle position geographically, 17 for it is
both spirited and intelligent, hence it continues to be free and to have very good
political institutions, and to be capable of ruling all mankind if it attains
constitutional unity (Politics 1327b.1-2; see Plato, Laws 5.747d).
Thus Europe, north and west of Greece, is cold, full of spirit, but deficient in
intelligence and skill; while free themselves, they lack the political skills to
rule others. Place = element = character! Asia, west of Greece, resembles Europe
in that has intelligence and skill, but lacks spirit, which the result that they are
content with subjection and slavery. Greece, which is geographically centered,
contains a balance of all four elements and so is intelligent, skilled, with great
spirit, good political institutions and capacity to rule all mankind. Place = all four
elements = character.
In time a series of stereotypes developed characterizing various places and the
people dwelling in them, which served as an index of snobbery: some places
were inherently honorable and noble, but others ignoble. 18 For example, Titus
says that Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons (Titus 1:12),
whereas Paul boasts that he comes from a no low-status city (Acts 21:39).
480

Menander Rhetor, a progymnastic author, provides a cogent summary of the logic

of geography in praise:
You will come to the topic of his native country (pat??da). Here you must ask
yourself whether it is a distinguished country or not [and whether he comes from
a celebrated and splendid place or not]. If his native country is famous, you
should place your account of it first, and mention it before his family. . .If the city
(p????) has no distinction, you must inquire whether his nation (?????) as a
whole is considered brave and valiant, or is devoted to literature or the possession
of virtues, like the Greek race, or again is distinguished for law, like the Italian,
or is courageous, like the Gauls or Paeonians.You must argue that it is inevitable
that a man from such a [city or] nation should have such characteristics
(II.369.18-370.5)19.
Certain places characteristically breed people with specific praiseworthy traits:
Greeks in literature and virtue, Italians in law, and Gauls in courage. 20 The
presupposition behind this lies in the belief that it is inevitable that a man from
such a city or nation should have such characteristics. Yes, inevitable! Thus
knowing the geography of a persons origins tells the ancients about the persons
worth and value.21
2.1.2 Generation
Much as we value the pedigree of animals produced through select breeding, so
too the ancients in regard to people. Quintilian sums it up: Persons are generally
regarded as having some resemblance to their parents and ancestors, a
resemblance which leads to their living disgracefully or honorably, as the case
may be" (Inst. Orat. 5.10.24). Lists of the culturally specific values in parents
that were popularly praised may be found in most rhetoricians; Aristotle provided
just such criteria which warrant praise:
Now good birth in a race or a state means that its members are indigenous or
ancient; that its earliest leaders were distinguished men, and that from them have
sprung many who were distinguished for qualities that we admire. The good birth
of an individual implies that both parents are free citizens, and that, as in the case
of the state, the founders of the line have been notable for virtue or wealth or
something else which is highly prized, and that many distinguished persons
belong to the family, men and women, young and old (Rhet. 1.5.5).
Aristotle expresses the common expectation that children will be chips off the
old block (see Deut 23:2; 2 Kings 9:22; Isa 57:3; Hos 1:2; Ecclus 23:25-26;
30:7), either like father, like son (e.g. Matt 11:27) or like mother, like daughter
(e.g. Ezek 16:44). If the parents or ancestors were "landed" or citizens of a
481

free polis, then the root stock of the family was noble; virtuous ancients should
be expected to breed virtue. Plato says: "They were good because they sprang
from good fathers" (Menex. 237). Confirmation of this is found in the endless
introduction of biblical characters as son of so-and-so. To know the father is to
know the son. The honor rating of the father indicates the honor rating of the son.
2.1.3 Birth.
Important, honorable births were announced by celestial phenomenon (stars,
comets) and accompanied by oracles and prophecies. Readers already know this
from comparisons of biblical and classical materials, 22 but we locate it in its
proper rhetorical context, the encomium.
Menander Rhetor gives typical instructions on this topic:
If any divine sign occurred at the time of his birth, either on land or in the
heavens or on the sea, compare the circumstances with those of Romulus, Cyrus,
and similar stories, since in these cases also there were miraculous happenings
connected with their birth -- the dream of Cyrus' mother, the suckling of Romulus
by the she-wolf (II.371.5-14).
Whatever happened in the macrocosm of the sky mirrored and foretold what was
soon to occur in the microcosm of the earth. Such phenomena, then, served as
status markers.
2.2 Nurture and Training.
There was a right way and a wrong way to educate an socialize a
son.23 Independent of the family, what events shaped the persons character? Our
native informant, Marcus Tullius Cicero, instructs us:
On this topic Cicero said: Under manner of life should be considered with
whom he was reared, in what tradition and under whose direction, what teachers
he had in the liberal arts, what instructors in the art of living, with whom he
associates on terms of friendship, in what occupation, trade or profession he is
engaged, how he manages his private fortune, and what is the character of his
home life (De Inventione 1.24.35).
Sons can never exceed the nobility of their fathers, but they can hope to match
them, if they are reared in the traditions of the clan. In addition to Ciceros
commonplace on nurture and training, Josephus demonstrates in his Life the
content of this topic, declaring that he made great progress in his education and
gained a reputation for an excellent memory and understanding (8). When
482

fourteen years old, he won universal applause for his love of letters, such that
the chief priests and leading men of the city used constantly to come to me for
precise information on some particular of our ordinances (8-9). He tells us that
he investigated the manner of life of the three major sect of Judea, Pharisees,
Sadducees and Essenes, submitting himself to hard training and laborious
exercises. Finally, he apprenticed himself to Bannus and became schooled in the
values and structures of the Israelite purity system (11). It is essential for
Josephus that he present himself not only as gifted intellectually, highly cultured,
but as nurtured and trained as an observant Israelite.
2.4 Comparison.
Comparison may be a distinct exercise of its own in the progymnasmata or a part
of the encomium. Nevertheless, its purpose and mode of argument are identical
in both. As one progymnastic author states:
Comparison is a composition made comparative by the process of placing side by
side with the subject that which is greater or equal to it. . . to place fine things
beside good things or worthless things beside worthless things or small things
beside the greater. The comparison is a double encomium or an invective
combined with an encomium. There as many proper subjects for a comparison as
there are for both invective and encomium: persons, things, times, places,
animals, and also plants.24
S?????s?? generally compares persons and things similar in honor or prowess (=
two encomia) or contrasts them (= encomium and vituperation). Those making
comparisons, moreover, are instructed to use the same categories of the
encomium which we have just surveyed, so that persons are compare in terms of
birth, origin, nurture and training, etc.
When we compare characters, we will first set side by side their noble birth, their
education, their children, their public offices, their reputation, their bodily health,
as well as whatever else I said earlier, in the chapter "On Encomia," about bodily
good qualities and external good qualities. 25
2.5 Death and Posthumous Honors
A death was noble if accompanied by posthumous honors, such as public
celebration of the dead in games or by monuments, as Demosthenes describes:It
is a proud privilege to behold them possessors of deathless (????at??) honours
and a memorial of their valour erected by the State, and deemed deserving of
sacrifices and games for all future time (Funeral Oration 36).26 The very funeral
orations themselves are structured out of the encomium to glorify the dead, first
by giving a public evaluation of their worth and later by an annual burnishing of
483

their reputation.27 Hence, we frequently find the claim that those being celebrated
are in one sense like the gods, because their glory too is now deathless and
everlasting.
3.0 The Encomia of Outsiders and Insiders

With our knowledge of the encomium, let us turn to the Fourth Gospel. Two
things will occur simultaneously in this part of the article. We will bring forward
in sequence each of the five major topics of the encomium and show to what
extent the author of the Fourth Gospel knows the genre and its conventional
contents. At the same time we will observe that in the Fourth Gospel the author
constructs not one, but two antithetical encomia about Jesus, one representative
of how outsiders view Jesus (= vituperation, because it seeks to vilify him) and
another characteristic of insiders (= encomium, because it claims maximum
honor for Jesus on very same encomiastic points).
3.1 Outsiders Vituperation.
The author, who is responsible for all that the outsiders say about Jesus,
structures their remarks, not haphazardly but according to the main topics of the
encomium, not as praise for Jesus, but as blame. Hence he creates for outsiders
not an encomium, but a vituperation whose purpose is to shame and dishonor
Jesus. The data used in this vituperation are not entirely erroneous in terms of
geography and generation, but represent outsider thinking which is fleshly, from
below, judging according to appearances and lacking in knowledge. 28 They not
only know little, but even this they construe in a hostile manner. Finally, in their
vituperation against Jesus, the author provides grounds for judging them (see
12:31-36, 46-50).
3.1.1 Geography.
The author formally raises the topic of Jesus origins by staging a controversy
over whence (p??e?) Jesus comes and whither (p?) he goes. Readers are
introduced to this pattern by Nicodemus,29 who arrived knowing that Jesus came
from God, but left knowing nothing at all. After making a critical distinction
between ways of knowing, namely, flesh versus spirit (3:7), Jesus plays
with the word spirit (as wind and as heavenly phenomenon), to illustrate those
two ways of knowing: The wind blows. . .and you do not know whence it comes
(p??e?) and whither it goes (p?) (3:8). Although not about Jesus origins, it
introduces30 a formal pattern: 1. know (or not know) 2. whence and
whither. The chart below illustrates the most significant uses of the pattern
concerning whence Jesus comes.
484

The Jews murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which comes down from heaven. They
said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, I
have come down from heaven? (6:41-42)
We know where this man comes from, but when the Christ appears, no one will know whence he
comes (7:27). So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the temple, "You know me, and you know where I
come from? But I have not come of my own accord; he who sent me is true, and , him you do not know.
Iknow him, for I come from him, and he sent me" (7:28-29).
Is the Christ to come from Galilee? (7:41-42). . .Search and you will see that no prophet is to rise
from Galilee (7:52).
Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true, for I know whence I have
come and whither I am going, but you do not know whence I come or whither I am going.
Pharisees: We know that God has spoken to Moses; but as for this man, we do not know where he comes
from (9:29). The man answered, "Why, this is a marvel! You do not know where he comes from, and
yet he opened my eyes. . .If this man were not from God he could do nothing (9:29, 33).

In each of these incidents, the author structures the discourse as a

challenge/riposte exchange according to the formal pattern of two elements: 1.
knowing/not knowing and 2. whence Jesus comes. Outsiders claim to know, but
Jesus accuses them of lack of knowledge. Like Nicodemus, they know only in
earthly, fleshly ways, but Jesus claims that his origins are from the heavenly
world. Thus, his origins refer both to Jesus locale and authorization
(agent/apostle).
At this point we know several things. First, the author knows the category of
origins and its role in honoring or shaming, depending on the nobility or
baseness of geography. Second, origins is an obligatory encomiastic topic, for
the author makes it the formal point of controversy between outsiders and Jesus.
Third, the author structures the contrast between the vituperation of outsiders and
the encomium of insiders in terms of knowing( or claiming to know) and not
knowing. Outsiders know according to flesh and think earthly thoughts; for
them whence can only mean father and mother, Nazareth, Galilee, and the like.
Moreover, it is Jesus who tells them that they are completely wrong. Thus the
author knows the topic, handles it traditionally, and advances it from its
confinement at the beginning of an encomium to a topic of great significance
which pervades the narrative (see 19:9).
3.1.2 Generation
Outsiders know Jesus father and mother as peasants from no distinguished clan,
whose offspring cannot be persons of honor. The outsiders think it enough to
rebut Jesus remark about coming down from heaven by simple reference to his
mortal parents: "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we
know? How does he now say, I have come down from heaven'? (6:42). If the
parents, moreover, come from Nazareth of Galilee, q.e.d. Even Jesus family,
whatever its low status, dishonors him in several ways. His own did not receive
485

him (1:11), and his brothers seek to manipulate him, indicating a breakdown of
kinship relations (7:1-7). It is always shameful when kin or family show
disrespect to one of their own. In the outsiders vituperation, Jesus must be a
charlatan and a deceiver because he has no nobility whatsoever, either from the
place of his birth or from his undistinguished parents.
3.1.3 Education
Pauls claim that he studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) contrasts him with Peter
and others who were dismissed as uneducated, common men (Acts 4:13). So
too with Jesus, outsiders mock him for his lack of education and training: "How
is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?" (7:15). A man
without learning has no voice in the company of those who have it (see Luke
2:46-47).31Jesus challengers consistently argue that he says, teaches, preaches his
own message, which lacks weight, depth and respect.
3.1.4 Deeds of the Soul
As regards deeds of the soul, outsiders see no virtue whatsoever in Jesus, only
vice. Some label him a deceiver: He leads the people astray (7:13), proof of
which appears when those sent to arrest Jesus do not return with this deceiver
but declare that they were captivated by his words: No man ever spoke like this
man! (7:46). With good reason the Pharisees charge that these men too are
victims of Jesus deception (7:47). Others label Jesus as demon-possessed
(8:48, 52), the implication of which is that he cannot be Gods agent, but is rather
the agent of Gods enemy. And he is a law breaker because he does not observer
of the Sabbath law by healing on the Holy Day (chs 5, 9), which leads some to
brand him a sinner This man is of from God, for he does not keep the
Sabbath (9: 16, 24). Finally, Jesus in their eyes commits the sin of sins,
blasphemy, by claiming to be equal to God (5:18; 10:30-33).
3.1.5 Death
To them, his death cannot be noble, for as a sinner he justly gets what he
deserves. Although Jesus evades attempts to stone him for his blasphemy (8:59;
10:31), the Jerusalem elite finally capture him and hand him to the Romans to be
crucified. In this scenario, Jesus body is mutilated and denied posthumous
honors. Eternal glory is out of the question and his end is unrelieved shame.
Outsiders, therefore, find no reason whatsoever to praise Jesus. On the contrary,
on every topic that matters in considering the honor or worth of a person, they
see only grounds to dismiss Jesus. No noble origin; no honorable parents; no
486

education/training; only vice and sin, and an appropriately shameful death. For
him only vituperation is suitable.
3.2 Insiders Encomium
The author, however, creates a true encomium for Jesus; that is, he creates of
portrait of praise for Jesus which represents the insiders viewpoint, which is the
complete anthesis of the outsiders vituperation. Here we find praise, honor and
glory for Jesus in terms the same topics, categories and contents used to construct
the outsiders vituperation. The content of generation and geography, moreover,
are always revealed by Jesus, which means that only insiders have and
understand this esoteric knowledge.
3.2.1 Geography
Jesus geography as reported by and for insiders is the complete obverse of what
outsiders know. Whence means so much more to insiders:
1. The true light that enlightens every person was coming into the world (1:9)
2. The word became flesh and dwelt among us (1:14)
3. No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man (3:13)
4. He who comes from above is above all. . .he who comes from heaven is above all (3:31)
5. I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me(6:38). . . This is the
bread which came down from heaven . . .I am the living bread which came down from heaven (6:50-51). . .This is
the bread which came down from heaven (6:58)
6. What if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before (6:62)
7. You know me and you know where I come from? But I have not come on my own accord, but he who sent me is
true, and him you do not know (7:28)
8. You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world (8:23)
9. Jesus, knowing that . . .he had come from God and was going to God. . . (13:3)
10. Now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory which I had with you before the world began
(17:5)

Outsiders claims to know whence Jesus comes is always reduced to the fact
that he is a mere mortal. They Indeed claim to know whence he comes: You
know me and you know where I come from? (7:27). In contrast, insiders
understand Jesus whence as a claim that he is truly from above and not of
this world. Whence means that he came down from heaven into this world.
In key rhetorical places, such as the prefaces for the Books of Signs and Glory,
the audience is told the secret. The Word, who was eternally and who was faceto-face with God in the beginning, descended into the world and became one of
us (1:9, 14). The author again tells us this secret of secrets on the eve of Jesus
departure, Jesus, knowing that . . .he had come from God and was going to God.
. . (13:3). Insiders, then, know whence and even whither Jesus goes.
Although Nazareth and Galilee are low-status places, not so the bosom of the

487

Father (1:18) or the house of the Father with many rooms (14:2). This is premier
real estate.
Outsiders like Nicodemus never grasp what Jesus is saying. In contrast, members
of the Jesus group know that Jesus comes from above (3:31), that he had
come from the Father (13:3), who would glorify me in your presence with the
glory that I had with you before the world was made (17:5) . Although
controversy clouds discussion of Jesus true origins, Jesus and the insiders truly
know whence he comes; they alone revel in the great secret of knowing
whence he comes and whither he goes. It is inevitable that a man from such an
honorable place as the bosom of the Father should have the characteristics of that
place.
3.2.2 Generation
As regards generation, mention of Joseph and his mother (6:42) hardly
exhausts this important category.32 Jesus also has a Father in the heavenly
world.33 Because this Father is the noblest person in heaven or earth, Jesus as
Son of God or Son of man or Son is greatly to be praised and honored.
According to the adage like father, like son, one would expect Jesus to share in
the nobility of his Father in many ways, such as: 1. equality with God (5:17;
10:30), 2. coming and acting in the name of the Father (5:43; 10:25), 3.
receiving. . .manifesting. . .making known Gods name (17:6, 11,12, 26), which
is generally taken to refer to Jesus declaration of himself as I AM (8:24, 28,
58). Moreover, this Father holds Jesus in high regard inasmuch for he is the
only or unique Son of this Father (1:14, 18; 3:16, 18), 34 the Son whom the
Father loves (3:35; 5:20; 15:9).
3.2.3 Nurture and Training
Although outsiders dismiss Jesus because he lacks education and training,
insiders know otherwise. In fact, his supremely noble Father has groomed this
Son with great care. To outsiders, the untrained and uneducated, Jesus is simply a
deceiver. But insiders frequently address him as rabbi (1:38, 49; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2
and 11:8) or as teacher (d?d?s?a???: 1:38; 11:28; 13:13-14; 20:16). The author
gives considerable attention throughout the narrative to Jesus as word (1:1-2)
and authorized agent, who has been schooled by God in what to say and what to
do. Jesus is supremely in the know, because God gives him secrets and esoteric
knowledge, shows him all that He does, and teaches him what to say.
The Father gives Jesus all things, especially heavenly secrets and exclusive
knowledge: No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the
488

Father, he has made him known(1:18). Not that any one has seen the Father
except him who is from God; he has seen the Father (6:46). The Son is unique in
that he alone has seen the Father, the source of wisdom and knowledge and
because he alone makes known this God. But he is remarkably in the know.
The Father shows Jesus all that he does, so that he does what the Father does:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but
only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does
likewise. For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing;
and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel. (5:19-20).
Jesus does not spy on God or steal Gods secrets. On the contrary, he has had
superior nurture and training. Moreover, if we understand do and does as
mastercraftmans skills, then Jesus has completed his apprenticeship and is a
certified master craftsman on a par with his teacher. The Father teaches Jesus and
gives him the words he should say: He who is of the earth belongs to the earth,
and of the earth he speaks; he who comes from heaven is above all. He bears
witness to what he has seen and heard. . .For he whom God has sent utters the
words of God (3:31-34). Again he refers to his education by God: "My
teaching is not mine, but his who sent me; if any man's will is to do his will, he
shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my
own authority (7:16-17).35 How important it is in this gospel that Jesus does not
act as an earthly person speaking on his own: For I have not spoken on my own
authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to
say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I
say, therefore, I say as the Father has bidden me (12:48-50).
Simply put, Jesus has been taught to act as the exclusive agent of God to bring
Gods words and wisdom. Emphatically Jesus states that he is not selfeducated nor promoting his own teaching. Rather, Jesus himself witnessed to
what he has seen and heard; he speaks as the Father taught him; he obeys
Gods command as to what to say and what to speak. Although nurture and
training were treated lightly in the outsiders vituperation, this topic becomes a
major source of honor for Jesus in the insiders encomium. Thus we find yet
another encomiastic topic which the author knows and formally expands as a key
component in his encomium.
3.2.4 Deeds of the Soul
As regards virtues or deeds of the soul, Jesus is portrayed as acting
virtuously.36 He honors his Father (8:49, 54) by doing always what is pleasing to
Him (7:29), obeys His commandment (10:17; 12:27) and keeps His will (4:34;
5:30; 6:38). In a culture where the virtue of sons was linked with the command
honor your father, Jesus exemplary respect for and loyalty to his Father stand
489

out as an issue of great importance. It serves as the refutation of the charges made
by outsiders that he dishonors God by his sins and deceptions. Although the term
justice hardly appears in the Fourth Gospel (16:10), this topic was a a
commonplace taught in rhetorical handbooks of Aristotle and in the
progymnasmata of Menander Rhetor and we think that it has relevance here.
The parts of justice are piety, fair dealing and reverence: piety toward the gods,
fair dealing towards men, reverence toward the departed. Piety to the gods
consists of two elements: being god-loved and god-loving. The former means
being loved by the gods and receiving many blessings from them, the latter
consists of loving the gods and having a relationship of friendship with them
(Menander Rhetor I.361.17-25).37
Piety to the gods, Menander says, consists of two elements: being god-loved and
god-loving. Although our author does not use these precise terms, he nevertheless
develops these two topics. Repeatedly the author tells us that Jesus is beloved of
God:
The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand (3:35) The
Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing; (5:20) For this
reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again
(10:17)
As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you (15:9) I desire that they
also. . .may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given
me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world (17:24) I made known
to them thy name, and I will make it known, that the love with which thou hast
loved me may be in them, and I in them" (17:26).
Despite what outsiders think, the encomium of the insiders emphatically argues
that God indeed loves Jesus. This Father bestows great benefaction on Jesus
who is god-loved (all things, all that he himself is doing), who in turn
displays loyalty and obedience to him (command...lay down my life, made
known to them thy name). For his part, Jesus is God-loving: I do as the Father
has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father (14:31).
Far from being a person thirsting for glory, Jesus insists that all he does is for the
glory of his Father (5:30; 6:38; 7:18). Thus the accusations that he makes
himself anything (5:18; 8:53; 10:33; 19:7, 12) are utterly false; God authorizes
him entirely.
Jesus, moreover, brokers this loved by God benefaction: He who has my
commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will
be loved by my Father (14:21). And "If a man loves me, he will keep my word,
and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with
490

him (14:24). In fact the only way to become loved by God is by loving Gods
agent.
Jesus justice toward his Father is in fact acknowledged by God in various ways:
the Father has affirmed Jesus worthiness by setting His seal on him (6:27) and
by glorifying him (5:41, 44; 8:50, 54). The correct conclusion, then, is that Jesus
manifests to a high degree the most noble of the deeds of the soul, justice. He
displays faithfulness and loyalty to God, obeys his commands, and dedicates
himself solely to the honor of God. And, not surprisingly, he is both God-loved
and loving God.
3.2.5 Comparison
Many encomia contain rules for a comparison (s?????s??). Indeed
Plutarchs Lives are formally structured on this pattern. Generally progymnastic
rules for a comparison instruct authors to compare similar persons or objects,
which seems to be the manner of the Fourth Gospel. Thus two persons receive
praise, not blame, but in varying degrees. First, John the Baptizer and Jesus are
compared and distinguished. John is first in time, i.e., before Jesus, but in
terms of precedence, Jesus was before John, because he enjoys uncreated
eternity in the past (1:15). Moreover, John is but the witness to the light, not the
light itself (1:8); he is not the Christ, Elijah or a prophet (1:20-21), but the
voice of one crying in the wilderness (1:24). God directed John to witness to
Jesus (1:33-34), thus his entire worth and so his honor rests in honoring Jesus.
The comparison of John and Jesus, then, serves to distinguish Jesus as a figure
worthy of superior honor. Second, Jesus is asked twice in a pejorative tone Are
you greater than. . . Jacob or Abraham. Jacob gave the Samaritans the well at
Sychar, but Jesus gives them living water. As great as Jacob was, Jesus is
greater.38 Third, the discourse in John 8 centers around father Abraham,
contrasting true sons who resemble their father by showing hospitality to visitors
from afar (Gen 18) with slave sons whose generation includes Ishmael, Cain and
finally Satan, who is a murderer and liar from the beginning. 39 But Abraham also
functions in Jesus argument as a figure who came into being (8:56) and died
(8:52), that is, Abraham is a contingent being; in comparison, Jesus is uncreated
in the past and imperishable in the future, namely I AM before Abraham
came into being, I AM (8:58). Yes, Jesus is greater than Abraham. Finally, the
author repeatedly compares Jesus and Moses. If the law was given through
Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (1:17), thus affirming that
Jesus is a superior broker of better blessings. If Moses can be said to have
ascended to heaven, Jesus is superior because he first descended from there and
later returned (3:13). And if Moses lifted up a serpent which saved Israel from
death by snakebite, Jesus must be lifted up to save humanity from death itself by
491

giving it eternal life (3:14). Finally the author metamorphoses Moses the
advocate into Moses the accuser. Moses, Jesus claims, wrote of me (5:46).
Jesus, moreover, is the judge of Israel, but Moses is only its accuser. Thus four
distinct times the author compares Jesus with Israels greatest patriarchs or with
the Christian hero, John. These figures, as the rules for a comparison instruct, are
not shamed or demoted, rather Jesus is shown superior to them.
3.2.6 Death and Posthumous Honors
The death of an honorable person is noteworthy when it conforms to the tradition
of a noble death or when it results in posthumous honors. Noble death refers to
the topos found extensively in Greek funeral orations in which various criteria
are cited to argue why a slain warrior is worthy of praise, honor and glory, even if
killed in battle.40 Not all who died in battle warrant this, but only those displaying
??et?, that is, a kind of nobility prized by elites. Six criteria for a noble death
emerge from the speeches: a death is noble which 1. benefits others, 2. displays
justice to the fatherland, 3. is voluntarily accepted, 4. presents the fallen as
having died unvanquished and undefeated, 5. produces posthumous honors, and
6. leads to immortal glory. This material greatly aids the interpretation of the
noble shepherd in John 10:11-18. The following synopsis illustrates that the
author of the Fourth Gospel knows the topos of noble death and formally
applied it to the noble shepherd. Rhetorical Tradition about Noble Death
Johns Discourse on the Noble Shepherd 1. Death benefitted others, especially
fellow citizens 1. Death benefitted the sheep: he lays down his life for them 2.
Comparison between courage/cowardice, fight/flight, death/life, honor/shame 2.
Comparison between shepherd/hireling: courage/ cowardice, fight/flight,
death/life, honor/shame 3. Manly courage displayed by soldiers who fight and die
3. Manly courage displayed by shepherd who battles the wolf and dies 4.
Voluntary death is praised 4. Voluntary death repeatedly claimed: I lay it down
of my own accord; No one takes it from me. . . I lay it down; I take it up
again 5. Justice in death: soldiers uphold the honor of their families and serve
the interests of the fatherland: duties served = justice 5. Justice: the shepherd
manifests loyalty to his sheep and his Father/God (10:14-15); he has a command
from God: duties served = justice By means of the rhetoric of noble death the
author argues that Jesus death was not as outsiders thought, but richly noble in
all the ways that humans can conceive of an honorable death. No shame here,
only honor (Heb 12:2). Posthumous Honors. Because the gospel states that he
was returning to whence he came (the heavenly world of the Father), Jesus is
restored to his former glory: Father, glorify me in your own presence with the
glory which I had with you before the world was made (17:5). According to
insider logic, Jesus death itself was glory (12:23; 13:31-32). In Johannine antilanguage, Jesus death (i.e., being lifted up) is also his being lifted from this
492

world to that of the Father (3:14; 8:28; 12:3). Outsiders, as we have come to
expect, cannot imagine that glory awaits Jesus. At best, when Jesus says that he
goes away and that they cannot find him, outsiders think either that he is exiting
Israel for the Diaspora (7:35) or that he will kill himself (8:22). The grave is the
only future they see for Jesus, and a shameful one at that. But insiders know that
Jesus death is but the beginning of his return to glory. The following data on
whither Jesus goes speak to his posthumous glory.
Rhetorical Tradition about Noble Death

Johns Discourse on the Noble Shepherd

1. Death benefitted the sheep: he lays down his life for
1. Death benefitted others, especially fellow citizens
them
2. Comparison between courage/cowardice, fight/flight, 2. Comparison between shepherd/hireling: courage/
death/life, honor/shame
cowardice, fight/flight, death/life, honor/shame
3. Manly courage displayed by soldiers who fight and 3. Manly courage displayed by shepherd who battles the
die
wolf and dies
4. Voluntary death repeatedly claimed: I lay it down of
4. Voluntary death is praised
my own accord; No one takes it from me. . . I lay it
down; I take it up again
5. Justice in death: soldiers uphold the honor of their 5. Justice: the shepherd manifests loyalty to his sheep and
families and serve the interests of the fatherland: duties his Father/God (10:14-15); he has a command from God:
served = justice
duties served = justice

By means of the rhetoric of noble death the author argues that Jesus death was
not as outsiders thought, but richly noble in all the ways that humans can
conceive of an honorable death. No shame here, only honor (Heb 12:2).
Posthumous Honors
Because the gospel states that he was returning to whence he came (the heavenly
world of the Father), Jesus is restored to his former glory: Father, glorify me in
your own presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was
made (17:5). According to insider logic, Jesus death itself was glory (12:23;
13:31-32). In Johannine anti-language, Jesus death (i.e., being lifted up) is also
his being lifted from this world to that of the Father (3:14; 8:28; 12:3). Outsiders,
as we have come to expect, cannot imagine that glory awaits Jesus. At best, when
Jesus says that he goes away and that they cannot find him, outsiders think either
that he is exiting Israel for the Diaspora (7:35) or that he will kill himself (8:22).
The grave is the only future they see for Jesus, and a shameful one at that. But
insiders know that Jesus death is but the beginning of his return to glory. The
following data on whither Jesus goes speak to his posthumous glory.
1. Return (?p???) I go to Him who sent me (7:33); Knowing that he had come from God and was returning to
Him (13:3)
2. Lift up (????): . . .so must the Son of man be lifted up (3:14); When you have lifted up the Son of man. . .
(8:28); And when I am lifted from the earth. . . (12:23)
3. I go away. . . (p??e??) . . .to prepare a place for you (14:2-3); . . .I am going to the Father (14:12); . . .I go
to the Father (14:28)
4. Glory. . .glorify (d?????): . . .when Jesus was glorified (12:16); Now is the Son of man glorified. . .God will

493

also glorify him in himself, and will glorify him at once (13:31-32); Glorify your son. . .Father, glorify me in
your own presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was made (17:1, 5); Father, I desire that
they also. . .behold my glory which you have given me in your love for me before the foundation of the world
(17:24)
5. I am coming to you [Father] (17:11, 13)

Sometimes we are told that Jesus is going or returning (7:33; 13:3) to where
he was before. Sometimes he says that he is going away, not traveling to
another place or killing himself as the outsiders think, but entering the presence
of the Father (14:12, 28; 17:11) so as to prepare a place for the insiders. If the
outsiders consider his death consummate shame, the insiders label it as glory.
Indeed, throughout the Farewell Discourse, the author prefers to interpret Jesus
death as glory and being glorified. Jesus himself announces this
interpretation at the departure of Judas: Now is the Son of man glorified. . .God
will also glorify him in himself, and will glorify him at once (13:31-32).
Glory in this context must refer to the alchemy of the crucifixion in that what
outsiders consider shame, God sees as glorious and honorable. Moreover, if Jesus
in and after his death achieves glory, this glory is simply the glory which he
enjoyed with God from the very beginning: Father, glorify me in your own
presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was made (17:1,
5). And again, Jesus desires that they also. . .behold my glory which you have
given me in your love for me before the foundation of the world (17:24).
Posthumous honors, glory and eternal life, await Jesus.
5.0 Summary and Further Questions

We now know the formal structure of the encomium, its regular topics and the
traditional content of each. We know, moreover, that the encomium was a
familiar genre in the Greco-Roman and Israelite world. Other genres of literature,
such as bioi, funeral orations, and similar forms of epideictic rhetoric, frequently
organize their materials according to the formal topics of the encomium. The data
presented above are persuasive that the author of the Fourth Gospel learned to
write an encomium. Second, the encomium was hardly unknown to early
Christian writers, for both Matthew and Luke employ the topics and contents of
the encomium and Paul in three of his letters uses the topics of generation and
nurture (see Gal 1:11-17; Phil 3:2-11; 2 Cor 11:21-12:10). 41 Third, we have seen
in the Fourth Gospel that the stereotypical topics which make up the encomium
are all fully and formally present: origins, birth, nurture and training, deeds of the
soul, comparison and death-posthumous honors. These are explicit topoi which
do not depend on the intuition of a clever reader. The author fully appreciates
these topics and uses them to augment praise for Jesus (or blame). Fourth, we
have argued that the author created two encomia, actually a vituperation
(outsiders) and an encomium (insiders). The very fact that we find controversy on
each of the encomiastic topics indicates that they and their contents are well
494

known, that the topics are not miscellaneous items, but coherent parts of a larger
pattern. The controversial topics, moreover, make scant sense when seen
independent of each other. But when apprised as the topics of an encomium, they
are logically welded together and take on a meaning they do not have if
considered independently.
Although Matthew and Luke begin their narratives with origins and birth, our
author seems haphazardly to take up this or that topic, even coming back to it
later in the story. Does this argue against his knowing the encomium? By no
means, for Quintilian himself says that in praising someone there are two modes
of organizing arguments: chronological order from birth to death and emphasis
on certain points:
It has sometimes proved the more effective course to trace a mans life and deeds
in due chronological order, praising his natural gifts as a child, then his progress
at school, and finally the whole course of is life, including words as well as
deeds. At times on the other hand it is well to divide our praises, dealing
separately with the various virtues, fortitude, justice, self-control and the rest of
them and to assign to each virtue the deeds performed under its influence. We
will have to decide which of these two methods will be the more serviceable,
according to the nature of the subject (Inst. Orat. 3.7.15).
Sequence from birth to death is by no means a requirement.
What then is the benefit of this study? In addition to appreciation of the form of
the encomium and the conventional contents of it topics, we learn a genre which
can surface in the Fourth Gospel various data which can then be classified
according to the conventions of the ancients. No other type of reading can
illuminate the categories of the encomium embedded in the Fourth Gospel;
nothing else can gather and interpret them as a native would. In addition, the
clusters of data can then be appreciated, not simply as individual items, but as
conventional topics related together in the ancient mind. We learn the pieces as
well as the whole, or the whole is greater than the sum of its part. We are then,
interpreting the Fourth Gospel accurately as the ancients would have heard it.
Furthermore, when the Fourth Gospel is read in light of the encomium, we
discover parallel, but antithetical encomia, a vituperation shaming Jesus and an
encomium praising him. Outsiders who think in material ways and from below
find fault with Jesus on many points. Their criticism of Jesus and attempts to
shame him cluster round the encomiastic topics: origins (geography and
generation), birth, nurture and training, deeds of the soul and death. Hardly
miscellaneous topics, these are the very ones that a writer or speaker is expected
to develop. Hence, they are critical places in which to vilify or praise someone.
495

The figure which follows summarizes the major argument of the paper, namely,
two contrasting accounts of Jesus, one a vituperation and the other an encomium.
Outsiders: Vituperation
Insiders: Encomium
Geography: Nazareth and Galilee Generation: Geography: heavenly world; bosom of the Father Generation: unique
Joseph, his mother, some brothers
son of the Father
Nurture and Training: elaborate apprenticeship with God who gave,
Nurture and Training: no schooling at all
showed, taught him
Deeds of the Soul: sinner, deceiver, law Deeds of the Soul: sinner, deceiver, law breaker Deeds of the Soul:
breaker
courage, obedience, loyalty
Comparison: absent
Comparison: are you greater than Moses, Jacob, Abraham
Death and Posthumous Honors: death is Death and Posthumous Honors A noble death (a la noble
fitting punishment for crimes: shame; death Shepherd) Power over death: I have power to lay down my life and
permanently ends his career no glory! no power to take it back Death is status elevation ritual whereby Jesus
posthumous honors!
returns to prior glory or is glorified by God

The very same encomiastic topics afford outsiders grounds to vilify Jesus and
insiders opportunities to honor and glorify him. Inasmuch as Jesus himself speaks
to the audience the contents of each topic, the audience learns remarkable secrets,
revelation, and knowledge. They think spiritually, are taught by God (6:45).
Notes

Raymond Collins, Representative Figures in the Fourth Gospel, Downside

Review 94 1. (1976) 26-46, 118-3; R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth
Gospel. A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1983) 99-148;
Craig R. Koester, Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel. Meaning, Mystery,
Community (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995) 32-73.
1

Dorothy A. Lee ( Partnership in Easter Faith: The Role of Mary Magdalene

and Thomas in John 20, JSNT 58 [1995] 37-49) states: The central role that
Mary Magdalene and Thomas play comes. . .from the revelation and confession
of faith in which each participates. Both begin with defective faith but end in
full-throated confession of faith.
2

Stereotype originated as the term which described a type mold from which
myriad pages might be printed. It came to mean something mechanically
repeated, but wound up in the last century as the sociological term which
identifies a pejorative designation of ethic groups and races. In antiquity, as we
shall see, some places and cities enjoyed an honorable or shameful cachet. In
terms of their origins, some peoples were noble (generation) and some places
noble (geography). Moreover, these stereotypes were reinforced in exercises in
the progymnasmata where students memorized traditional gnomai and topoi to
this effect and learned the conventional forms of encomia in which such
3

496

stereotypes regularly appear. Thus the conventionality of stereotypical and

popular labels used of certain ethnic groups or sub-groups became common
currency in the Mediterranean. See John Harding , Stereotypes, IESS 15.259.
Louis Feldmans portraits of Israelite heroes described in
Josephus Antiquities at the start did not refer to the formal shape of the
encomium, although he intuitively identified its conventional topics. See
Josephus as an Apologist to the Greco-Roman World: His Portrait of Solomon,
in ed. Elizabeth Schssler-Fiorenza, Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism
and Early Christianity (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976)
69-98; Josephus Portrait of Saul, <em>HUCA</em> 53 (1982) 45-99 ;
Hellenizations in Josephus Jewish Antiquities: The Portrait of Abraham, in eds.
Louis Feldman and Gohei Hata, Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Detroit,
MI: Wayne State University Press, 1987) 133-53; Josephus Portrait of Jacob,
JQR 79 (1988) 101-51; Josephus Portrait of David, <em>HUCA</em> 60
1989) 129-74; Josephus Portrait of Hezekiah, <em>JBL</em>111(1992) 597610. Eventually Feldman discovered the encomium, which provided him with
clarity for organizing the data in these portraits according to the exact topics
described in the encomium. Similarly, Philos Moses describes him according to
the same encomiastic topics. See Thomas R. Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach
44-50 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986).
4

The topics in the encomium used for amplifying praise are generally found in
biographies (???) in antiquity. See Arnaldo Momigliano, The Development of
Greek Biography (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971) 17; David
E. Aune, Greco-Roman Biography, Greco-Roman Literature and the New
Testament Selected Forms and Genres (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988) 109110; Christopher Pelling, Character and Individuality in Greek
Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990); and Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H.
Neyrey, Portraits of Paul. An Archeology of Ancient Personality(Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox, 1996) 10-18, 100-108, 153-201.
5

Paul knows this contrast of praise and blame: In 1 Cor 11:12 he praises the
community, but in 11:17 he blames them.
6

Although there has been much attention given to the progymnasmata in recent
times, we do not find much scholarly investigation of the encomium and its
relationship to the Israelite and Christian literature. See Jerome H. Neyrey,
Josephus Vita and the Encomium: A Native Model of Personality, JSJ 25
(1994) 177-206; Malina and Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, 19-63; and Richard A.
7

497

Burridge, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman

Biography (Cambridge: CUP, 1992) 109-53.
Robert A. Kaster, Notes on Primary and Secondary Schools in Late
Antiquity, TAPA 113 [1983] 323-46, here 323.
8

For an enlightening look into this level of literacy, see Raffaella

Cribiore, Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt (Atlanta, GA:
Scholars Press, 1996) 129-37.
9

10

Kaster, Notes on Primary and Secondary Schools in Late Antiquity, 337.

What level of education would gospel writers have reached? Matthew seems to
have been formally trained in Israelite and Hellenistic ways; he employs the form
of the encomium with considerable finesse; see Jerome H. Neyrey, Honor and
Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998)
and The Social Location of Paul: How Paul Was Educated and What He Could
Compose as Indices of His Social Location,in eds. David B. Gowler, L. Gregory
Bloomquist, and Duane F. Watson, Fabrics of Discourse. Essays in Honor of
Vernon K. Robbins (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003) 126-64.
Readers may have a fresh appreciation of the author of the Fourth Gospel after
seeing what he can write.
11

The book of George A. Kennedy (Progymnasmata. Greek Textbooks of Prose

Composition and Rhetoric [Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature Press,
2003]) contains fresh translations of all of the extant progymnasmata. For
individual authors, see Aelius Theon of Alexandria (Spengel II.112.20-115.10)
and James R. Butts, The Progymnasmata of Theon. A New Text with
Translation and Commentary.(Unpublished dissertation: Claremont, 1986);
Hermogenes of Tarsus (Spengel II.14.8-15.5) and Charles S. Baldwin, Medieval
Rhetoric and Poetic [New York: Macmillan, 1928] 23-38);Menander
Rhetor: Donald A. Russell and Nigel G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1981); Aphthonius of Ephesus (Spengel II.42.20-44.19) and
Ray Nadeau, "The Progymnasmata of Aphthonius in translation," Speech
Monographs 19 [1952] 264-285 and more recently Patricia P. Matsen, Philip
Rollinson
and
Marion
Sousa,
eds., Readings
from
Classical
Rhetoric [Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990] 266-88). We
include Quintilian, Inst. 3.7.10-18 in this category.
12

498

The best introduction to the chreia is still that of Ronald F. Hock and Edward
N. ONeill, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric. Volume I. The Progymnasmata
(Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986).
13

See F. Focke, Synkrisis, Hermes 58 (1923) 327-68; Philip A. Stadtler,

Plutarchs Comparison of Pericles and Fabius Maximus, GRBS 16 (1975) 7785; David H. J. Larmour, Making Parallels:Synkrisis and Plutarchs
Themistocles and Camillus, ARNW II.33.6 (1996) 4154-4200 Christopher
Forbes, Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Pauls Boasting and the
Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric, NTS 32 (1986) 1-30; Peter
Marshall, Enmity at Corinth. Social Conventions in Pauls Relations with the
Corinthians (Tbingen: Mohr, 1987) 53-55, 325-53.
14

See Joseph M. Miller, Concerning Ethiopia, Readings in Medieval

Rhetoric (Bloomington, IN; Indiana University Press, 1973) 33-36; Stanley K.
Stowers, Romans 7:7-25 as a Speech-in-Character (p??s?p?p???a) in ed. Troels
Engberg-Pederson, Paul in His Hellenistic Context (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress,
1995) 180-202.
15

16

Malina and Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, 113-25.

Greeces middle position is know as geocentrism or as the omphalos myth.

At times Greece enjoyed this preeminence for it considered the navel at Delphi
to be the center of the world; for example, consider the remark of Strabo: Now
although the greatest share of honor was paid to this temple because of its oracle,
since of all oracles in the world it had the repute of being the most truthful, yet
the position of the place added something. For it is almost in the center of Greece
taken as a whole, between the country inside the Isthmus and that outside it, it
was also believed to be in the center of the inhabited world, and people called it
the navel of the earth, in addition fabricating a myth, which is told by Pindar. .
.There is also a kind of navel to be seen in the temple (Geography 9.3.6).
17

The classification of someone on the basis of place of origin was a standard

element of the way persons were described; see Aristotle, Rhet 1.5.5; Cicero, Inv.
1.24.34-35; Quintilian, Inst. Orat. 3.7.10-11; 5.10.24-25).
18

In one of his satires, Lucian caricatures several ethnoi, each known in terms of
some characteristic behavior: Whenever I looked at the country of the Getae I
saw them fighting; whenever I transferred my gaze to the Scythians, they could
be seen roving about in their wagons; and when I turned my eyes aside slightly, I
beheld the Egyptians working the land. The Phoenicians were on trading venture,
the Cilicians were engaged in piracy, the Spartans were whipping themselves and
19

499

the Athenians were attending court (Icaro. 17). Various places, then, had certain
characteristics: Scythians roam, Egyptians farm, Phoenicians trade, Cilicians rob
and Greeks attend court.
Not just virtue, however, but also vice. The following illustrations come from
Bruce J. Malina (The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural
Anthropology 3rd edition [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001] 64-65).
The Egyptian is by nature an evil-eyed person, and the citizens of Alexandria
burst with envy and considered that any good fortunes to others was misfortune
to them (Philo,Flaccus. 29); Scythians delight in murdering people and are
little better than wild beasts (Josephus, Apion, 2.69).
20

Describing the honor rating of the cities Paul is said to have visited, Jerome
H. Neyrey (Lukes Social Location of Paul: Cultural Anthropology and the
Status of Paul in Acts,in Ben Witherington, III, ed., History, Literature, and
Society in the Book of Acts [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996] 26876) called attention to the vanity and rivalry of cities in the matter of rank and
titles, such as "metropolis, "first and greatest," "autonomous," "Warden of the
(Imperial) Temple, "friend of Rome, and the like.
21

A collection of background parallels may be found in David R. Cartlidge and

David L. Dungan, eds., Documents for the Study of the Gospels, revised and
enlarged edition (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994) 129-36. It is curious that
they never considered the encomium form as the basis for collecting parallels.
22

John J. Pilch, Beat His Ribs While He is Young (Sir 30:12): A Window on
the Mediterranean World, BTB 23 (1993) 101-13.
23

Aphthonius in Matsen and Rollinson, Readings from Classical Rhetoric, 279280.

24

25

Butts, The Progymnasmata of Theon, 10.113.

See John E. Ziolkowsky. Thucydides and the Tradition of Funeral Speeches at

Athens. (Salem, NH; Ayer Company, 1985) 126-28.
26

The following inscription was a public decree, read aloud at the tomb of a
certain Theophilos and subsequently carved in white marble: worth. . .of very
noble ancestral stock, having contributed all good -will towards his country,
having lived his life as master of his family, providing many things for his
country through his generalship and tenure as agoranomos and his embassies as
far as Rome and Germany and Caesar, being amicable to the citizens and in
27

500

concord with his wife Apphia, now it is resolved that Theophilos be honoured
with a painted portrait and a gold bust and a marble statue (NDIEC 2 [1982] 5860).
These are the folks who continually misunderstand, take things literally, fail to
see or hear irony. See D. A. Carson, "Understanding Misunderstanding in the
Fourth Gospel," TynB 33 (1982) 61-91; Earl. Richard, "Expressions of Double
Meaning and Their Function in the Gospel of John," NTS 31 (1985) 96-112 and
Bruce J. Malina, John: The Maverick Christian Group: The Evidence of
Sociolinguistics,BTB 24 (1994) 167-82.
28

Actually, when Nathanael first appears, he, too, shared the geographical
presumption of the baseness of Jesus origins: What good can come from
Nazareth (1:46), but he was recruited to come and see. Thus he swapped the
outsider view of Jesus origins and began to see like an insider (1:47-51).
29

Still earlier, the steward at the wedding in Cana tasted the wine, but he did not
know whence (p??e?) it came (2:9).
30

It should not be presumed that every male had voice in village or city. In a
study of Luke 4:1-30, Richard L. Rohrbaugh (Legitimating Sonship A Test of
Honour. A Social-Scientific Study of Luke 4:1-30, in ed., Philip F.
Esler, Modelling Early Christianity. Social-scientific Studies of the New
Testament in Its Context [London: Routledge, 1995] 187-89) argues about who
may say what, where and when. Not all have voice, which is a matter of honor
and status.
31

Apart from the passing remark in 6:42, we know nothing about Joseph, but we
have several views of the mother in 2:1-12 and 19:25-26. A question arises: is the
mother a worthy parent such that her son takes honor from her? This is debated
among scholars such as Raymond E. Brown, Mary in the New
Testament (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1978) 182-94 and Raymond Collins,
Mary in the Fourth Gospel: A Decade of Johannine Studies, Louvain Studies
3 (1970) 99-142.
32

Marianne Meye Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2001) 69-72.
33

The parent is honorable and so according to the principle of generation the son
draws honor from this. Moreover, Jesus is the unique or only son, which is
rhetorical shorthand for acclaiming this son is most honorable. See Jerome H.
34

501

Neyrey, First, Only, One of a Few, and No One Else: The Rhetoric of
Uniqueness and the Doxologies in 1 Timothy, Biblica 86 (2005) 59-87.
See also "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that . . .
I speak thus as the Father taught me (8:28). I speak of what I have seen with
my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father" (8:38).
35

For a comparable treatment of Jesus deeds of the soul, see Neyrey, Honor
and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew, 106-26.
36

Most rhetoricians from Aristotle to Cicero present a stereotypical definition of

justice. In addition to that of Menander Rhetor in the text, consider this: First
among the claims of righteousness are our duties to the gods, then our duties to
the spirits, then those to country and parents, then those to the departed; among
these claims is piety, which is either a part of righteousness or a concomitant of
it. Righteousness is also accompanied by holiness and truth and loyalty and
hatred of wickedness" (Ps-Aristotle, Virtues and Vices, 5.2-3).
37

For a detailed argument on how Jesus supplants the biblical supplanter, see
Jerome H. Neyrey, "Jacob Traditions and the Interpretation of John 4:1026," CBQ 41 (1979) 419-437.
38

On the comparison of true sons of Abraham vs false sons, see Jerome H.

Neyrey, "Jesus the Judge: Forensic Process in John 8:21-59," Biblica 68 (1987)
520-28.
39

The ancients spoke about a good or easy death, but especially a noble
death to honor fallen soldiers; see Jerome H. Neyrey, The Noble Shepherd in
John 10: Cultural and Rhetorical Background,JBL 120 (2001) 267-91. In
addition to the wealth of Greco-Roman illustrations of this, 1, 2 and 4 Maccabees
also belong in this discussion. See Jan van Henten, Martyrdom and Noble Death:
Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish and Christian Antiquity. London:
Routledge, 2002; David Seeley, The Noble Death. Graeco-Roman Martyrology
and Pauls Concept of Salvation. Sheffield: JSOT, 1989; Arthur J. Droge, A
Noble Death. Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and Jews in Antiquity.
San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1992.
40

Malina and Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, 33-63; see George Lyons, Pauline
Autobiography. Toward a New Understanding (Atlanta, GA; Scholars, 1985).
41

502

Worship in the Fourth Gospel:

A Cultural Interpretation of John 14-17
Jerome H. Neyrey
University of Notre Dame
Chapter 6

Introduction, State of the Question, and Hypothesis

As the title indicates, this chapter employs the model of worship developed
previously as the lens through which we proposed to read and interpret worship in the
Fourth Gospel, in particular John 14-17. To be sure, discussions of worship in the Fourth
Gospel are rare, [i] and in most commentaries worship does not even rate a place in the
topical index. Yet the author of the gospel formally attends to matters of worship when he
himself raises certain topics: (1) where to worship? (2) how to worship? (3) of what does
worship consist? (4) when to worship? and (5) who participates?
Where? At Jesus inaugural visit to Jerusalems temple, he upsets its sacrificial
worship system (he drove . . .the sheep and oxen out of the temple) and its revenue
collection. In defense, he declares: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up
(2:19), which his opponents misunderstand, for they think that he refers to a physical
building, another fixed sacred space. The truth is, He spoke of the temple of his body
(2:21). The Samaritan woman asked Jesus-the-prophet to settle a dispute about where to
worship, this mountain. . .or in Jerusalem? (4:20). Jesus gives a sweeping answer:
neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. . . (4:21). Thus Jesus broadly negates all fixed
places of worship. Finally, Jesus declares that in my Fathers house there are many
rooms. . .I go to prepare a place for you (14:2 ). On the one hand, these locations (house,
rooms, place) suggest a where for worship, but they do not refer to any fixed sacred
space. James McCaffrey argues that we not consider these as geographical spaces: The

503

text describes the redemptive work of Christ in terms which pertain to the family and its
intimate personal relationships. [ii] Thus where one worships remains throughout the gospel
a major question, for which we need a model of fixed and sacred space from cultural
anthropology.
How? True worshipers will perform actions that do not consist of sacrifice or
require temple clergy, tithes and revenues. Neither will they worship in fixed sacred space,
nor in the manner of theTemple. At least this seems to be the substance of Jesus remark:
true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth (4:23). [iii] This remark, however,
is mute on specific forms of worship. Inasmuch as so much attention is given to prayer(s) in
John 14-17, prayer would seem to be a most promising place to start.
When? Although Jesus attended certain feast days in Jerusalem, scholars argue that
he replaced with himself both the feasts and the benefits sought from them. Jesus is now the
benefit of benefits sought at festive worship: he is the bread come down from heaven (6:3351), the Passover lamb (19:33-34), the rains/water (7:37-38) and the sun/light (8:12) sought
at Tabernacles. But where is the evidence that Johannine disciples kept a calendar of this
sort? Balancing these replacements, we learn that special significance was given to the
first day of the week (20:1) and the eighth day (20:26).
Who?. Worship, of course, is directed to God. And God, who is spirit, seeks
worshipers who worship in spirit and truth. Clearly, then, both God and a worshiping group
are envisioned. But other figures function in this worship, Jesus, in whose name the
disciples petition God and the Paraclete, who mediates Jesus words to the group. But those
who refused to or are afraid to acknowledge Jesus as sent from God are not true worshipers
(17:3). But is there any formal pattern to relationship of those who worship?
What, then, do we know? Oddly, we know where not to worship, how not to
worship, and perhaps when not to worship. But the gospel does not tell us of what worship
consists, nor does it define roles and status of members of the worshiping group. Much
more needs to be learned about worship so as to interpret the Fourth Gospel. 1. Our task
504

begins with worship itself. While descriptive catalogues of early Christian worship are
helpful, we search for a formal definition of it and a social science model which will help
us interpret its forms. From this perspective, we will interpret four forms of worship:
prayer, prophecy, homily, judgment. 2. Since the author puts so much emphasis
on where the group worships, we need a model which compares and contrasts fixed and
fluid sacred spaces. This will aid us in interpreting Jesus remarks about my Fathers
house and many rooms ( [1] , 14:2). And in this light we will examine other aspects
of where worship occurs: being in and dwelling in. 3. Finally, in attempting to
understand the structural relationships between God, Jesus, Spirit and the group in worship,
we turn to the model of patron-broker-client. The roles of God and group are clear, but
modern scholarship often misunderstands the structural place of Jesus and the Paraclete in
Johannine worship.
Worship in the Early Church.
The Shape of Early Christian Worship. As we saw earlier, scholarly surveys [iv] of
early Christian worship agree that: (1) the early church borrowed heavily from synagogue
worship both in form and contents, especially prayer and the study of the Scripture; (2) its
activities were not tied to particular places, but could be practiced virtually anywhere;. and
(3) the central forms of worship were verbal. [v] Because of its comprehensiveness, David
Aunes description is worth repeating:
Christian worship had a primarily verbal character, and in this respect it was similar
to synagogue Judaism. . .Yet Christians did have religious gatherings where various
types of rituals were practiced. Christians gathered to eat together, to baptize new
members, to read Scripture, to listen to God speaking through other Christians, to
experience healing, to pray and sing hymns and thanksgivings to God. These
activities were not tied to particular places, but could be practiced virtually
anywhere. [vi]

505

Aune, following Delling, Cullmann and Martin, identify a variety activities which fall
under the genus worship: (1) prayers, creeds and confessions, doxologies, hymns, songs
and psalms, (2) prophecy (oracles of judgment, salvation, and the like), (3) sermons and
homilies and (4) public reading of scripture. To this Cullmann added another, remembering
specifically the words and deeds of Jesus. The archetype of worship in the New Testament
was and is the remarks found in Acts 2:42 (they devoted themselves to the apostles
teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of the bread, and the prayers), the letters of Paul
(i.e., 1 Cor 11:20ff; 14:1-36), Plinys letter to Trajan (Ep 10.96), and reconstructions of
early synagogue worship. [vii] Aunes first element of worship is prayer, which seems more
fixated on forms of prayer and not consideration of classification of prayer according to the
eight or so purposes of speech to God. More attention, we think, should be given to variety
of reasons for which one prays, the effect one wishes to have on God and the relationship
that should be repaired. This description, while it identifies an entrance ritual, baptism,
does not include rituals of transformation or exit rituals. Ceremonial eating together is
noted, but is there place for other ceremonies?

The model of worship presented earlier

indeed fills out the enumeration of the forms of worship, even as it provides a definition of
prayer and worship and appropriate cultural lenses for viewing their parts. Thus the
complete model of worship we are employing provides us the the most complete index of
typical verbal forms of worship as we begin our reading of John 14-17. Thus, we begin
knowing several important things: 1) worship is primarily verbal; 2) members pray and
sing hymns and thanksgivings; 3) they not only speak to God in prayer, but also listen to
God through the Scriptures, the words of Jesus, or Spirit-inspired utterances; and 4) these
activities are not tied to particular places.
Worship in John 14-17
Most readers are comfortable with understanding John 14-17 in terms of it form
critical classification as a Farewell Address. [viii] The various prayers of Jesus and especially
the so-called high priestly prayer in John 17 suggest that worship is not a misleading
506

category for interpreting John 14-17. We propose to examine these chapters in terms of the
two directions of worship described above: (1) speaking to God ( i.e., prayers) and (2)
listening to God (i.e., prophecy, homily and oracles of salvation and judgment).
Types of Prayer in John 14-17. [ix] Malina, as we have learned, provides readers with
a sophisticated typology of prayers. All prayer is a communication of mortals to God, but
prayer differs from prayer in terms of the effect it seeks to have with God, ranging from
petition to praise: (1) petitionary, (2) regulatory, (3) interactional, (4) self-focused, (5)
heuristic, (6) imaginative, (7) acknowledgment and (8) appreciation.

507

Petitionary Prayer in John 14-16. No one can read John 14-17 without
noting Jesus repetitive instructions to ask the Father for some benefit, which in the
typology we are using means petitionary prayer. The New Testament employs a variety of
verbs in the context of prayerful petitioning. In one sense they all mean to ask for, but
they differ in the urgency with which the request is made. Most frequently readers find
petitionary

request

expressed

in

8 [1] (ask with urgency, beg) and "$ &B0 [1] (speak to, make requests). Johns petition,
however, are expressed by different words, [1] *84 (ask with urgency even to the point of
demanding) and $4*64 (ask, request), but without any change of meaning. Except for
Marthas remark that Jesus could petition God for Lazarus (11:22), the other eleven
instances of petitionary prayer all occur in the Farewell Address, which thus constitute a
distinct body of materials on this type of prayer.
14:13-14 Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it. . .
if you ask anything in my name. . .,
14:15-16 I will pray the Father and he will send another Counselor
15:7
If you abide in me and my words abide in your, ask whatever you
will. . .
15:16b whatever you ask the Father in my name. . .
16:23-24 In that day you will ask nothing of me. . .if you ask anything of the
Father. . .
16:26
In that day you will ask in my name
In addition to the insistent instructions of Jesus, we note several things: 1) the object of the
petitions is both vastly expansive (whatever and anything and specific (Counselor);
and 2) while the Patron being petitioned is always God, Jesus maintains his role as broker
by indicating that the petitions will be made in my name and he himself will initiate the
process by himself petitioning on their behalf (I will ask. . .). Petitionary prayer,
moreover, is only one type of prayer found in John 14-16. When we turn to John 17, we
observe a prayer composed of many types.
Jesus Multi-Purposed Prayer in John 17. Malinas taxonomy of prayer provides the
means to distinguish different types of prayer occurring in John 17. In general, we consider
508

the whole of John 17 as an heuristic prayer: it explores the world of God and Gods
workings within the Son and his disciples, individually and collectively. [x] It is not a search
for meaning so much as a revelation of the state of the relationship of the pray-er and God.
Thus it is heuristic in that it discovers and uncovers interpersonal perspectives implicit in
all the actions culminating in Jesus hour.Yet this heuristic prayer is by no means the only
kind of prayer in John 17. We can classify the statements of Jesus to God as petitionary,
self-focused and informative, as the chart below indicates: [xi]
Jn 17
v2
v3

Prayer Text
glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee. . .
this is eternal life, that they (ack)know(ledge) You the only
true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent
v5
glorify me in your own presence with the glory which I had
with you before the world was made
v6
I have manifested Your NAME to the men whom You gave
me out of the world
vv 6-8 Yours they were, and You gave them to me, and they have
kept Your word. Now they know that everything you have
given me is from You; for I have given them the words which
You gave me, and they have received them and know in truth
that I came from you; and they have believed that You sent
me.
v9
I am praying for them; I am not praying for those in the
world, but for those whom You have given me, for they are
Yours.
v 10
All mine are thine; and thine are mine; and I am glorified in
them.
v 11
Keep them in Your NAME, which You have given to me, that
they may be one, even as we are one
v 12
While I was with them, I kept them in Your NAME, which
you have given me; I have guarded them and none of them is
lost but the son of perdition
vv 13- But now I am coming to You; and these things I speak in the
14
world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. V
14 I have given them Your word, and the world has hated
them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of
the world
v 15
I do not pray that you should take them out of the world, but
keep them from the Evil One.
v 16=
They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
v 17
Sanctify them in Your truth
509

Classification
petitionary
acknowledgment
petitionary
self-focused
self-focused

self-focused +
petitionary
self-focused
petitionary
self-focused
self-focused

petitionary
self-focused
petitionary

vv 18- As You sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the
19
world. For their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may
be consecrated in truth
vv 20- I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in
22
me through their word that they may all be one; even as You,
Father are in me and I in You, that they may be in us, so that
the world may believe that You have sent me.
vv 22- The glory which you have given me, I have given them, that
23
they may be one, even as we are one I in them and You in me,
that they may be perfectly one, that the world may know that
you have sent me and has loved them even as you have loved
me.
v 24
Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given to me,
may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which You
have given me in your love for me before the foundation of
the world.
v v25- O just Father, the world has not known you; but I have known
26
you; and these know that you have sent me. I made known to
them Your NAME, and I will make it known that the love
with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.

self-focused
self-focused +
petitionary
self-focused

petitionary

self-focused

We observe that Jesus petitions God frequently (vv 2, 5, 11, 15-16, 17, 20-21, 24), the form
of which easily discerned: 1) a verb of asking in the imperative mood, and 2) a request
for a specific benefaction from God (glory, unity, special relationship, etc.). We see,
moreover, another type of prayer, which Malina calls self-focused (6-8, 9, 10, 12, 13-14,
16, 18-19, 20, 22-23, 25-26), [xii] whose form is also clearly expressed by: 1) a first-person
speech: I made manifest... I kept them in your name...I have given them your word
(vs 2nd person in petitionary prayer), which 2) celebrates the record of Jesus past good
deeds (vs future benefactions in petitionary prayer). In John 17 Jesus tells God that he has
fulfilled his apostleship and done what God sent him to do:
I have glorified you on earth ( 4)
-- I have manifested your name (6 & 26)
-- I have given them the words which you have given me (8 & 14)
-- I have kept them in your name (12a)
-- I have guarded them (12b)
-- I have sent them into the world (18)
-- I have consecrated myself (19)
-- I have given them the glory which you have given me (22)
-- I have known you (25).
510

Unlike petitionary prayer, Jesus declares to God before his disciples his perfect fulfilment
of the mission he was sent to accomplish [xiii] : 1) he has glorified God on earth,
2) manifested to the disciples the divine Name and kept them in it, 3) given the
divine words to them and 4) extended his work by sending them into the world. [xiv]
Labeling John 17 as a high priestly is clearly anachronistic, although the label
does convey the sense that Jesus enjoys the role of mediator or broker, a topic which will be
shortly developed. [xv]Similarly, the prayer celebrates his effectiveness in the role of channel
of Gods benefaction to the disciples. Benefits came through Jesus and will continue to
come through him. Jesus self-focused prayer may also be seen as a claim to the virtue of
piety or justice. Throughout the Greco-Roman world, justice was thought of as the noble
fulfilment of ones basic duties. Ps-Aristotle states:

511

First among the claims of righteousness are our duties to the gods, then our duties to
the spirits, then those to country and parents, then those to the departed; among
these claims is piety (&8

512

[1] ), which is either a part of righteousness or a concomitant of it. Righteousness

is also accompanied by holiness (&@*() and truth (t: [1] ) and loyalty ("<&*()

and hatred of wickedness" (Virtues and Vices, V.2-3).

The distinction of the triple focus of justice is found regularly in the philosophical and
rhetorical literature of antiquity, [xvi] and also in John 17. Here Jesus acknowledges that he
has fulfilled his duties to God (I have glorified you. . .manifested your name. . . given
them your words) and his duties to kin(I have kept them. . . guarded them,
etc.). [xvii] Thus the Just Jesus celebrates his virtuous completion of the duties he owes to
God, who is Father and Patron and kin.
Yet in 17:3 we find still a third type of prayer, namely, acknowledgment: This is
eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Instead of a petition, we find here an honorable acknowledgment of God in traditional
words. This prayer consists of two elements: 1) we read to know in the sense of to
acknowledge, that is, to honor, and confess the worth, sovereignty and excellence of
God. [xviii] The first part of 17:3 resembles the confession known as the Shema, the leading
prayer in the synagogue (see Mark 12:29, 32; Deut 6:4). Thus acknowledgment of the only
true God is a appropriate confessional honoring of God. But 17:3 also includes confession
of Jesus Christ whom you have sent. So the complete honoring of God consists of the
acknowledgment of both the unique God of Israel and of Gods unique agent,
Jesus. [xix] While confession and creed are no strangers to New Testament scholarship,
rarely do we find them discussed as prayer. [xx] John 17:3 is situated in a continuous
address to God which petitions God for the disciples, who as clients should make the
prayer-confession in v. 3 to their heavenly Patron while acknowledging that Jesus is the true
agent sent from heaven. [xxi] The disciples knowing of Israels only, true God is not
simply knowledge, but acknowledging and honoring God and the deitys existential plans.
This prayer, moreover, is not possible in Temple and synagogue (e.g., 9:22; 12:42). [xxii]

513

Listening to God: Prophecy. According to our model of communication,

a sender sends a message via some channel to a receiver to have an effect. In the case of
prayer, the senders are the Johannine members who send a message via Jesus-as-channel to
God; but in the case of prophecy, the process is reversed as God speaks to mortals, not
listens to them. In prophecy, 1. God, the sender, 2. sends a verbal message, 3. through
the channel of Jesus, the Spirit of Truth, or a disciple-prophet, 4. to the receivers, the
members of the Johannine group, 5. for the purpose of communicating to them special
information. But in the Fourth Gospel, the sender of esoteric information seems to be Jesus.
While in general Jesus remains mediator and broker of Gods benefaction, in regard to
prophecy he functions as the source or sender. This may be because most prophetic
materials concern themselves with remembering Jesus words which are themselves
mediated by the Spirit who will bear witness to Jesus (15:26). [xxiii] This may be an
idiosyncratic quirk from a maverick gospel.
We need, however, a catalogue of the varieties of prophetic speech to alert us to
what types of prophetic oracles are possible and their respective purposes. At the end of his
study of prophecy in early Christianity and the Hellenistic world, David Aune offers the
following list of basic forms of Christian prophetic speech: (1) oracles of assurance; (2)
prescriptive oracles; (3) announcements of salvation; (4) announcements of judgment; (5)
legitimation oracles; and (6) eschatological theophany oracles. [xxiv]
Prophet in the Fourth Gospel. The Fourth Gospel occasionally records people
favorable to Jesus acclaiming him as a prophet (4:19; 6:14; 7:40 (52); 9:17), generally
because of his wisdom or powers, that is, a prophet mighty in word and deed. But
prophet/prophecy in John 14-17, while it focuses on the words of Jesus, also makes specific
note of predictions of future events. Among the many remarks about going away and
coming back (14:3, 18-19; 16:16), we find three statements that serve a special purpose
which surpasses the mere communication of esoteric information. Some predictions by
Jesus serve a prophylactic purpose of confirming loyalty in times of conflict. For example,
514

after repeating the remark I go away and I will come to you, Jesus states the reason for
telling this to his disciples: Now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does
take place, you may believe (14:28-29). Similarly, after Jesus discloses the bleak future
awaiting the disciples (16:1-2), he explains once again the prophylactic purpose of the
prediction: I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember
that I told you of them (16:4). [xxv] The Fourth Gospel would have us read these statements
as communication from Jesus in the course of his career, which, when remembered,
ameliorate a future crisis by indicating a providential knowledge of, if not control of,
future, painful events. Thus, the purpose of this prophetic communication is exhortation to
faithfulness, courage and the like. Oracles of assurance? Salvation?
In a similar vein, when Jesus tells the disciples that they will be hated (15:18-25), he
added, Remember the word that I said to you, A servant is not greater than his master
(15:20). An earlier word in 13:16 reads: A servant is not greater than his master, nor is he
who is sent greater than him who sent him. But this remark occurs in the context of the
mandate of Jesus that the disciples wash one anothers feet: if Jesus (master) did so, then
disciples (servants) must do likewise. While in 15:18-25 the words are the same, the
context has changed. Now hate is the fate of both master and servants. Thus past words
can be prophetic of future events, especially trials awaiting the disciples. And in both cases,
they communicate assurance and encouragement.
Statement, Misunderstanding, Clarification Prophecy may also be understood as
the communication of esoteric information needed to understand Jesus cryptic words.
Throughout the Fourth Gospel the author regularly casts Jesus discourse with friend and
foe

in

terms

of

pattern

known

as

statement,

misunderstanding,

and

clarification. [xxvi] Jesus makes a statement (You know the way where I am going, 14:4),
which is misunderstood (Lord, we do not know where you are going, how can we know
the way, 14:5), which prompts Jesus to offer a clarification (I am the way, the truth, and
the life, 14:6).
515

Statement

Misunderstanding

Clarification

14:1-4

14:5

14:6

14:7

14:8

14:9-11

14:18-21

14:22

14:23-24

16:16

16:17-18

16:19-24

16:25-27

16:29-30

16:31-33

Although instances of this pattern occur regularly throughout the gospel, we observe a
concentration of it in chs 14 and 16, which is Jesus final address to his inner circle of
disciples. Previously this pattern served as catechetical enlightenment of enlighten-able
disciples, such as the Samaritan Woman, but also as a wall shutting out un-enlighten-able
disciples, such as Nicodemus and the Jerusalem crowds. Here, insiders and core disciples
require special information about the cryptic world of Jesus, which is provided for them
eventually, we suggest, by prophets speaking in the name of Jesus. Although we will take
up the topic of the Spirit of truth enlightening or reminding the disciples, Spirit is
presumed in this discussion as a broker of Jesus. Thus, this pattern functions to make and
maintain boundaries; it informs, but by doing so marks and confirms certain persons as elite
insiders.
The quest for esoteric information may be observed also in the pattern of questions
and answers found in John 14-16. In addition to the question of Thomas noted above
(14:5), Judas, not the Iscariot, asked How is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and
not to the world? (14:22). In several places Jesus himself asks their question to facilitate
his next remarks. Although Jesus question to Philip has much of the reproach in it (14:9), it
issues in a remarkable revelation of Jesus union with God (14:10-11), surely a singular
favor. Similarly, Jesus questions the failure of the disciples to ask about a cryptic remark
(16:5). At the very least, this pattern indicates that Jesus speech is filled with esoteric
information and double-meaning words, which the receivers do not fully perceive at first
516

and which require explanation. Here at least, Jesus can lead the disciples into fuller insight
by his subsequent clarifying statements. But in terms of group worship, a prophet during
the group worship would presumably access the questions and provide an enlightened
answer. [xxvii] As regards function, the providing of special, esoteric knowledge both
designates and confirms elite membership.
Furthermore, this gospel records Jesus declaring that I have said this to you in
figures; the hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures (16:25). Does
this cover only the metaphor of hard times resembling childbirth (16:20-24) or also the
cryptic statements about going away and coming back? Minimally, a communication is
given to the disciples which is admittedly in figures, liable to misunderstanding, or
containing double meanings. But the veil will be lifted when in the future a prophet
remembers, studies, examines and interprets Jesus words.
Homily. Scholars who write on early Christian sermons or homilies draw on two
sources: 1) the ancient synagogue service and (2) summary remarks like Acts 2:42
(devoted to the apostles teaching, fellowship, breaking of the bread, and prayers). [xxviii] In
the last chapter we examined types of Israelite homilies, identifying two
types: the proem and the yelammedenu. In the proem, a scripture is read, which is actually
two different citations which at first glance have nothing in common. The teachers task is
to tease from each esoteric meanings so that at the conclusion, the two citations are shown
to be complementary and mutually illuminating. [xxix] In the yelammedenu type, which means
Let our teacher instruct us, again an authorized person reads from the Scriptures and
explains them.[xxx] From the Hellenistic side, speeches structured in Greco-Roman rhetoric
are discussed. In both Israelite and Greco-Roman contexts, we know of some sort of
sermon or homily, although its precise form eludes us. [xxxi]
Although neither the Jewish nor the Greco-Roman types of homily apply to
materials in John 15-16, we find, nevertheless, two side-by-side exhortations. In 15:1-8 and
9-17 the audience is exhorted in the type of rhetoric called deliberative to choose and keep
517

on choosing loyalty to Jesus and his Father. In terms of our communication model,
teaching or exhortation or instruction is diagramed as follows: 1. a sender (God), 2.
sends a message (teaching, exhortation), 3. via some channel (Jesus _ Spirit _ teacher), 4.
to receivers (Johannine group), 5. to have some effect on them (to confirm and to urge
loyalty). We focus, then, on 15:1-8 and 9-17 because these exhortations most closely accord
with the elements of deliberative rhetoric.
In regard to 15:1-8, the topic of the exhortation is introduced in the metaphor: I am
the vine, my father is the vinedresser (15:1). In this context, the entire passage exhorts the
disciples to choose to remain, This exhortation occurs seven times (vv 4, 4b, 4c, 5, 6, 7a,
and 7b), sometimes in the imperative mood and sometimes in a conditional clause, surely
indicative of the choice to be made. Seven occurrences! This exhortation builds on current
relationships and urges the disciples to maintain them in the future, the value of which
relationships provides the very argument from advantage. The relationships are: Jesus =
vine, the disciples = the branches, while the Father = the vinedresser (vv 1-2, 5). The
telltale signs of an argument from advantage suggests that we consider this material an
example of deliberative rhetoric which appeals for future action on the basis of future
benefits. [xxxii] Remaining brings sweet advantage, just as not remaining leads to
bitterness. A branch which remains and is cleansed by the vine dresser bears much fruit
(v 2), a phrase which is repeated 3 times (vv 4, 5, 8) to underscore the advantage that comes
from remaining. Similarly, branches which remain may petition God for whatever you
will and expect Gods positive response (v 7) -- advantage indeed! In contrast, we are told
of the sanctions imposed on those who do not remain. They are taken away (v 1), and
worse, cast forth. . .wither. . .thrown into the fire and burned (v 6).
We find clear argumentative patterns here. Unless the branch remains. . . is a
necessary condition frequently found the Fourth Gospel: unless one is born of the Spirit
or eats the flesh of the Son of Man or is washed by Jesus, one does not experience the

518

benefit of God. So, too, here the advantage of remaining is also cast in the form of an
unless argument:
A branch cannot bear fruit unless (n) it remains in the vine,
neither can you, unless (n) you remain in me (15:4) [xxxiii]
Similarly, in vv 6-7 conditional sentences articulate the deliberative character of
remaining and not remaining.
Unless (n) disciples remain, they are cast forth. . .if (n) you remain in me
and my words remain in you, you may ask for whatever you wish.
The speaker provides reasons for the right choice. On the positive side, the cleansing of
the vine (perhaps a euphemism for testing gold in a furnace) serves the purpose ( [1] ) of
causing the branches to bear more fruit, clearly an advantage. And Jesus gives the reason
why branches must remain in the vine: for (*) without me you can do nothing (v 5).
Because we observe an argument being made, not merely information being imparted, we
consider 15:1-8 a crisp example of deliberative rhetoric, which places before the disciples
the decision of remaining,a deliberation richly rewarded or severely sanctioned. The
argument from advantage is a regular feature of exhortations, homilies and/or sermons. [xxxiv]
A second exhortation follows immediately, which both begins and concludes with
the command, Remain in my love (v 9) . . .love one another (v 17). Evidently the focus
is on love, although vv 9-17 are linked with vv 1-8 by means of four more references to
remain (vv 9-10, 16). Thus 15:1-8 and 9-17 should be seen as parallel and linked
exhortations, the first one expressing a vertical series of relationship between vine dresser,
vine and branches, and the second one horizontal relationships between one another. As
was the case with vv 1-8, the exhortation in vv 9-17 is argued by: (1) imperatively urging:
Love one another!; (2) conditional sentences explaining this love, such as if (n)
you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love (v 10); and (3) analogies which
clarify the topic: as ( [1] () the father has loved me, so have I loved you (v 9). In
language using the argument from advantage, the author first tells the disciples that
519

remaining and loving elevate their status from that of servants to friends (.< ,().
This echoes the contrasting statuses of dead versus fruitful branches in 15:1-8, with the
comparison now made between servants and friends. Jesus final argument here
reminds the disciples of their debt in justice to him, which he is calling in through this
exhortation: You did not chose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go
and bear fruit and that your fruit should remain (v 16). The verbs indicate the extent of
Jesus benefaction which creates the debt of justice: chose, appointed, bear fruit and
your fruit remain. To this he now appends one more benefaction, effective petitionary
prayer: whatever you ask the Father in my name, he will give it to you (v 16b), surely a
significant advantage.
Therefore, this material is exhortatory, and it resumes the most important behaviors
urged in the Fourth Gospel, remaining and loving. Because of its exhortatory character,
it stands apart from all other parts of the Farewell Address. But are homily or
sermonthe appropriate classification? And do such things belong in worship? The type of
rhetoric in 15:1-17 is deliberative, that is, it exhorts the hearers to make a choice which will
effect their future, and the argument rests primarily on pointing out the advantage to those
choosing to remain and love. Such rhetoric is not exclusive to homily or sermon and
may occur in many types of public speaking, especially speeches to the Roman senate or
the Greek assembly. Yet it is most compatible with sermon and homily (see Heb 3:1-4:13;
6:1-12), which are admittedly parts of Christian worship. [xxxv]
Study of the Words of Jesus. It is indisputable that the disciples in their worship told
the story of Jesus once more and examined his words and parables. This is, moreover,
where the speeches of Acts all end: what God has done to Jesus. But John 14-17 do not
contain the splendid narratives found earlier or elsewhere; on the contrary, they contain
only his words, although the self-focused prayer in John 17 does summarize his mission.
But as has been the case from John 2 onward, the meaning of his words is by no means
clear. For example, Destroy this temple. . . was heard as this [Herodian] temple. Only
520

after his resurrection, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the
scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken (2:21). We have seen above the pattern of
statement-misunderstanding-clarification, which demonstrates that many, even of the inner
circle, failed to understand Jesus words correctly, but required an interpreter either now or
in the future. This material has been studied according to the sociology of secrecy, which
study argues that it was a regular feature of the Fourth Gospel to have Jesus conceal and
reveal. Secrecy, we learn, is the mandatory or voluntary, but calculated concealment of
information, activities or relationships. [xxxvi] Put simply, knowledge is controlled. Not all
people know everything at the same time; being in the know serves as an important
marker insider status. [xxxvii] Readers of John are already familiar with certain types of
secrecy: riddles, irony, parables, footnotes and asides. When was the veil lifted? When did
the disciples get the correct understanding of Jesus words? How far afield are we to
suggest that Jesus words were studied by the group at its gathering and given attention
comparable to the Scriptures.
Enter the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth. In John 14-16 this figure is described four
time, every time as the broker of special knowledge about Jesus. First of all, we note that
most of the time this Paraclete/Spirit of truth reminds, glorifies Jesus, takes what is Jesus
and declares it to them. The Paraclete, then, attends primarily to the Jesus story and the
words of Jesus. We know, moreover, that this Paraclete spoke through someone in the
group, a prophet. But the Spirit has other functions as well.
Category
Title or Name
Source
Relationship
Father and Jesus
Functions

14:26
Paraclete
Holy Spirit
& whom the Father will
to send in my name

1. he will teach you

all things
521

15:26
Paraclete
Spirit of Truth
whom I shall send to
you
from
the
Father.
.
.who
proceeds from the
Father
1. ---------------------

16:7-10, 12
16:7 Paraclete
16:12 Spirit of Truth
16:7 I will send him
to you

1. he will guide you

into all the truth. . .he
will declare to you

the things that art to

come
2. bring to your
remembrance all that
I have said to you

2. he will
witness to me

bear

2.he does not speak

on his own authority.
. .he will glorify me,
for he will take what
is mine and declare it
to you

Judgment. Few scholars who list the various elements of Christian worship include
mention of judgment as part of it. All the more, then, are David Aunes reflections worth
our attention. In The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity, he
argued that two elements of eschatology, declarations of salvation and judgment, have their
proper place in the worship, preaching and teaching of that community. [xxxviii]
This cultic coming of the Son of man to save and to judge, to bless and to curse,
was

corporate

worship

experience

which

the

Johannine

community

conceptualized in terms of the traditional Christological expectation of the Son of

man. [xxxix]
He cites with approval Ksemanns Sentences of Holy Law as illustrative of cultic
judgment speech. [xl] As we saw above, Aune listed oracles of judgment among the types
of prophecy found in the Early Church. [xli] Announcements of judgment and salvation,
then, are not foreign to Christian worship; moreover they were types of sanctioned speech.
For example, we recall Pauls judgment of the man in an incestuous marriage in 1
Cor 5. Paul times the sentencing of the sinner to occur within a group meeting (when you
are assembled), at which he speaks with pneumatic authority and declares that he enjoys
the power of the Lord, that is, authority to censure the man. Found guilty of corruption,
the man is publicly expelled from the group (5:3-5).[xlii] Similarly, Matt 18:15-17 records a
group ritual in which an errant member should progressively receive correction. Should the

522

transformational ritual fail, the church declares him an outsider. Both of these examples
envision a community assembly, at which takes place an oracle of judgment.
This material, we suggest, pertains to John 16:7-11, which we interpret as a form
of judgment oracle. In terms of Johannine logic, the Paraclete will play a forensic role,
similar to the presentation of Jesus in his various trials in the gospel. [xliii] Unlike 1 Cor 5 and
Matt 18:15-17, no one is cast out of the group; on the contrary the group is experiencing
expulsion from the synagogue (9:22, 34; 12:42; 16:1-2). The judgment oracle, then, serves
to make and maintain boundaries with the world by emphasizing in dualistic terms how
and why the Johannine group is right and therefore does not belong in the world. The
following list drawn from the Farewell Address illustrates the studied emphasis on group
boundaries:
Jesus and His Disciples
. . . you know him for he dwells in you
and will be in you (14:17b)
. . .but you will see me (14:19b)
how is it you will manifest yourself
to us. . . (14:22a)
Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to
you (14:27a)
. . .he has no power over me (14:30b)
But because you are not of the world, but
I chose you out of the world, therefore the
world hates you, know that it has hated
me before it (15:19)
You will weep and lament. . .(16:20a)
. . .I am leaving the world and going to
the Father (16:28b)
. . .fear not, I have overcome the
world (16:33b)

The World
the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot
receive because it neither sees him or knows him
(14:17a)
the world will see me no more (14:19a)
. . .and not to the world (14:22b)
. . .not as the world gives peace do I give to
you (14:27b)14:27
the ruler of this world is coming (14:30a)
If the world hates you, know that he has hated me
before it hated you (15:18)
If you were of the world, the world would love its
own (15:19)
. . .but the world will rejoice (16:20b)
I came from the Father and have come into the
world (16:28a)
In the world you have tribulation (16:33a)

The discourse in the Farewell Address, then, makes and maintains boundaries with the
world to emphasize the chasm that separates the disciples from the synagogue and to make

523

any crossing back impossible. Thus in this context we read 16:7-11 as an oracle of
judgment.
The task of the Paraclete in 16:8 consists of some form of judgment, whether we
translate the Greek verb which is used here as convict or convince. [xliv] On the one hand,
the Johannine group will surely have much to criticize the synagogue for, at least to
confirm the synagogues utter depravity. Thus they are equipped with ready arguments to
judge the synagogue and so prove it hopelessly wrong. On the other hand, this criticism
serves also to firm up the groups own beliefs of its superiority and so its necessary
separation from the world. Thus the Paraclete will prove to the disciples that
thesynagogue/world is guilty of sin, (false) righteousness, and (false) judgment. [xlv] Of sin,
because the world did not believe in Jesus. [xlvi] Of [false] righteousness, because the
synagogue judged Jesus a sinner and deceiver, yet Jesus will shortly be in the presence of
the all holy God. [xlvii] Of [false] judgment, because it persecutes and judges Jesus, and by
doing so it brings judgment upon itself. [xlviii]Thus, we argue that part of the worship
described

in

the

Farewell

Address

includes

oracles

of

judgment,

that

is,

a communication sent from God through the channel of the Paraclete to the disciples for
thepurpose of shoring up the disciples even as it condemns their adversaries.
Not on This Mountain Nor in Jerusalem. But Where?
Jesus declaration that his body would be the new and true Temple (2:19-22) is
followed by a conversation with a Samaritan woman about the right place to worship, Mts.
Gerizim or Zion (4:20), which mountains Jesus de-classifies as sacred places of
worship. [xlix] Thus, the Johannine disciples have no fixed sacred space in contrast with
Samaritan and Israelite temples which are permanently fixed atop certain mountains. Nor
does the local synagogue serve as the site of its worship, for public confession of Jesus as
the Christ results in expulsion from that assembly (9:22, 12:42-43 and 16:1-2). But
ifnot Mt. Gerizim nor Jerusalem nor the synagogue, then where? [l] One of the dominant
themes discussed in John 14-17 treats of the issue of where worship will take place. We
524

argue that parts of the answer will come from a fresh consideration of (1) Many rooms (
[1] 14:2) and (2) Being In and Dwelling In, But first let us consider a model on
territoriality or the anthropology of space, to appreciate what significance Jesus declassification of Mts. Gerizim and Zion has.
Fixed vs Fluid Sacred Space (4:21-24). Not on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem
effectively negates fixed sacred space for the Johannine group, that is temples with the
elaborate systems that surround them: priests, offerings, tithes, revenues, temple building
with its adornment and maintenance, and hosts of diverse persons to staff it, perform in it,
and guard it. Needless to say, ethnic temples are clear examples of fixed sacred space,
which they often express by declaring themselves as the navel or center of the
world. [li] Since discussion of fixed or fluid space depends on some social theory of space, let
us briefly examine a model commonly used in the anthropology of space, namely,
territoriality. Robert Sack, a representative of modern research, defines it as:
Territoriality will be defined as the attempt by an individual or group to affect,
influence, or control people, phenomena, and relationships, by delimiting and
asserting control over a geographic area. . .Territories require constant effort to
establish and maintain. [lii]
This means that groups typically engage in a three-step process: (1) classification of the
space (mine/yours, sacred/profane, etc.), (2) communication of the classification (fences,
gates, walls), and (3) controlof the space. Within this model, let us examine fluid vs
fixed sacred space. On this point we turn to Mary Douglas and one of her best
interpreters, Bruce J. Malina. Of fixed sacred space, Malina write:
Just as persons have their statuses by ascription and perdure in that status
indefinitely, the same holds true for places. The topography of the main places
where people in this script live out their lives is rather permanent. A palace location,
a temple location, and a homestead stay in the same place and with the same lineage
through generations. [liii]
525

Thus fixed sacred space correlates with fixed roles and statuses. All of this is characterized
by redundant aspects of stability, permanence and continuity. The temple-city of Jerusalem
exemplifies this well.[liv] Of fluid sacred space, Malina writes:
This situation of porous boundaries and competing groups stands in great contrast to
the solid, hierarchical, pyramidal shape of strong group/high grid [fixed space]. . . as
groups form and re-form anew, permanence is no longer to be found outside the
group; and where the group is, there is stability. Sacred space is located in the
group, not in some impersonal space like a temple. The group is the central location
of importance . . ..Discourse within these groups, whether the words of a portable
Torah, the story of Jesus, or the exhortations of the philosopher-teacher, becomes
the mobile, portable, exportable focus of sacred place, in fact more important than
the fixed and eternal sacred places. [lv]
Malina bases his classification on considerations of space and time, at which we must look
more closely. The following chart should make explicit the contrasts on every level
between fixed and fluid sacred space.
FIXED: Temple
1. topological, actual space
2. place perduring over time
3. major mode of worship: sacrifice
4. focus on altar
5. hierarchical arrangement of persons
by birth

FLUID: Group
1. place where the group meets
2. space of opportunistic, occasional group
meetings
3. major mode of worship: verbal forms
4. focus on sacred writings
5. significant individuals whose competency is
based on spirit giftedness or closeness to the
groups hero

This model of fluid (vs fixed) sacred space alerts us to certain aspects of worship as they
may appear in John 14-17. First, significant attention is given to the group, not to any place;
second, the medium of the communication which is worship is certainly not sacrifice,
performed by a priest whose competency rests on birth into the appropriate clan or family,
526

but verbal worship as this is articulated by competent figures in the group. [lvi] In short, where
the group is, there is the place of worship.
In My Fathers House There Are Many Rooms (14:2). Beginnings are generally
significant rhetorical places to establish a topic, and we read John 14:2 in this manner, as a
topic statement. This verse contains two phrases: (1) in my Fathers house there are many
rooms ( [1] " [1] <) and (2) I am going to prepare a place (*@" ) for you. A recent
dissertation on these verses offers a critical, inventive interpretation of it. McCaffrey notes
that my Fathers house has been variously explained as heaven, the heavenly temple, the
messianic kingdom, even the universe. [lvii] Since the author of the Fourth Gospel declassifies
any mountain or earthly temple as sacred space for Gods dwelling, we look to Gods
realm as the place for worshiping God -- wherever that may be. McCaffrey, moreover,
gives special attention to the term in my Fathers house ( <p), which suggests intimate
kinship relationships, [lviii] such as Father and son, God and disciples, and perhaps other
Christians yet to be brought in -- many rooms. [lix] And when Jesus states that I go to
prepare a place for you, he goes not as an architect but as a broker of relationships which
will secure access to God through himself. Thus we are inclined to read 14:2 in terms of
personal relationships and not in terms of buildings or space.
Jesus next states that he goes away and comes back -- he goes to prepare a place
for you and then says that I will come back and will take you to myself. He states as his
purpose that where I am you also may be. After brokering his relationship with the
Father, he returns to solidify his relationship with Gods clients. He does not say that he
will take the disciples to the Fathers house, but rather facilitate his brokerage by
maintaining a favored relationship with the disciples. Thus, I would extend the sense of
relationshipto the place which Jesus prepares. As we will shortly argue, Jesus functions
as broker in a patron-client relationship which is first linked with his Father-Patron and then
with his disciples-clients. As tortured as it may sound, Jesus is in two places at once: in
heaven (in relationship with God, wherever God is) and on earth (in relationship with
527

disciples, wherever they gather). Balancing his remark that he has access to Gods presence,
he also takes the disciples to myself. Thus they too have access to Gods house, but only
in relation to Jesus. Poor Thomas, who does not know the way to the Fathers house! Jesus
tells him, I am the way. . . (14:6), that is, the exclusive relationship with God and the
unique broker of God: No one comes to the Father, but by me. Jesus, then, is both
relationship and access, but he is not place.
Later Jesus amplifies the meanings we argue for Fathers house and place: If a
man loves me, he will keep my word, and my father will love him, and we will come to him
and make our homewith him (14:23). Once more, the key to this geography is
relationship: (1) a disciple loving Jesus and keeping his word, (2) the Father loving this
disciple, and (3) the Father and Son coming to him and making a home with him. Again
Jesus functions as the key link, the broker or mediator between God and the clients. The
disciple-client, moreover, must maintain faithfulness with this mediator, which relationship
will be honored by the Father-Patron. Thus a link between disciple and Father is forged in
and through Jesus. The purpose or utility of this relationship comes from the benefaction
the Patron then shows the client, namely, we will make our home with him. Any disciple
may fit this description, and any earthly place is suitable for this relationship to occur. The
only exclusive thing which makes this place sacred is the fact that Father and Son are
located only in relationship with Jesus.
Later Jesus petitions God for a benefaction which relates to the Johannine statement
studied above, namely, that place = relationship: Father, I desire that they also, whom
you have given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which you have given
me in your love for me before the foundation of the world (17:24). The related figures
include Father, I, they whom you gave me, that is, the same persons described in
terms of patron-broker-client relationships above. The Patron has already established the
broker with his clients, but he is now petitioned by Jesus to bestow on the clients a unique
blessing, to behold my glory which you have given me in your love for me before the
528

foundation of the world. What can be with me where I am mean? Several times in John
17 Jesus recognizes the non-relatedness of the disciples to the world: While they are in
the world (17:11) and they are not of the world (17:14). Nevertheless, Jesus does not ask
that they be removed from the world: I do not pray that you should take them out of the
world, but that you should keep them from the evil one (17:15). Thus that they be with
me where I am is no heavenly ascent nor a spatial relocation. Rather, the directional and
spatial patterns we observe suggest that such language is best understood in terms of
relationships. The relationship of Jesus with the Father contains elements of obedience,
love, and generosity. In John 17, we are told thirteen times that the Father gave Jesus
something, such as power over all flesh (17:2), those you gave me (17:6, 9, 24),
everything (17:7), the words you gave me (17:8, 14), the name (17:11-12), and
glory (17:22, 24). And Jesus numerous petitions suggest that God will continue giving,
but giving in Jesus name. Similarly, relationship of Jesus-broker and disciples-clients itself
contains strains of loyalty, generosity and faithfulness. For example, Jesus, gifted with the
name of God, reveals it to his disciples (17:6, 11, 12, 26); he has given them Gods
word (17:14, 17, ) and glory (17:22, 24). It is not enough that God play patron to his
disciples via a broker; the fullest benefaction will occur when the broker takes the
disciples close to Patron a relationship, not a geographical or fixed sacred place.
Brokerage given in the past will continue in the future all because the relationships of
Patron, broker and clients are faithfully maintained.
Thus we return to the phrase to behold my glory which you have given me in your
love for me before the foundation of the world. The place of Jesus pre-creation glory
must be in the presence of God, even the bosom of God (1:18; 17:5). To repeat, Jesus
petition in 17:24 does not require that the disciples be taken to a new place or be
transported heavenward. His prayer may be accomplished by some sort of christophany in
which the disciples behold my glory. That is, they who are still in the world will see into
heaven, just as Nathanael and others were promised a vision (in 1:50-51), if not of heaven
529

itself then certainly of heavenly persons. [lx] In summary, Jesus declaration in 14:2 that
there are many rooms in the Fathers house and its repetition in 14:23 are best understood
as description of relationships, not places such as were de-classified in 4:21. No specific
earthly place in the world is envisioned, but rather a relationship between Father, Jesus and
the disciples, which we describe as a Patron-Broker-client relationship.
Being In and Dwelling In. We find in chapters 14 and 15 a number of remarks
by Jesus describing his relationship with both the Father and disciples, which are seemingly
expressed in spatial terms. He expresses his relationship with the Father in two ways: (1) I
am in the Father and the Father is in me (14:10, 11, 20), and the Father dwells in me
(14:10b). Similarly, Jesus relationship with the disciples parallels that between him and
God: I in my Father and you in me and I in you (14:20). Although one might initially
think that in is a spatial term (in my Fathers house there are many rooms), as we have
noted, neither do the disciples travel to another place nor does being in necessarily imply
spatial location.
Similarly with dwell in. In terms of Jesus relationship with God, we are told that
the Father dwells in me (14:10b). The same verb is used 10 times in 15:4-10 to express
the relationship of Jesus with the disciples. On the one hand, the disciple must dwell in or
remain in or sustain loyalty to Jesus: the branch cannot bear fruit unless it dwells in the
vine (15:4). Conversely, if a branch dwells in the vine, the vine curiously will dwell in
the branch: dwell in me and I in you (15:4, 5b). An alternate way of expressing this in
15:7 indicates the basis for this type of dwelling: If you dwell in me and my words
dwell in you. . . The words of Jesus dwelling point to a relationship of loyalty and
faithfulness. Finally, the Spirit will dwell in you and be in you 14:17. When we ask
what type of relationships are envisioned, several types seem suitable here: (1) kinship
relationships (father, son, household) and (2) patron-broker- client relationships.
Juxtaposed to the exhortation to dwell in Jesus and to love, we are told about
hate. Those outside the relationships described above hate the disciples (15:18-25),
530

which results in physical expulsion from the synagogue (16:1-2). There will be no
dwelling there, for it would mean acceptance the their criticism of Jesus. Moreover, Jesus
explains why he tells them this prediction, to keep you from falling away. This prophecy,
then, is intended to cement their relationship with Jesus, that is, dwell in him even as he
is in them. In discourse on hate, scandal, and scattering, the exhortation to dwell,
while metaphorically on the level of physical separation and distancing, expresses a close
relationship of the highest sort. Thus being in and dwelling in correspond to love and
faithfulness, but scandal and scattering and hate are the converse. Loyal and
faithful relationships, we argue, best explain these erstwhile spatial terms.
Patron-Broker-Client Relations.
Patrons and Clients Worship inevitably brings together persons of varying roles
and statuses. What people? What roles? Let us look through the lenses of patron-client
relationships.

Patron-client

relations

have

long

enjoyed

the

attention

of

classicists. [lxi] Frederick Dankers book Benefactor brought to the attention of New
Testament scholars the tradition of honoring benefactors, a form of patron-client relations
characteristic of the eastern Mediterranean. [lxii] And Bruce Malina pioneered the formal use
of

the

anthropology

of

patron-client

relations

to

interpret

early

Christian

literature. [lxiii] Malinas model [lxiv] of patron-client relations describes those that arise
between peoples of unequal status and resources: landlord/ vassal, aristocrat/peasant,
king/subject, father/son, and God/Israel. [lxv] Thus patron-client relationships describe the
vertical dimension of exchange between higher-status and lower-status persons.
Excursus: Basic Features of Patron-Client Relations
The basic features include: 1. Patron-client relations are particularistic, thus
characterized by favoritism. 2. They involve the exchange of a whole range of
goods and services, power, influence, inducement and commitment. 3. The
exchange entails a package deal, so that the elements of patronage cannot be
given separately (i.e., concretely useful goods must go along with loyalty). 4.
Solidarity here entails a strong element of un-conditionality and long-range
social credit. 5. Hence, patron-client relations involve a strong element of
531

personal obligation. 6. These relations are not fully legal or contractual, but
still very strongly binding. 7. In principle, patron-client relations entered into
voluntarily can be abandoned voluntarily, although always proclaimed to be
life-long, long-range, forever, etc. 8. Patron-client relations are vertical and
dyadic (between individuals or networks of individuals) and, thus, they
undermine the horizontal group organization and solidarity of clients and
other patrons. 9. They are based on strong inequality and differences between
patrons and clients. Patrons monopolize certain positions of crucial
importance to clients, especially access to means of production, major
markets, and centers of society. [lxvi]
As noted above, because the topic of patron-client relations is now part of New Testament
scholarship, [lxvii] and so does not need to be rehearsed here. We should, however, widen the
model to accommodate another person in the patron-client relationship, namely, the
broker. [lxviii] In social or commercial terms, a broker places people in touch with each other,
such as a real estate broker, a stock broker, or a marriage broker. [lxix] A broker must be
suitably placed to be accessible both to clients seeking aid and patrons who might
provide assistance. Thus a broker is a bridge (i.e., pontifex) or link or mediator between
patrons and clients.
Broker in Patron-Client Relations Writing on the term mediator, Albert Oepke
identified the following social roles in the ancient world which exemplify the role of broker
or mediator. A mediator is a person who (1) is neutral to two parties and negotiates peace
or guarantees agreements, (2) arranges business deals, (3) receives as king divine laws and
offers sacrifice for the people, (4) offers as priest prayers and sacrifice to God on behalf of
individuals and the people, (5) brings as prophet a teaching or mighty work from God, (6)
founds a new cult or religion, and (7) delivers an angel communication from God. [lxx]

532

Oepke notes that when the New Testament calls Jesus a broker, it shades the term
into many meanings: he is the unique mediator (&<*() between the one God and
humankind (1 Tim 2:5), the mediator of the new covenant (Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24) and a
priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:6; 6:20; 7:17). In contrast to
Levitical priesthood, Jesus priesthood/brokerage is vastly superior because Jesus is able
for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make
intercession for them (Heb 7:25).
We are hardly the first to read John 17 in terms of mediation. Already back in
patristic times, the prayer which comprises John 17 was labeled the high priestly prayer,
a tag still affixed to it. Our interpretation accepts the perception of Jesus role as a mediator
figure, not simply in ch 17, but in the whole of the Farewell Address. Building on past
studies of John 14-17, we wish to use the social science model of patron, broker, and client
to interpret the role of Jesus as broker as an essential part of understanding worship in the
Fourth Gospel. [lxxi]
How does a broker or mediator function in a system of patron-client relations? One
anthropologist identifies four elements of a brokers functioning: (1) capital, he has to have
something to broker; (2) tariff, remuneration for his services; (3) debt, the promises he
makes, and (4) interest, his calculation of when and how his tariff will be paid. [lxxii] Inasmuch
as he brokers goods and services, what is exchanged in a patron-broker-client relationship?
Clients typically seek protection and access to scarce resources, which are called first-order
resources. [lxxiii] A broker most frequently has second-order goods, namely, access to patrons
and skill in connecting the right client with the right patron. In the rough and tumble of
village or urban life in antiquity, there might be many clients working through many
brokers to gain access to many patrons. [lxxiv] But in the Fourth Gospel, there is only one
patron (God) and one clientage (Israel), but competing brokers (Jesus vs Moses, Abraham,
Temple, synagogue). [lxxv]

533

Jesus as Broker in John 14-17

Let us situate Jesus first in relationship to the

Patron-Father and then to the clients-disciples. It is generally agreed that a successful

broker must be part of the two worlds which he joins. The author expresses Jesus relation
to the heavenly world in many ways. For example, Jesus was sent by God (17:3, 21), which
social- science interpreters call his ascribed authority or honor. Moreover, in 17:5 and 24
Jesus speaks of glory which he had from his Patron before the world was made, which
clearly describes Jesus as belonging to the heavenly world or totally dedicated to the affairs
of the Father. [lxxvi] Thus Jesus relationship to the Patron is ancient, intimate, and enduring. In
John 17, moreover, Jesus repeatedly tells us how loyally he has served the interests of his
Patron:
17:4
17:6
17:8
17:12

I glorified You on earth, having accomplished what you gave me to do

I manifested your name to whom you gave me
I have given them the words which you gave me
While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you gave me

17:14 I have given them Your word.

He accomplished what God gave him to do, which specifically means manifesting the
Patrons name (also in 17:11, 12) and delivering the Patrons words. In addition, Jesus
brokered the following for his earthly clients: (1) power (17:2), (2) protection (17:12), and
(3) glory (17:22). Thus Jesus belongs to the Patrons world, shares in the riches of that
world, and loyally serves the interests of his Patron.
Jesus the broker also belongs to the clients world and serves their interests as well.
For example, Jesus confesses to the Patron the many ways in which he has brokered the
safety of the clients:
17:12 I kept them in your name, none is lost but. . .
17:13 These things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in
them
17:15 I do not say take them out of the world, but keep them from the evil one
17:19 For their sake I consecrate myself, that they may be consecrated in truth
He not only protected them, but seeks their continued safety. Moreover, he envisions a
future brokerage which includes: (1) keeping them from the evil one (17:15), and (2) being
534

with Jesus where he is in glory (17:24). In an expression of limitless brokering, Jesus

repeatedly declares that his clients are assured of his brokerage when they ask in my
name:
14:13
14:14
15:16
16:24
16:26

Whatsoever you ask for in my name, I will do it

If you ask anything in my name, I will do it
So that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he will give it to you
Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name; ask, and you will receive
In that day you will ask in my name; and I do not say to you that I shall pray
the
Father for you; for the Father himself loves you.

Jesus is the unique broker, for no one comes to the Father, but by me (14:6).
Summary, Conclusions, Further Questions
Summary. This study began by providing a current descriptive inventory of
worship. In addition to which we developed a social science model of worship based on
communication theory which adequately explains how both prayer and other types of
worship (prophecy, homily, etc.) all belong together as diverse aspects of worship. The
communications model identifies and interprets the two directions of communication: (1)
worshipers sending a message to the deity for a specific purpose and (2) the deity sending a
message to the worshipers for a various purposes via various persons in the group. The
model identifies both the medium of the communication and the channel along which it is
sent, as well as a wide variety of purposes for the communication.
In regard to prayer, the communication model provided a rich typology of prayer,
which advances our understanding of the various effects that prayer seeks to have on the
deity. While we are all familiar with the purpose of petitionary prayer, we found the
typology of prayer particularly helpful in identifying petitionary and self-reflective prayers
in John 14-17. Moreover, the communication model allowed for a nuanced reading and
understanding of other forms of worship, which in the model describe the communication
of the deity with worshipers. We identified the following such types of communication in

535

John 14-17, namely, prophecy (oracles of assurance and of judgment), homily and study of
the words of Jesus.
In examining the issue of where the Johannine group worshiped, we were greatly
aided by the use of a model of fixed versus fluid sacred space. Fluid sacred space, unlike
fixed spaces as found in temples, does not embody the system of temple personnel such as
we find in Jerusalems temple. [lxxvii] But we can go further than the standard rejections of
Mts. Gerizim and Zion and their facile replacements of spirit and truth. The model of
fluid sacred space urges us to examine how both the person of Jesus and the persons of the
group become the sacred space. Jesus does not take his disciples out of the world, even
though he has prepared a place (i.e., relationship) for them. The key element in
understanding the where of worship for the Johannine group lies in appreciating how the
Risen Jesus continues to offer christophanies to the group, especially in the revealing the
sacred name I AM to them. In short, God draws near to the group through Jesus and the
disciples are drawn near to God through Jesus, especially as the figure who bridges the
heavenly and earthly worlds. Thus we look to relationships as the where of worship.
We addressed the issue of the roles which constitute the relationship just described.
The model of patron/broker/client, known both from ancient authors and modern
anthropologists, seems particularly applicable to worship as we find it described in John 1417. Broker, both the choice of New Testament writers and our best understanding of Jesus
role vis--vis God and his disciples, provides an adequate interpretation of the
communication in John 14-17: the clients petitions to the heavenly Patron are all made in
my name, just as the Patrons words and commands all come through Jesus to the
disciples. Whether we label him broker, mediator or priest, we have both a social
and functional understanding of Jesus role in the verbal worship of the Johannine group.
Finally, scholars agree on the prayer aspect of the section of the Fourth Gospel
labeled as a Farewell Address. But it also contains materials which have never been
considered as elements of worship which have remained in the shadows for want of an
536

adequate model to identify them. When one adds to discussions of worship both a
communications model as well as notions of fluid vs sacred space, then we find that a
surprising amount of material in John 14-17 can then be seen to be part of a large discourse
on worship in the Fourth Gospel. A familiar text is thus freshly interpreted precisely
because new models of reading and interpretation suggest new data.

537

Further Questions. Because we have focused on John 14-17, our investigation of

worship is not complete in two ways. First, how are we to interpret pilgrimage feasts to
Jerusalem? How do we understand baptism (3:22-26) and eating the bread of life (6:3256)? As Aune earlier stated, worship consists of various types of rituals. . . Christians
gathered to eat together, to baptize new members, to experience healing. [lxxviii] The very
presence of the foot washing in 13:12-17 suggests a ceremonial welcome of group
members by its officials. This is the raw material of a study of group worship? The details
of a purificatory ritual described in 20:23 are absent, although Jesus authorizes those on
whom he breathed to forgive and retain sins. What, then, still needs to identified and
interpreted? The inquiry is just beginning. Second, the more forms of worship that are
identified, the more need we have of a consideration of roles and statuses within the group.
How might the patron-broker-client model assist us in interpreting the roles of elite
members of the group, if this is possible? Third, if we have focused only on John 14-17,
then are there other data in the gospel about various forms worship and various aspects of it
(time, place, ritual). We claimed to find most of the elements of worship described by those
who make surveys of what constitutes early Christian worship. What, however, have
we notfound in John 14-17? Finally, the worship models exposed here can only benefit
from their application to other worship materials in the New Testament. N O T E S

Christian Worship [London: SCM Press, 1953]) describes basic

characteristics of the early Christian worship service in the quarter of his book, and then
with a sacramental focus treats the various episodes in the Fourth Gospel which have to do
with water/baptism, bread/Eucharist, sabbath, and temple. On occasion, one finds a
treatment of worship in the Fourth Gospel as part of a larger work, for example, David E.
Aune, The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity (Leiden, Brill,
1972) 45-135.
[ii]
James McCaffrey, The House with Many Rooms. The Temple Theme of Jn. 14,2-3 (Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1988) 21.
[iii]
For example, Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1997) 163.
[iv]
The sources consulted are: Cullmann, Early Christian Worship; C. C. Richardson, Worship in
New Testament Times, Christian, IDB 4.883-94; Gerhard Delling, Worship in the
NT (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1962); Ralph P. Martin, Worship in the Early
Church (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1964); Ferdinand Hahn, The Worship of the
Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973); David E. Aune, Worship, Early
Christian, ABD 6.973-989.
[i]

Oscar Cullmann (Early

[v]

Early Christianity differed from worship in the Greco-Roman world, in that it had no temples, no cult
statues and no regular sacrifices. Thus Aune stated: Christian worship had a primarily verbal character, and
in this respect it was similar to synagogue Judaism (Worship, Early Christian, 973).
[vi]
Aune, Worship, Early Church, ABD 6.973.
[vii]
See Ralph P. Martin, Worship in the Early Church (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott,

1964) 18-27.
Fernando Segovia (The Farewell of the Word [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991] 5) provides the
most complete and exhaustive treatment of this material both in his text and in note # 2.
[viii]

538

Malina, What is Prayer? 21-18 and Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Scientific Commentary on the
Gospel of John (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998) 246-47.
[x]
See Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, esp. 244-48.
[ix]

[xi]

It is a commonplace among commentators to divide John 17 into three sections: vv 1-8 = Jesus prayer for
himself; vv 9-19 = Jesus prayer for his disciples; and vv 20-26 = Jesus prayer for those whom his disciples
will recruit. See Brown,The Gospel According to John, 748-51; and with minor variations, see

Talbert, Reading John, 224-31. As accurate as this literary division may be, it obscures the
different types of prayers which occur throughout 17:1-26. Hence a different kind of model
is needed which can do just this.
[xii]

Readers are reminded of the full treatment of self-focused prayer in the first chapter.
It has long been a staple of commentaries on John 17 to compare and contrast it with the Our Father
found in the synoptics. See William O. Walker, The Lords Prayer in Matthew and
John, NTS (1982)237-56.)
[xiv]
Although he seems to consider prayer only as petitionary speech, Ernst Ksemann ( The Testament
[xiii]

of Jesus: A Study of John in the Light of Chapter 17 [London: SCM Press, 1968] 5)
commented on the variety of Jesus speech in John 17, Yet he writes: This is not a
supplication, but a proclamation directed to the Father in such manner that his disciples can
hear it also. The speaker is not a needy petitioner but the divine revealer and therefore the
prayer moves over into being an address, admonition, consolation and prophecy.
[xv]
Raymond Brown (The Gospel According to John, 747) said: If Jesus is a high priest here,
it is not primarily in the sense of one about to offer sacrifice, but more along the lines of the
high priest described in Hebrews and in Rom viii 34 one who stands before the throne of
God making intercession for us.
[xvi]
Other samples of this include Rhetorica ad Herrenium: (justice is shown) if we contend that
alliances and friendships should scrupulously be honored; if we make it clear that the duty
imposed by nature towards parents, gods, and fatherland must be religiously observed; if
we maintain that ties of hospitality, clientage, kinship, and relationship by marriage must
inviolably be cherishes; if we show that neither reward nor favour nor peril nor animosity
ought to lead us astray from the right path; if we say that in all cases a principle of dealing
alike with all should be established" (3.3.4). Similarly, Menander Rhetor: "The parts of
justice are piety, fair dealing and reverence: piety toward the gods, fair dealing towards
men, reverence toward the departed. Piety to the gods consists of two elements: being godloved and god-loving. The former means being loved by the gods and receiving many
blessings from them, the latter consists of loving the gods and having a relationship of
friendship with them" (I.361.17-25).

539

[xvii]

It
should
be
noted
that
God
is
addressed
as
Just
Father
("6*$
<[xvii], 17:25), indicating that God too has duties toward Jesus and his disciples.
[xviii]
See Robert Picirelli, The Meaning of Epignosis, EvQ 47 (1975) 85-93; see also Jerome H.

Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 149. See Titus 1:16, where know is
juxtaposed with deny, Rom 1:20-21, where knowing does not lead to acknowledging,
and James 2:19, where knowing that God is one does not lead the demons to honor God.
[xix]

In John 5:23-24, Jesus declared that God had given all judgment to the Son so that all may honor the Son
even as they honor the Father. Who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

540

Representative of these is Cullmann ( Early Christian Worship, 22), who asserts We may
assume with certainty that Confessional formulae were recited in the early Christian service
of worship. The verbs and - &[xx](Rom 10,9; Phil 2,11, etc.) connect above all
with the confession that Christ is the Lord, in the same way as the early liturgical
prayer Maranatha is concerned with his second coming. See also Ralph Martin, Worship in
the Early Church, 52-65; Gerhard Delling, Worship in the New Testament, 77-91; and
David Aune, Worship, Early Christian, 981 and Otto Michel, 84, TDNT 5.199-213.
[xxi]
Peder Borgen, "God's Agent in the Fourth Gospel," Religions in Antiquity (Jacob Neusner, ed;
Leiden:
Brill,
1968)
137-48
and
George
W.
Buchanan,
Apostolic
Christology, SBLSP 1986 172-82.
[xx]

[xxii]

John 9:22 and 12:42 tell us that those who makes the confession found in 17:3 will be expelled from the
synagogue. Confessional prayers are sometime (a) thanksgivings or doxologies, such as Matt 11:25//Luke
10:21; 1 Tim 1:16 and 6:12-16, (b) protestations of loyalty, such as Matt 10:32//Luke 12:8, or (c) the honorific
acknowledgment of Jesuss new role and status (Rom 10:9-10; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:11).
[xxiii]
M. Eugene Boring, The Continuing Voice of Jesus (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John

Knox, 1991) 38.

David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean
World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983) 320-25.
[xxiv]

[xxv]

Along with announcing a traitor, Jesus states the purpose of this communication: I tell you this now,
before it takes place, that when it takes place, you may believer that I am he (13:19). The prediction of
Peters future death (21:18-19), which is given by the Risen Jesus, likewise functions as a prophecy given to
offset the shock of future suffering.
[xxvi]
For a fuller exposition of the pattern along with other data on esoteric information in the Fourth Gospel,
see Jerome H. Neyrey, The Sociology of Secrecy and the Fourth Gospel (Fernando Segovia,

ed., What is John? Volume II. Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998) 98-101, 107-08.
[xxvii]

The classic example of later reception of the esoteric meaning of earlier speech of Jesus is found 2:19,
21-22. Only when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they
believed the scripture and the word Jesus had spoken. This insight must be mediated by someone in the
group, namely, the prophet.
[xxviii]
Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Company,

1971) 86-87; Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, 12-14, 28-29; Delling, Worship in the
New Testament, 92-103; Martin, Worship in the Early Church, 66-76; Richardson,
Worship in the New Testament, 887-89; Aune, Worship, Early Christian, 983.
[xxix]
[xxx]

Joseph Heinemann, The Proem in the Aggadic Midrashim, 100-22.

J. W. Bowker, Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form,

NTS 14 (1967) 96-

111.
[xxxi]

Yet important advances have been made by Lawrence Wills, The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic
Judaism and Early Christianity, HTR 77 (1984) 277-99 and C. Clifton Black, The Rhetorical

Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence
Wills, HTR 81 (1988) 1-18.
[xxxii]

Black. The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon, 5.
Other unless demands include: 3:3, 5; 6:53; 8:24; 12:24; 13:8. See Jerome H. Neyrey, An

Ideology
of Revolt. Johns Christology in Social-Science Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1988) 143-44, 155-56).
[xxxiii]

[xxxiv]

Black. The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon, 5.

541

[xxxv]

Harold W. Attridge, Paraenesis in a Homily (@( "[xxxv]$[xxxv]:&4(): The Possibile Location of, and
Socialization in, the Epistle to the Hebrews, Semeia 50 (2004) 211-26.
[xxxvi]
S. K. Tefft, Secrecy as a Social and Political Process. P. 320 in S. K. Tefft, ed., Secrecy: A Cross-

Cultural Perspective (New York: Human Sciences Press, 1980).

[xxxvii]

Elizabeth Brandt, On Secrecy and the Control of Knowledge: Taos Pueblo. Pp. 125-34 in S. K. Tefft,
ed., Secrecy: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (New York: Human Sciences Press, 1980).
[xxxviii]
David E. Aune, The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early

Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 1972) 121; this is continuously argued in 45-135.

[xxxix]
Aune, The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity, 126.
[xl]
Ernst Ksemann, Sentences of Holy Law in the New Testament, New Testament Questions of
Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979) 66-81. His location of this material in worship
contexts is based on Hans Lietzmann, Mass and the Lords Supper. A Study in the history of
the Liturgy (Leiden, E. J. Brill 1979) 186 and Gunther Bornkamm, Das Anathema in der
urchristlichen Abendmahlsliturgie, TLZ 75 (1950) 227-30.
[xli]
Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, 320-25.
[xlii]
[xliii]

[xliv]

In addition, see the curse anathema 1 Cor 16:22; Gal 1:8-9; Rom 9:3.
Frequently in his defense Jesus, the accused, became the accuser; and his judges were judged::
I know that you do not have the love of God within you (5:42, see 5:43-47)
Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment (7:24)
You judge according to the flesh (8:15, see 16-18)
You know neither me nor my father (8:19)
You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world,
I am not of this world (8:3)
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your fathers desires (8:44)
The reason you do not hear them [the words of God] is that you are not of God (8:47)
See Tricia Gates Brown, Spirit in the Johannine Writings: Johannine Pneumatology

in

Social-Science Perspective (T & T Clark International: New York, 2003) 221-27.

[xlv]

On this reading of John 16:8-11, see D. A. Carson, The Function of the Paraclete in John 16:711, JBL 98 (1979) 547-66. See also Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to

John 705.
[xlvi]
As always, the premier sin is they do not believe in me, (3:19;
8:21, 24; 9:41; 15:22). This means that some never had any belief and
were always hostile; others were liars who faked belief to escape
censure (8:30), but were exposed as liars and murderers.
[xlvii]
When Jesus qualifies righteousness by saying that he is going to
the Father, this expresses the right relationship to God: acting as Gods
agent, fulfilling Gods command to speak Gods word and the command
to lay down his life. As one who has always done his duty to God, he is
welcome in Gods presence. But many see their duty to God as putting
Jesus to death and exterminating his disciples (16:1-2). Thus, their
relationship with God is tragically wrong; their true duties are left
unfulfilled; they dishonor God with wrongdoing.
[xlviii]
. On the principle that as you judge, so you are judged (Matt 7:2),
the enemies of the group share the judgment of the ruler of this world.
And those who judge unjustly will be judged by the same judgment
(7:24; 8:15; 9:16 and 24). Instead of judging Jesus justly as Gods agent,
they judged him according to appearances (7:24) and as having a
542

demon (8:48; 10:20). But Jesus has already judged this ruler: now shall
the ruler of this world be cast out (12:31).
[xlix]

See Tod D. Swanson, To Prepare a Place. Johannine Christianity and the Collapse ;of Ethnic
Territory, JAAR 62 (1994) 248-51.
[l]
Although the disciples remain in the world, Jesus repeatedly tells them that they do not belong to this
world and that they are not of this world (17:9, 14, 15, 16).
[li]
Strabo attest to a long tradition that Delphi, its most sacred shrine, was the center and the navel of the
earth: For it (temple at Delphi) is almost in the center of Greece taken as a whole. . .it was also believed to
be in the center of the inhabited world, and people called it the navel of the

earth (Strabo, Geography 9.3.6); see also Plato, Republic 427b-c; Pausanias, Descriptions
of Greece 16.2.3; see also Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey,Portraits of Paul: An
Archaeology of Ancient Personality (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 120-22.
Judean authors applied the navel of the world label to Jerusalem: Just as the navel is
found at the center of a human being, so the land of Israel is found at the center of the
world. . .and it is the foundation of the world. Jerusalem is at the center of the land of Israel,
the Temple is at the center of Jerusalem, the Holy of Holies is at the center of the Temple,
the Ark is at the center of the Holy of Holies and the Foundation Stone is in front of the
Ark, which spot is the foundation of the world (Tanhuma, Kedoshim 10).
[lii]
Robert D. Sack, Human Territoriality. Its Theory and History (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1986) 19. Other important definitions have been given by Godelier
(Casimir p. 19), Michael J. Casimir, Mobility and Territoriality: Social and Spatial
Boundaries among Foragers, Fishers, Pastoralists, and Peripatetics (Oxford: Oxford
University Press 1992) 19 ; and Ralph B. Taylor, Human Territorial Functioning: An
Empirical Evolutionary Perspective on Individual and Small Group Territorial Cognitions,
Behaviors and Consequences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 6).
[liii]
Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 31.
[liv]
Malinas description of a leading city such as Jerusalem is similar to Jonathan Z. Smiths ( Map Is Not
Territory [Leiden: Brill, 1978] 132-33, 160-61 and 293) attention to archaic urban
cultures. As noted, the latter constantly appeals to the Pan-Babylonian School at the end of
the nineteenth century, whose focus was the archaic, agricultural city-empire; see
[lv]
Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 38.
[lvi]

Because birth by blood or water avails nothing and because the flesh is of no avail, the Fourth Gospel sees
no value in any form of hereditary roles or statuses.
[lvii]
McCaffrey, The House with Many Rooms, 49-64.
[lviii]
McCaffrey, The House with Many Rooms, 29-32. See also Sjef van Tilborg, Imaginative

Love in John (Leiden: Brill 1993).

See John 17:20-22; also Tod D. Swanson, To Prepare a Place, 244-45, 248-51, 257-60.
One thinks of Stephens vision of the heavens opened and his sight Jesus at the throne of God (Acts 7:5556). Moreover, Jesus remark to Philip should not be forgotten: who sees me sees the Father (14:9).
[lxi]
For example, Richard P. Saller, Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire (Cambridge:
[lix]
[lx]

Cambridge University Press, 1982); and Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, ed., Patronage in Ancient
Society (London: Routledge, 1989).
[lxii]
Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor. Epigraphical Study of a Graeco-Roman and New
Testament Semantic Field, mentioned above in note 43. 1982.
[lxiii]

The initial study is Bruce J. Malina, Patron and Client: The Analogy Behind Synoptic
Theology, Forum 4,1 (1988) 2-32; this article was made more widely available in

Malinas The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels (London: Routledge, 1996) 143-75.
543

See also Halvor Moxnes, Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in LukeActs, The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation (Jerome H. Neyrey, ed.;
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 241-68.
[lxiv]

The important anthropological literature includes Steffen Schmidt, James Scott, Carl Land, and Laura
Guasti, Friends, Followers and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientalism (Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press, 1977); Jeremy Boissevain, Friends of Friends: Networks,

Manipulators and Coalitions (New York: St. Martins Press, 1974);and Shlomo Eisenstadt
and Louis Roniger, Patrons, Clients, and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure
of Trust in Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).
[lxv]

The description of patron-client relationships by A. Blok is particularly helpful: Patronage is a model or

analytic construct which the social scientist applies in order to understand and explain a range of apparent
different social relationships: father-son, God-man, saint-devotee, godfather-godchild, lord-vassal, landlordtenant, politician-voter, professor-assistant, and so forth (Variations in Patronage, Sociologische

Gids 16 [1969] 366).

[lxvi]

See Malina, Patron and Client, 3-4.

See Stephen Charles Mott, The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in Hellenistic
Benevolence, Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (Gerald Hawthorne, ed.;
[lxvii]

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975) 60-72; Bruce J. Malina, The Social World Implied in
the Letters of the Christian Bishop-Martyr (Named Ignatius of Antioch), SBLSP 1978
2.71-119; Holland Hendrix, Benefactor/Patron Networks in the Urban Environment
Evidence from Thessalonika, Semeia 56 (1992) 39-58; and Seth Schwartz, Josephus in
Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown, Josephus and the History of the GrecoRoman Periods (F. Parente and J. Siever, eds.; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 290-306.
[lxviii]

To my knowledge, Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh were the first to introduce the role of
broker to the study of Fourth Gospel (Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 117-

119).
[lxix]

This discussion of broker borrows heavily from Malina, Patron and Client, 11-18.

544

A. Oepke, &*(, TDNT 4. 598-624.

Jesus brokerage in the Fourth Gospel is best understood in terms of his being sent by God; see Malina
and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 118; Peder Borgen,
[lxx]

[lxxi]

Gods Agent in the Fourth Gospel, Religions in Antiquity (Jacob Neusner, ed.; Leiden:
Brill 1968) 137-48; George W. Buchanan, Apostolic Christology, SBLSP
[lxxii]
Jeremy Boissevain, Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and Coalitions (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1974) 158-62.
[lxxiii]

The petition in the Our Father, deliver us from the Evil One, seeks protection or Gods power; requests
to Jesus for healing are similar, especially if spirit aggression is the dominant cause of sickness. Nicolas of
Myra is reputed to have provided dowries for a mans three daughters, in this scheme, wealth. Job might be
said to beg of God knowledge, a different resource. Thus, using the model of exchange found in Turner and
then in Malina, a patron has first order goods: power, commitment, inducement, and influence.
[lxxiv]
As all know, non-Israelite persons in antiquity might become clients of many deities; there was no sense
of monotheism to preclude a multiplicity of patron-client relations.

545

[lxxv]

Oepke (&*(, 618-20); Ronald A. Piper, Glory, Honor and Patronage in the Fourth Gospel:
Understanding the Doxa Given to the Disciples in John 17, Social Scientific Models for

Interpreting the Bible. Essays by the Context Group in Honor of Bruce J. Malina (John J.
Pilch, ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 295-97. In this regard, one thinks of rival rabbinic teachers,
such as Shammai and Hillel.
[lxxvi]

In the vein, one might include claims such as 1:18. Expressions such as no one . . .but the Son serve to
articulate Jesus relationship to God and the heavenly world: see 3:2, 13; 6:44; and 14:6.
[lxxvii]
See Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press,

1969) 21-27, 127-221 and K. C. Hanson and Douglas E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of
Jesus (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998) 131-60.
[lxxviii]
See Aune, Worship, Early Church, ABD 6.973.

Worship in the Fourth Gospel:

A Cultural Interpretation of John 14-17
Jerome H. Neyrey
University of Notre Dame
Chapter 6

Introduction, State of the Question, and Hypothesis

As the title indicates, this chapter employs the model of worship developed
previously as the lens through which we proposed to read and interpret worship in the
Fourth Gospel, in particular John 14-17. To be sure, discussions of worship in the Fourth
Gospel are rare, [i] and in most commentaries worship does not even rate a place in the
topical index. Yet the author of the gospel formally attends to matters of worship when he
himself raises certain topics: (1) where to worship? (2) how to worship? (3) of what does
worship consist? (4) when to worship? and (5) who participates?
Where? At Jesus inaugural visit to Jerusalems temple, he upsets its sacrificial
worship system (he drove . . .the sheep and oxen out of the temple) and its revenue
collection. In defense, he declares: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up
(2:19), which his opponents misunderstand, for they think that he refers to a physical
building, another fixed sacred space. The truth is, He spoke of the temple of his body
(2:21). The Samaritan woman asked Jesus-the-prophet to settle a dispute about where to
546

worship, this mountain. . .or in Jerusalem? (4:20). Jesus gives a sweeping answer:
neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. . . (4:21). Thus Jesus broadly negates all fixed
places of worship. Finally, Jesus declares that in my Fathers house there are many
rooms. . .I go to prepare a place for you (14:2 ). On the one hand, these locations (house,
rooms, place) suggest a where for worship, but they do not refer to any fixed sacred
space. James McCaffrey argues that we not consider these as geographical spaces: The
text describes the redemptive work of Christ in terms which pertain to the family and its
intimate personal relationships. [ii] Thus where one worships remains throughout the gospel
a major question, for which we need a model of fixed and sacred space from cultural
anthropology.
How? True worshipers will perform actions that do not consist of sacrifice or
require temple clergy, tithes and revenues. Neither will they worship in fixed sacred space,
nor in the manner of theTemple. At least this seems to be the substance of Jesus remark:
true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth (4:23). [iii] This remark, however,
is mute on specific forms of worship. Inasmuch as so much attention is given to prayer(s) in
John 14-17, prayer would seem to be a most promising place to start.
When? Although Jesus attended certain feast days in Jerusalem, scholars argue that
he replaced with himself both the feasts and the benefits sought from them. Jesus is now the
benefit of benefits sought at festive worship: he is the bread come down from heaven (6:3351), the Passover lamb (19:33-34), the rains/water (7:37-38) and the sun/light (8:12) sought
at Tabernacles. But where is the evidence that Johannine disciples kept a calendar of this
sort? Balancing these replacements, we learn that special significance was given to the
first day of the week (20:1) and the eighth day (20:26).
Who?. Worship, of course, is directed to God. And God, who is spirit, seeks
worshipers who worship in spirit and truth. Clearly, then, both God and a worshiping group
are envisioned. But other figures function in this worship, Jesus, in whose name the
disciples petition God and the Paraclete, who mediates Jesus words to the group. But those
547

who refused to or are afraid to acknowledge Jesus as sent from God are not true worshipers
(17:3). But is there any formal pattern to relationship of those who worship?
What, then, do we know? Oddly, we know where not to worship, how not to
worship, and perhaps when not to worship. But the gospel does not tell us of what worship
consists, nor does it define roles and status of members of the worshiping group. Much
more needs to be learned about worship so as to interpret the Fourth Gospel. 1. Our task
begins with worship itself. While descriptive catalogues of early Christian worship are
helpful, we search for a formal definition of it and a social science model which will help
us interpret its forms. From this perspective, we will interpret four forms of worship:
prayer, prophecy, homily, judgment. 2. Since the author puts so much emphasis
on where the group worships, we need a model which compares and contrasts fixed and
fluid sacred spaces. This will aid us in interpreting Jesus remarks about my Fathers
house and many rooms ( [1] , 14:2). And in this light we will examine other aspects
of where worship occurs: being in and dwelling in. 3. Finally, in attempting to
understand the structural relationships between God, Jesus, Spirit and the group in worship,
we turn to the model of patron-broker-client. The roles of God and group are clear, but
modern scholarship often misunderstands the structural place of Jesus and the Paraclete in
Johannine worship.
Worship in the Early Church.
The Shape of Early Christian Worship. As we saw earlier, scholarly surveys [iv] of
early Christian worship agree that: (1) the early church borrowed heavily from synagogue
worship both in form and contents, especially prayer and the study of the Scripture; (2) its
activities were not tied to particular places, but could be practiced virtually anywhere;. and
(3) the central forms of worship were verbal. [v] Because of its comprehensiveness, David
Aunes description is worth repeating:
Christian worship had a primarily verbal character, and in this respect it was similar
to synagogue Judaism. . .Yet Christians did have religious gatherings where various
548

types of rituals were practiced. Christians gathered to eat together, to baptize new
members, to read Scripture, to listen to God speaking through other Christians, to
experience healing, to pray and sing hymns and thanksgivings to God. These
activities were not tied to particular places, but could be practiced virtually
anywhere. [vi]

549

Aune, following Delling, Cullmann and Martin, identify a variety activities which fall
under the genus worship: (1) prayers, creeds and confessions, doxologies, hymns, songs
and psalms, (2) prophecy (oracles of judgment, salvation, and the like), (3) sermons and
homilies and (4) public reading of scripture. To this Cullmann added another, remembering
specifically the words and deeds of Jesus. The archetype of worship in the New Testament
was and is the remarks found in Acts 2:42 (they devoted themselves to the apostles
teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of the bread, and the prayers), the letters of Paul
(i.e., 1 Cor 11:20ff; 14:1-36), Plinys letter to Trajan (Ep 10.96), and reconstructions of
early synagogue worship. [vii] Aunes first element of worship is prayer, which seems more
fixated on forms of prayer and not consideration of classification of prayer according to the
eight or so purposes of speech to God. More attention, we think, should be given to variety
of reasons for which one prays, the effect one wishes to have on God and the relationship
that should be repaired. This description, while it identifies an entrance ritual, baptism,
does not include rituals of transformation or exit rituals. Ceremonial eating together is
noted, but is there place for other ceremonies?

The model of worship presented earlier

indeed fills out the enumeration of the forms of worship, even as it provides a definition of
prayer and worship and appropriate cultural lenses for viewing their parts. Thus the
complete model of worship we are employing provides us the the most complete index of
typical verbal forms of worship as we begin our reading of John 14-17. Thus, we begin
knowing several important things: 1) worship is primarily verbal; 2) members pray and
sing hymns and thanksgivings; 3) they not only speak to God in prayer, but also listen to
God through the Scriptures, the words of Jesus, or Spirit-inspired utterances; and 4) these
activities are not tied to particular places.
Worship in John 14-17
Most readers are comfortable with understanding John 14-17 in terms of it form
critical classification as a Farewell Address. [viii] The various prayers of Jesus and especially
the so-called high priestly prayer in John 17 suggest that worship is not a misleading
550

category for interpreting John 14-17. We propose to examine these chapters in terms of the
two directions of worship described above: (1) speaking to God ( i.e., prayers) and (2)
listening to God (i.e., prophecy, homily and oracles of salvation and judgment).
Types of Prayer in John 14-17. [ix] Malina, as we have learned, provides readers with
a sophisticated typology of prayers. All prayer is a communication of mortals to God, but
prayer differs from prayer in terms of the effect it seeks to have with God, ranging from
petition to praise: (1) petitionary, (2) regulatory, (3) interactional, (4) self-focused, (5)
heuristic, (6) imaginative, (7) acknowledgment and (8) appreciation.

551

Petitionary Prayer in John 14-16. No one can read John 14-17 without
noting Jesus repetitive instructions to ask the Father for some benefit, which in the
typology we are using means petitionary prayer. The New Testament employs a variety of
verbs in the context of prayerful petitioning. In one sense they all mean to ask for, but
they differ in the urgency with which the request is made. Most frequently readers find
petitionary

request

expressed

in

8 [1] (ask with urgency, beg) and "$ &B0 [1] (speak to, make requests). Johns petition,
however, are expressed by different words, [1] *84 (ask with urgency even to the point of
demanding) and $4*64 (ask, request), but without any change of meaning. Except for
Marthas remark that Jesus could petition God for Lazarus (11:22), the other eleven
instances of petitionary prayer all occur in the Farewell Address, which thus constitute a
distinct body of materials on this type of prayer.
14:13-14 Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it. . .
if you ask anything in my name. . .,
14:15-16 I will pray the Father and he will send another Counselor
15:7
If you abide in me and my words abide in your, ask whatever you
will. . .
15:16b whatever you ask the Father in my name. . .
16:23-24 In that day you will ask nothing of me. . .if you ask anything of the
Father. . .
16:26
In that day you will ask in my name
In addition to the insistent instructions of Jesus, we note several things: 1) the object of the
petitions is both vastly expansive (whatever and anything and specific (Counselor);
and 2) while the Patron being petitioned is always God, Jesus maintains his role as broker
by indicating that the petitions will be made in my name and he himself will initiate the
process by himself petitioning on their behalf (I will ask. . .). Petitionary prayer,
moreover, is only one type of prayer found in John 14-16. When we turn to John 17, we
observe a prayer composed of many types.
Jesus Multi-Purposed Prayer in John 17. Malinas taxonomy of prayer provides the
means to distinguish different types of prayer occurring in John 17. In general, we consider
552

the whole of John 17 as an heuristic prayer: it explores the world of God and Gods
workings within the Son and his disciples, individually and collectively. [x] It is not a search
for meaning so much as a revelation of the state of the relationship of the pray-er and God.
Thus it is heuristic in that it discovers and uncovers interpersonal perspectives implicit in
all the actions culminating in Jesus hour.Yet this heuristic prayer is by no means the only
kind of prayer in John 17. We can classify the statements of Jesus to God as petitionary,
self-focused and informative, as the chart below indicates: [xi]
Jn 17
v2
v3

Prayer Text
glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee. . .
this is eternal life, that they (ack)know(ledge) You the only
true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent
v5
glorify me in your own presence with the glory which I had
with you before the world was made
v6
I have manifested Your NAME to the men whom You gave
me out of the world
vv 6-8 Yours they were, and You gave them to me, and they have
kept Your word. Now they know that everything you have
given me is from You; for I have given them the words which
You gave me, and they have received them and know in truth
that I came from you; and they have believed that You sent
me.
v9
I am praying for them; I am not praying for those in the
world, but for those whom You have given me, for they are
Yours.
v 10
All mine are thine; and thine are mine; and I am glorified in
them.
v 11
Keep them in Your NAME, which You have given to me, that
they may be one, even as we are one
v 12
While I was with them, I kept them in Your NAME, which
you have given me; I have guarded them and none of them is
lost but the son of perdition
vv 13- But now I am coming to You; and these things I speak in the
14
world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. V
14 I have given them Your word, and the world has hated
them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of
the world
v 15
I do not pray that you should take them out of the world, but
keep them from the Evil One.
v 16=
They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
v 17
Sanctify them in Your truth
553

Classification
petitionary
acknowledgment
petitionary
self-focused
self-focused

self-focused +
petitionary
self-focused
petitionary
self-focused
self-focused

petitionary
self-focused
petitionary

vv 18- As You sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the
19
world. For their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may
be consecrated in truth
vv 20- I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in
22
me through their word that they may all be one; even as You,
Father are in me and I in You, that they may be in us, so that
the world may believe that You have sent me.
vv 22- The glory which you have given me, I have given them, that
23
they may be one, even as we are one I in them and You in me,
that they may be perfectly one, that the world may know that
you have sent me and has loved them even as you have loved
me.
v 24
Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given to me,
may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which You
have given me in your love for me before the foundation of
the world.
v v25- O just Father, the world has not known you; but I have known
26
you; and these know that you have sent me. I made known to
them Your NAME, and I will make it known that the love
with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.

self-focused
self-focused +
petitionary
self-focused

petitionary

self-focused

We observe that Jesus petitions God frequently (vv 2, 5, 11, 15-16, 17, 20-21, 24), the form
of which easily discerned: 1) a verb of asking in the imperative mood, and 2) a request
for a specific benefaction from God (glory, unity, special relationship, etc.). We see,
moreover, another type of prayer, which Malina calls self-focused (6-8, 9, 10, 12, 13-14,
16, 18-19, 20, 22-23, 25-26), [xii] whose form is also clearly expressed by: 1) a first-person
speech: I made manifest... I kept them in your name...I have given them your word
(vs 2nd person in petitionary prayer), which 2) celebrates the record of Jesus past good
deeds (vs future benefactions in petitionary prayer). In John 17 Jesus tells God that he has
fulfilled his apostleship and done what God sent him to do:
I have glorified you on earth ( 4)
-- I have manifested your name (6 & 26)
-- I have given them the words which you have given me (8 & 14)
-- I have kept them in your name (12a)
-- I have guarded them (12b)
-- I have sent them into the world (18)
-- I have consecrated myself (19)
-- I have given them the glory which you have given me (22)
-- I have known you (25).
554

Unlike petitionary prayer, Jesus declares to God before his disciples his perfect fulfilment
of the mission he was sent to accomplish [xiii] : 1) he has glorified God on earth,
2) manifested to the disciples the divine Name and kept them in it, 3) given the
divine words to them and 4) extended his work by sending them into the world. [xiv]
Labeling John 17 as a high priestly is clearly anachronistic, although the label
does convey the sense that Jesus enjoys the role of mediator or broker, a topic which will be
shortly developed. [xv]Similarly, the prayer celebrates his effectiveness in the role of channel
of Gods benefaction to the disciples. Benefits came through Jesus and will continue to
come through him. Jesus self-focused prayer may also be seen as a claim to the virtue of
piety or justice. Throughout the Greco-Roman world, justice was thought of as the noble
fulfilment of ones basic duties. Ps-Aristotle states:

555

First among the claims of righteousness are our duties to the gods, then our duties to
the spirits, then those to country and parents, then those to the departed; among
these claims is piety (&8

556

[1] ), which is either a part of righteousness or a concomitant of it. Righteousness

is also accompanied by holiness (&@*() and truth (t: [1] ) and loyalty ("<&*()

and hatred of wickedness" (Virtues and Vices, V.2-3).

The distinction of the triple focus of justice is found regularly in the philosophical and
rhetorical literature of antiquity, [xvi] and also in John 17. Here Jesus acknowledges that he
has fulfilled his duties to God (I have glorified you. . .manifested your name. . . given
them your words) and his duties to kin(I have kept them. . . guarded them,
etc.). [xvii] Thus the Just Jesus celebrates his virtuous completion of the duties he owes to
God, who is Father and Patron and kin.
Yet in 17:3 we find still a third type of prayer, namely, acknowledgment: This is
eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Instead of a petition, we find here an honorable acknowledgment of God in traditional
words. This prayer consists of two elements: 1) we read to know in the sense of to
acknowledge, that is, to honor, and confess the worth, sovereignty and excellence of
God. [xviii] The first part of 17:3 resembles the confession known as the Shema, the leading
prayer in the synagogue (see Mark 12:29, 32; Deut 6:4). Thus acknowledgment of the only
true God is a appropriate confessional honoring of God. But 17:3 also includes confession
of Jesus Christ whom you have sent. So the complete honoring of God consists of the
acknowledgment of both the unique God of Israel and of Gods unique agent,
Jesus. [xix] While confession and creed are no strangers to New Testament scholarship,
rarely do we find them discussed as prayer. [xx] John 17:3 is situated in a continuous
address to God which petitions God for the disciples, who as clients should make the
prayer-confession in v. 3 to their heavenly Patron while acknowledging that Jesus is the true
agent sent from heaven. [xxi] The disciples knowing of Israels only, true God is not
simply knowledge, but acknowledging and honoring God and the deitys existential plans.
This prayer, moreover, is not possible in Temple and synagogue (e.g., 9:22; 12:42). [xxii]

557

Listening to God: Prophecy. According to our model of communication,

a sender sends a message via some channel to a receiver to have an effect. In the case of
prayer, the senders are the Johannine members who send a message via Jesus-as-channel to
God; but in the case of prophecy, the process is reversed as God speaks to mortals, not
listens to them. In prophecy, 1. God, the sender, 2. sends a verbal message, 3. through
the channel of Jesus, the Spirit of Truth, or a disciple-prophet, 4. to the receivers, the
members of the Johannine group, 5. for the purpose of communicating to them special
information. But in the Fourth Gospel, the sender of esoteric information seems to be Jesus.
While in general Jesus remains mediator and broker of Gods benefaction, in regard to
prophecy he functions as the source or sender. This may be because most prophetic
materials concern themselves with remembering Jesus words which are themselves
mediated by the Spirit who will bear witness to Jesus (15:26). [xxiii] This may be an
idiosyncratic quirk from a maverick gospel.
We need, however, a catalogue of the varieties of prophetic speech to alert us to
what types of prophetic oracles are possible and their respective purposes. At the end of his
study of prophecy in early Christianity and the Hellenistic world, David Aune offers the
following list of basic forms of Christian prophetic speech: (1) oracles of assurance; (2)
prescriptive oracles; (3) announcements of salvation; (4) announcements of judgment; (5)
legitimation oracles; and (6) eschatological theophany oracles. [xxiv]
Prophet in the Fourth Gospel. The Fourth Gospel occasionally records people
favorable to Jesus acclaiming him as a prophet (4:19; 6:14; 7:40 (52); 9:17), generally
because of his wisdom or powers, that is, a prophet mighty in word and deed. But
prophet/prophecy in John 14-17, while it focuses on the words of Jesus, also makes specific
note of predictions of future events. Among the many remarks about going away and
coming back (14:3, 18-19; 16:16), we find three statements that serve a special purpose
which surpasses the mere communication of esoteric information. Some predictions by
Jesus serve a prophylactic purpose of confirming loyalty in times of conflict. For example,
558

after repeating the remark I go away and I will come to you, Jesus states the reason for
telling this to his disciples: Now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does
take place, you may believe (14:28-29). Similarly, after Jesus discloses the bleak future
awaiting the disciples (16:1-2), he explains once again the prophylactic purpose of the
prediction: I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember
that I told you of them (16:4). [xxv] The Fourth Gospel would have us read these statements
as communication from Jesus in the course of his career, which, when remembered,
ameliorate a future crisis by indicating a providential knowledge of, if not control of,
future, painful events. Thus, the purpose of this prophetic communication is exhortation to
faithfulness, courage and the like. Oracles of assurance? Salvation?
In a similar vein, when Jesus tells the disciples that they will be hated (15:18-25), he
added, Remember the word that I said to you, A servant is not greater than his master
(15:20). An earlier word in 13:16 reads: A servant is not greater than his master, nor is he
who is sent greater than him who sent him. But this remark occurs in the context of the
mandate of Jesus that the disciples wash one anothers feet: if Jesus (master) did so, then
disciples (servants) must do likewise. While in 15:18-25 the words are the same, the
context has changed. Now hate is the fate of both master and servants. Thus past words
can be prophetic of future events, especially trials awaiting the disciples. And in both cases,
they communicate assurance and encouragement.
Statement, Misunderstanding, Clarification Prophecy may also be understood as
the communication of esoteric information needed to understand Jesus cryptic words.
Throughout the Fourth Gospel the author regularly casts Jesus discourse with friend and
foe

in

terms

of

pattern

known

as

statement,

misunderstanding,

and

clarification. [xxvi] Jesus makes a statement (You know the way where I am going, 14:4),
which is misunderstood (Lord, we do not know where you are going, how can we know
the way, 14:5), which prompts Jesus to offer a clarification (I am the way, the truth, and
the life, 14:6).
559

Statement

Misunderstanding

Clarification

14:1-4

14:5

14:6

14:7

14:8

14:9-11

14:18-21

14:22

14:23-24

16:16

16:17-18

16:19-24

16:25-27

16:29-30

16:31-33

Although instances of this pattern occur regularly throughout the gospel, we observe a
concentration of it in chs 14 and 16, which is Jesus final address to his inner circle of
disciples. Previously this pattern served as catechetical enlightenment of enlighten-able
disciples, such as the Samaritan Woman, but also as a wall shutting out un-enlighten-able
disciples, such as Nicodemus and the Jerusalem crowds. Here, insiders and core disciples
require special information about the cryptic world of Jesus, which is provided for them
eventually, we suggest, by prophets speaking in the name of Jesus. Although we will take
up the topic of the Spirit of truth enlightening or reminding the disciples, Spirit is
presumed in this discussion as a broker of Jesus. Thus, this pattern functions to make and
maintain boundaries; it informs, but by doing so marks and confirms certain persons as elite
insiders.
The quest for esoteric information may be observed also in the pattern of questions
and answers found in John 14-16. In addition to the question of Thomas noted above
(14:5), Judas, not the Iscariot, asked How is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and
not to the world? (14:22). In several places Jesus himself asks their question to facilitate
his next remarks. Although Jesus question to Philip has much of the reproach in it (14:9), it
issues in a remarkable revelation of Jesus union with God (14:10-11), surely a singular
favor. Similarly, Jesus questions the failure of the disciples to ask about a cryptic remark
(16:5). At the very least, this pattern indicates that Jesus speech is filled with esoteric
information and double-meaning words, which the receivers do not fully perceive at first
560

and which require explanation. Here at least, Jesus can lead the disciples into fuller insight
by his subsequent clarifying statements. But in terms of group worship, a prophet during
the group worship would presumably access the questions and provide an enlightened
answer. [xxvii] As regards function, the providing of special, esoteric knowledge both
designates and confirms elite membership.
Furthermore, this gospel records Jesus declaring that I have said this to you in
figures; the hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures (16:25). Does
this cover only the metaphor of hard times resembling childbirth (16:20-24) or also the
cryptic statements about going away and coming back? Minimally, a communication is
given to the disciples which is admittedly in figures, liable to misunderstanding, or
containing double meanings. But the veil will be lifted when in the future a prophet
remembers, studies, examines and interprets Jesus words.
Homily. Scholars who write on early Christian sermons or homilies draw on two
sources: 1) the ancient synagogue service and (2) summary remarks like Acts 2:42
(devoted to the apostles teaching, fellowship, breaking of the bread, and prayers). [xxviii] In
the last chapter we examined types of Israelite homilies, identifying two
types: the proem and the yelammedenu. In the proem, a scripture is read, which is actually
two different citations which at first glance have nothing in common. The teachers task is
to tease from each esoteric meanings so that at the conclusion, the two citations are shown
to be complementary and mutually illuminating. [xxix] In the yelammedenu type, which means
Let our teacher instruct us, again an authorized person reads from the Scriptures and
explains them.[xxx] From the Hellenistic side, speeches structured in Greco-Roman rhetoric
are discussed. In both Israelite and Greco-Roman contexts, we know of some sort of
sermon or homily, although its precise form eludes us. [xxxi]
Although neither the Jewish nor the Greco-Roman types of homily apply to
materials in John 15-16, we find, nevertheless, two side-by-side exhortations. In 15:1-8 and
9-17 the audience is exhorted in the type of rhetoric called deliberative to choose and keep
561

on choosing loyalty to Jesus and his Father. In terms of our communication model,
teaching or exhortation or instruction is diagramed as follows: 1. a sender (God), 2.
sends a message (teaching, exhortation), 3. via some channel (Jesus _ Spirit _ teacher), 4.
to receivers (Johannine group), 5. to have some effect on them (to confirm and to urge
loyalty). We focus, then, on 15:1-8 and 9-17 because these exhortations most closely accord
with the elements of deliberative rhetoric.
In regard to 15:1-8, the topic of the exhortation is introduced in the metaphor: I am
the vine, my father is the vinedresser (15:1). In this context, the entire passage exhorts the
disciples to choose to remain, This exhortation occurs seven times (vv 4, 4b, 4c, 5, 6, 7a,
and 7b), sometimes in the imperative mood and sometimes in a conditional clause, surely
indicative of the choice to be made. Seven occurrences! This exhortation builds on current
relationships and urges the disciples to maintain them in the future, the value of which
relationships provides the very argument from advantage. The relationships are: Jesus =
vine, the disciples = the branches, while the Father = the vinedresser (vv 1-2, 5). The
telltale signs of an argument from advantage suggests that we consider this material an
example of deliberative rhetoric which appeals for future action on the basis of future
benefits. [xxxii] Remaining brings sweet advantage, just as not remaining leads to
bitterness. A branch which remains and is cleansed by the vine dresser bears much fruit
(v 2), a phrase which is repeated 3 times (vv 4, 5, 8) to underscore the advantage that comes
from remaining. Similarly, branches which remain may petition God for whatever you
will and expect Gods positive response (v 7) -- advantage indeed! In contrast, we are told
of the sanctions imposed on those who do not remain. They are taken away (v 1), and
worse, cast forth. . .wither. . .thrown into the fire and burned (v 6).
We find clear argumentative patterns here. Unless the branch remains. . . is a
necessary condition frequently found the Fourth Gospel: unless one is born of the Spirit
or eats the flesh of the Son of Man or is washed by Jesus, one does not experience the

562

benefit of God. So, too, here the advantage of remaining is also cast in the form of an
unless argument:
A branch cannot bear fruit unless (n) it remains in the vine,
neither can you, unless (n) you remain in me (15:4) [xxxiii]
Similarly, in vv 6-7 conditional sentences articulate the deliberative character of
remaining and not remaining.
Unless (n) disciples remain, they are cast forth. . .if (n) you remain in me
and my words remain in you, you may ask for whatever you wish.
The speaker provides reasons for the right choice. On the positive side, the cleansing of
the vine (perhaps a euphemism for testing gold in a furnace) serves the purpose ( [1] ) of
causing the branches to bear more fruit, clearly an advantage. And Jesus gives the reason
why branches must remain in the vine: for (*) without me you can do nothing (v 5).
Because we observe an argument being made, not merely information being imparted, we
consider 15:1-8 a crisp example of deliberative rhetoric, which places before the disciples
the decision of remaining,a deliberation richly rewarded or severely sanctioned. The
argument from advantage is a regular feature of exhortations, homilies and/or sermons. [xxxiv]
A second exhortation follows immediately, which both begins and concludes with
the command, Remain in my love (v 9) . . .love one another (v 17). Evidently the focus
is on love, although vv 9-17 are linked with vv 1-8 by means of four more references to
remain (vv 9-10, 16). Thus 15:1-8 and 9-17 should be seen as parallel and linked
exhortations, the first one expressing a vertical series of relationship between vine dresser,
vine and branches, and the second one horizontal relationships between one another. As
was the case with vv 1-8, the exhortation in vv 9-17 is argued by: (1) imperatively urging:
Love one another!; (2) conditional sentences explaining this love, such as if (n)
you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love (v 10); and (3) analogies which
clarify the topic: as ( [1] () the father has loved me, so have I loved you (v 9). In
language using the argument from advantage, the author first tells the disciples that
563

remaining and loving elevate their status from that of servants to friends (.< ,().
This echoes the contrasting statuses of dead versus fruitful branches in 15:1-8, with the
comparison now made between servants and friends. Jesus final argument here
reminds the disciples of their debt in justice to him, which he is calling in through this
exhortation: You did not chose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go
and bear fruit and that your fruit should remain (v 16). The verbs indicate the extent of
Jesus benefaction which creates the debt of justice: chose, appointed, bear fruit and
your fruit remain. To this he now appends one more benefaction, effective petitionary
prayer: whatever you ask the Father in my name, he will give it to you (v 16b), surely a
significant advantage.
Therefore, this material is exhortatory, and it resumes the most important behaviors
urged in the Fourth Gospel, remaining and loving. Because of its exhortatory character,
it stands apart from all other parts of the Farewell Address. But are homily or
sermonthe appropriate classification? And do such things belong in worship? The type of
rhetoric in 15:1-17 is deliberative, that is, it exhorts the hearers to make a choice which will
effect their future, and the argument rests primarily on pointing out the advantage to those
choosing to remain and love. Such rhetoric is not exclusive to homily or sermon and
may occur in many types of public speaking, especially speeches to the Roman senate or
the Greek assembly. Yet it is most compatible with sermon and homily (see Heb 3:1-4:13;
6:1-12), which are admittedly parts of Christian worship. [xxxv]
Study of the Words of Jesus. It is indisputable that the disciples in their worship told
the story of Jesus once more and examined his words and parables. This is, moreover,
where the speeches of Acts all end: what God has done to Jesus. But John 14-17 do not
contain the splendid narratives found earlier or elsewhere; on the contrary, they contain
only his words, although the self-focused prayer in John 17 does summarize his mission.
But as has been the case from John 2 onward, the meaning of his words is by no means
clear. For example, Destroy this temple. . . was heard as this [Herodian] temple. Only
564

after his resurrection, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the
scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken (2:21). We have seen above the pattern of
statement-misunderstanding-clarification, which demonstrates that many, even of the inner
circle, failed to understand Jesus words correctly, but required an interpreter either now or
in the future. This material has been studied according to the sociology of secrecy, which
study argues that it was a regular feature of the Fourth Gospel to have Jesus conceal and
reveal. Secrecy, we learn, is the mandatory or voluntary, but calculated concealment of
information, activities or relationships. [xxxvi] Put simply, knowledge is controlled. Not all
people know everything at the same time; being in the know serves as an important
marker insider status. [xxxvii] Readers of John are already familiar with certain types of
secrecy: riddles, irony, parables, footnotes and asides. When was the veil lifted? When did
the disciples get the correct understanding of Jesus words? How far afield are we to
suggest that Jesus words were studied by the group at its gathering and given attention
comparable to the Scriptures.
Enter the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth. In John 14-16 this figure is described four
time, every time as the broker of special knowledge about Jesus. First of all, we note that
most of the time this Paraclete/Spirit of truth reminds, glorifies Jesus, takes what is Jesus
and declares it to them. The Paraclete, then, attends primarily to the Jesus story and the
words of Jesus. We know, moreover, that this Paraclete spoke through someone in the
group, a prophet. But the Spirit has other functions as well.
Category
Title or Name
Source
Relationship
Father and Jesus
Functions

14:26
Paraclete
Holy Spirit
& whom the Father will
to send in my name

1. he will teach you

all things
565

15:26
Paraclete
Spirit of Truth
whom I shall send to
you
from
the
Father.
.
.who
proceeds from the
Father
1. ---------------------

16:7-10, 12
16:7 Paraclete
16:12 Spirit of Truth
16:7 I will send him
to you

1. he will guide you

into all the truth. . .he
will declare to you

the things that art to

come
2. bring to your
remembrance all that
I have said to you

2. he will
witness to me

bear

2.he does not speak

on his own authority.
. .he will glorify me,
for he will take what
is mine and declare it
to you

Judgment. Few scholars who list the various elements of Christian worship include
mention of judgment as part of it. All the more, then, are David Aunes reflections worth
our attention. In The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity, he
argued that two elements of eschatology, declarations of salvation and judgment, have their
proper place in the worship, preaching and teaching of that community. [xxxviii]
This cultic coming of the Son of man to save and to judge, to bless and to curse,
was

corporate

worship

experience

which

the

Johannine

community

conceptualized in terms of the traditional Christological expectation of the Son of

man. [xxxix]
He cites with approval Ksemanns Sentences of Holy Law as illustrative of cultic
judgment speech. [xl] As we saw above, Aune listed oracles of judgment among the types
of prophecy found in the Early Church. [xli] Announcements of judgment and salvation,
then, are not foreign to Christian worship; moreover they were types of sanctioned speech.
For example, we recall Pauls judgment of the man in an incestuous marriage in 1
Cor 5. Paul times the sentencing of the sinner to occur within a group meeting (when you
are assembled), at which he speaks with pneumatic authority and declares that he enjoys
the power of the Lord, that is, authority to censure the man. Found guilty of corruption,
the man is publicly expelled from the group (5:3-5).[xlii] Similarly, Matt 18:15-17 records a
group ritual in which an errant member should progressively receive correction. Should the

566

transformational ritual fail, the church declares him an outsider. Both of these examples
envision a community assembly, at which takes place an oracle of judgment.
This material, we suggest, pertains to John 16:7-11, which we interpret as a form
of judgment oracle. In terms of Johannine logic, the Paraclete will play a forensic role,
similar to the presentation of Jesus in his various trials in the gospel. [xliii] Unlike 1 Cor 5 and
Matt 18:15-17, no one is cast out of the group; on the contrary the group is experiencing
expulsion from the synagogue (9:22, 34; 12:42; 16:1-2). The judgment oracle, then, serves
to make and maintain boundaries with the world by emphasizing in dualistic terms how
and why the Johannine group is right and therefore does not belong in the world. The
following list drawn from the Farewell Address illustrates the studied emphasis on group
boundaries:
Jesus and His Disciples
. . . you know him for he dwells in you
and will be in you (14:17b)
. . .but you will see me (14:19b)
how is it you will manifest yourself
to us. . . (14:22a)
Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to
you (14:27a)
. . .he has no power over me (14:30b)
But because you are not of the world, but
I chose you out of the world, therefore the
world hates you, know that it has hated
me before it (15:19)
You will weep and lament. . .(16:20a)
. . .I am leaving the world and going to
the Father (16:28b)
. . .fear not, I have overcome the
world (16:33b)

The World
the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot
receive because it neither sees him or knows him
(14:17a)
the world will see me no more (14:19a)
. . .and not to the world (14:22b)
. . .not as the world gives peace do I give to
you (14:27b)14:27
the ruler of this world is coming (14:30a)
If the world hates you, know that he has hated me
before it hated you (15:18)
If you were of the world, the world would love its
own (15:19)
. . .but the world will rejoice (16:20b)
I came from the Father and have come into the
world (16:28a)
In the world you have tribulation (16:33a)

The discourse in the Farewell Address, then, makes and maintains boundaries with the
world to emphasize the chasm that separates the disciples from the synagogue and to make

567

any crossing back impossible. Thus in this context we read 16:7-11 as an oracle of
judgment.
The task of the Paraclete in 16:8 consists of some form of judgment, whether we
translate the Greek verb which is used here as convict or convince. [xliv] On the one hand,
the Johannine group will surely have much to criticize the synagogue for, at least to
confirm the synagogues utter depravity. Thus they are equipped with ready arguments to
judge the synagogue and so prove it hopelessly wrong. On the other hand, this criticism
serves also to firm up the groups own beliefs of its superiority and so its necessary
separation from the world. Thus the Paraclete will prove to the disciples that
thesynagogue/world is guilty of sin, (false) righteousness, and (false) judgment. [xlv] Of sin,
because the world did not believe in Jesus. [xlvi] Of [false] righteousness, because the
synagogue judged Jesus a sinner and deceiver, yet Jesus will shortly be in the presence of
the all holy God. [xlvii] Of [false] judgment, because it persecutes and judges Jesus, and by
doing so it brings judgment upon itself. [xlviii]Thus, we argue that part of the worship
described

in

the

Farewell

Address

includes

oracles

of

judgment,

that

is,

a communication sent from God through the channel of the Paraclete to the disciples for
thepurpose of shoring up the disciples even as it condemns their adversaries.
Not on This Mountain Nor in Jerusalem. But Where?
Jesus declaration that his body would be the new and true Temple (2:19-22) is
followed by a conversation with a Samaritan woman about the right place to worship, Mts.
Gerizim or Zion (4:20), which mountains Jesus de-classifies as sacred places of
worship. [xlix] Thus, the Johannine disciples have no fixed sacred space in contrast with
Samaritan and Israelite temples which are permanently fixed atop certain mountains. Nor
does the local synagogue serve as the site of its worship, for public confession of Jesus as
the Christ results in expulsion from that assembly (9:22, 12:42-43 and 16:1-2). But
ifnot Mt. Gerizim nor Jerusalem nor the synagogue, then where? [l] One of the dominant
themes discussed in John 14-17 treats of the issue of where worship will take place. We
568

argue that parts of the answer will come from a fresh consideration of (1) Many rooms (
[1] 14:2) and (2) Being In and Dwelling In, But first let us consider a model on
territoriality or the anthropology of space, to appreciate what significance Jesus declassification of Mts. Gerizim and Zion has.
Fixed vs Fluid Sacred Space (4:21-24). Not on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem
effectively negates fixed sacred space for the Johannine group, that is temples with the
elaborate systems that surround them: priests, offerings, tithes, revenues, temple building
with its adornment and maintenance, and hosts of diverse persons to staff it, perform in it,
and guard it. Needless to say, ethnic temples are clear examples of fixed sacred space,
which they often express by declaring themselves as the navel or center of the
world. [li] Since discussion of fixed or fluid space depends on some social theory of space, let
us briefly examine a model commonly used in the anthropology of space, namely,
territoriality. Robert Sack, a representative of modern research, defines it as:
Territoriality will be defined as the attempt by an individual or group to affect,
influence, or control people, phenomena, and relationships, by delimiting and
asserting control over a geographic area. . .Territories require constant effort to
establish and maintain. [lii]
This means that groups typically engage in a three-step process: (1) classification of the
space (mine/yours, sacred/profane, etc.), (2) communication of the classification (fences,
gates, walls), and (3) controlof the space. Within this model, let us examine fluid vs
fixed sacred space. On this point we turn to Mary Douglas and one of her best
interpreters, Bruce J. Malina. Of fixed sacred space, Malina write:
Just as persons have their statuses by ascription and perdure in that status
indefinitely, the same holds true for places. The topography of the main places
where people in this script live out their lives is rather permanent. A palace location,
a temple location, and a homestead stay in the same place and with the same lineage
through generations. [liii]
569

Thus fixed sacred space correlates with fixed roles and statuses. All of this is characterized
by redundant aspects of stability, permanence and continuity. The temple-city of Jerusalem
exemplifies this well.[liv] Of fluid sacred space, Malina writes:
This situation of porous boundaries and competing groups stands in great contrast to
the solid, hierarchical, pyramidal shape of strong group/high grid [fixed space]. . . as
groups form and re-form anew, permanence is no longer to be found outside the
group; and where the group is, there is stability. Sacred space is located in the
group, not in some impersonal space like a temple. The group is the central location
of importance . . ..Discourse within these groups, whether the words of a portable
Torah, the story of Jesus, or the exhortations of the philosopher-teacher, becomes
the mobile, portable, exportable focus of sacred place, in fact more important than
the fixed and eternal sacred places. [lv]
Malina bases his classification on considerations of space and time, at which we must look
more closely. The following chart should make explicit the contrasts on every level
between fixed and fluid sacred space.
FIXED: Temple
1. topological, actual space
2. place perduring over time
3. major mode of worship: sacrifice
4. focus on altar
5. hierarchical arrangement of persons
by birth

FLUID: Group
1. place where the group meets
2. space of opportunistic, occasional group
meetings
3. major mode of worship: verbal forms
4. focus on sacred writings
5. significant individuals whose competency is
based on spirit giftedness or closeness to the
groups hero

This model of fluid (vs fixed) sacred space alerts us to certain aspects of worship as they
may appear in John 14-17. First, significant attention is given to the group, not to any place;
second, the medium of the communication which is worship is certainly not sacrifice,
performed by a priest whose competency rests on birth into the appropriate clan or family,
570

but verbal worship as this is articulated by competent figures in the group. [lvi] In short, where
the group is, there is the place of worship.
In My Fathers House There Are Many Rooms (14:2). Beginnings are generally
significant rhetorical places to establish a topic, and we read John 14:2 in this manner, as a
topic statement. This verse contains two phrases: (1) in my Fathers house there are many
rooms ( [1] " [1] <) and (2) I am going to prepare a place (*@" ) for you. A recent
dissertation on these verses offers a critical, inventive interpretation of it. McCaffrey notes
that my Fathers house has been variously explained as heaven, the heavenly temple, the
messianic kingdom, even the universe. [lvii] Since the author of the Fourth Gospel declassifies
any mountain or earthly temple as sacred space for Gods dwelling, we look to Gods
realm as the place for worshiping God -- wherever that may be. McCaffrey, moreover,
gives special attention to the term in my Fathers house ( <p), which suggests intimate
kinship relationships, [lviii] such as Father and son, God and disciples, and perhaps other
Christians yet to be brought in -- many rooms. [lix] And when Jesus states that I go to
prepare a place for you, he goes not as an architect but as a broker of relationships which
will secure access to God through himself. Thus we are inclined to read 14:2 in terms of
personal relationships and not in terms of buildings or space.
Jesus next states that he goes away and comes back -- he goes to prepare a place
for you and then says that I will come back and will take you to myself. He states as his
purpose that where I am you also may be. After brokering his relationship with the
Father, he returns to solidify his relationship with Gods clients. He does not say that he
will take the disciples to the Fathers house, but rather facilitate his brokerage by
maintaining a favored relationship with the disciples. Thus, I would extend the sense of
relationshipto the place which Jesus prepares. As we will shortly argue, Jesus functions
as broker in a patron-client relationship which is first linked with his Father-Patron and then
with his disciples-clients. As tortured as it may sound, Jesus is in two places at once: in
heaven (in relationship with God, wherever God is) and on earth (in relationship with
571

disciples, wherever they gather). Balancing his remark that he has access to Gods presence,
he also takes the disciples to myself. Thus they too have access to Gods house, but only
in relation to Jesus. Poor Thomas, who does not know the way to the Fathers house! Jesus
tells him, I am the way. . . (14:6), that is, the exclusive relationship with God and the
unique broker of God: No one comes to the Father, but by me. Jesus, then, is both
relationship and access, but he is not place.
Later Jesus amplifies the meanings we argue for Fathers house and place: If a
man loves me, he will keep my word, and my father will love him, and we will come to him
and make our homewith him (14:23). Once more, the key to this geography is
relationship: (1) a disciple loving Jesus and keeping his word, (2) the Father loving this
disciple, and (3) the Father and Son coming to him and making a home with him. Again
Jesus functions as the key link, the broker or mediator between God and the clients. The
disciple-client, moreover, must maintain faithfulness with this mediator, which relationship
will be honored by the Father-Patron. Thus a link between disciple and Father is forged in
and through Jesus. The purpose or utility of this relationship comes from the benefaction
the Patron then shows the client, namely, we will make our home with him. Any disciple
may fit this description, and any earthly place is suitable for this relationship to occur. The
only exclusive thing which makes this place sacred is the fact that Father and Son are
located only in relationship with Jesus.
Later Jesus petitions God for a benefaction which relates to the Johannine statement
studied above, namely, that place = relationship: Father, I desire that they also, whom
you have given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which you have given
me in your love for me before the foundation of the world (17:24). The related figures
include Father, I, they whom you gave me, that is, the same persons described in
terms of patron-broker-client relationships above. The Patron has already established the
broker with his clients, but he is now petitioned by Jesus to bestow on the clients a unique
blessing, to behold my glory which you have given me in your love for me before the
572

foundation of the world. What can be with me where I am mean? Several times in John
17 Jesus recognizes the non-relatedness of the disciples to the world: While they are in
the world (17:11) and they are not of the world (17:14). Nevertheless, Jesus does not ask
that they be removed from the world: I do not pray that you should take them out of the
world, but that you should keep them from the evil one (17:15). Thus that they be with
me where I am is no heavenly ascent nor a spatial relocation. Rather, the directional and
spatial patterns we observe suggest that such language is best understood in terms of
relationships. The relationship of Jesus with the Father contains elements of obedience,
love, and generosity. In John 17, we are told thirteen times that the Father gave Jesus
something, such as power over all flesh (17:2), those you gave me (17:6, 9, 24),
everything (17:7), the words you gave me (17:8, 14), the name (17:11-12), and
glory (17:22, 24). And Jesus numerous petitions suggest that God will continue giving,
but giving in Jesus name. Similarly, relationship of Jesus-broker and disciples-clients itself
contains strains of loyalty, generosity and faithfulness. For example, Jesus, gifted with the
name of God, reveals it to his disciples (17:6, 11, 12, 26); he has given them Gods
word (17:14, 17, ) and glory (17:22, 24). It is not enough that God play patron to his
disciples via a broker; the fullest benefaction will occur when the broker takes the
disciples close to Patron a relationship, not a geographical or fixed sacred place.
Brokerage given in the past will continue in the future all because the relationships of
Patron, broker and clients are faithfully maintained.
Thus we return to the phrase to behold my glory which you have given me in your
love for me before the foundation of the world. The place of Jesus pre-creation glory
must be in the presence of God, even the bosom of God (1:18; 17:5). To repeat, Jesus
petition in 17:24 does not require that the disciples be taken to a new place or be
transported heavenward. His prayer may be accomplished by some sort of christophany in
which the disciples behold my glory. That is, they who are still in the world will see into
heaven, just as Nathanael and others were promised a vision (in 1:50-51), if not of heaven
573

itself then certainly of heavenly persons. [lx] In summary, Jesus declaration in 14:2 that
there are many rooms in the Fathers house and its repetition in 14:23 are best understood
as description of relationships, not places such as were de-classified in 4:21. No specific
earthly place in the world is envisioned, but rather a relationship between Father, Jesus and
the disciples, which we describe as a Patron-Broker-client relationship.
Being In and Dwelling In. We find in chapters 14 and 15 a number of remarks
by Jesus describing his relationship with both the Father and disciples, which are seemingly
expressed in spatial terms. He expresses his relationship with the Father in two ways: (1) I
am in the Father and the Father is in me (14:10, 11, 20), and the Father dwells in me
(14:10b). Similarly, Jesus relationship with the disciples parallels that between him and
God: I in my Father and you in me and I in you (14:20). Although one might initially
think that in is a spatial term (in my Fathers house there are many rooms), as we have
noted, neither do the disciples travel to another place nor does being in necessarily imply
spatial location.
Similarly with dwell in. In terms of Jesus relationship with God, we are told that
the Father dwells in me (14:10b). The same verb is used 10 times in 15:4-10 to express
the relationship of Jesus with the disciples. On the one hand, the disciple must dwell in or
remain in or sustain loyalty to Jesus: the branch cannot bear fruit unless it dwells in the
vine (15:4). Conversely, if a branch dwells in the vine, the vine curiously will dwell in
the branch: dwell in me and I in you (15:4, 5b). An alternate way of expressing this in
15:7 indicates the basis for this type of dwelling: If you dwell in me and my words
dwell in you. . . The words of Jesus dwelling point to a relationship of loyalty and
faithfulness. Finally, the Spirit will dwell in you and be in you 14:17. When we ask
what type of relationships are envisioned, several types seem suitable here: (1) kinship
relationships (father, son, household) and (2) patron-broker- client relationships.
Juxtaposed to the exhortation to dwell in Jesus and to love, we are told about
hate. Those outside the relationships described above hate the disciples (15:18-25),
574

which results in physical expulsion from the synagogue (16:1-2). There will be no
dwelling there, for it would mean acceptance the their criticism of Jesus. Moreover, Jesus
explains why he tells them this prediction, to keep you from falling away. This prophecy,
then, is intended to cement their relationship with Jesus, that is, dwell in him even as he
is in them. In discourse on hate, scandal, and scattering, the exhortation to dwell,
while metaphorically on the level of physical separation and distancing, expresses a close
relationship of the highest sort. Thus being in and dwelling in correspond to love and
faithfulness, but scandal and scattering and hate are the converse. Loyal and
faithful relationships, we argue, best explain these erstwhile spatial terms.
Patron-Broker-Client Relations.
Patrons and Clients Worship inevitably brings together persons of varying roles
and statuses. What people? What roles? Let us look through the lenses of patron-client
relationships.

Patron-client

relations

have

long

enjoyed

the

attention

of

classicists. [lxi] Frederick Dankers book Benefactor brought to the attention of New
Testament scholars the tradition of honoring benefactors, a form of patron-client relations
characteristic of the eastern Mediterranean. [lxii] And Bruce Malina pioneered the formal use
of

the

anthropology

of

patron-client

relations

to

interpret

early

Christian

literature. [lxiii] Malinas model [lxiv] of patron-client relations describes those that arise
between peoples of unequal status and resources: landlord/ vassal, aristocrat/peasant,
king/subject, father/son, and God/Israel. [lxv] Thus patron-client relationships describe the
vertical dimension of exchange between higher-status and lower-status persons.
Excursus: Basic Features of Patron-Client Relations
The basic features include: 1. Patron-client relations are particularistic, thus
characterized by favoritism. 2. They involve the exchange of a whole range of
goods and services, power, influence, inducement and commitment. 3. The
exchange entails a package deal, so that the elements of patronage cannot be
given separately (i.e., concretely useful goods must go along with loyalty). 4.
Solidarity here entails a strong element of un-conditionality and long-range
social credit. 5. Hence, patron-client relations involve a strong element of
575

personal obligation. 6. These relations are not fully legal or contractual, but
still very strongly binding. 7. In principle, patron-client relations entered into
voluntarily can be abandoned voluntarily, although always proclaimed to be
life-long, long-range, forever, etc. 8. Patron-client relations are vertical and
dyadic (between individuals or networks of individuals) and, thus, they
undermine the horizontal group organization and solidarity of clients and
other patrons. 9. They are based on strong inequality and differences between
patrons and clients. Patrons monopolize certain positions of crucial
importance to clients, especially access to means of production, major
markets, and centers of society. [lxvi]
As noted above, because the topic of patron-client relations is now part of New Testament
scholarship, [lxvii] and so does not need to be rehearsed here. We should, however, widen the
model to accommodate another person in the patron-client relationship, namely, the
broker. [lxviii] In social or commercial terms, a broker places people in touch with each other,
such as a real estate broker, a stock broker, or a marriage broker. [lxix] A broker must be
suitably placed to be accessible both to clients seeking aid and patrons who might
provide assistance. Thus a broker is a bridge (i.e., pontifex) or link or mediator between
patrons and clients.
Broker in Patron-Client Relations Writing on the term mediator, Albert Oepke
identified the following social roles in the ancient world which exemplify the role of broker
or mediator. A mediator is a person who (1) is neutral to two parties and negotiates peace
or guarantees agreements, (2) arranges business deals, (3) receives as king divine laws and
offers sacrifice for the people, (4) offers as priest prayers and sacrifice to God on behalf of
individuals and the people, (5) brings as prophet a teaching or mighty work from God, (6)
founds a new cult or religion, and (7) delivers an angel communication from God. [lxx]

576

Oepke notes that when the New Testament calls Jesus a broker, it shades the term
into many meanings: he is the unique mediator (&<*() between the one God and
humankind (1 Tim 2:5), the mediator of the new covenant (Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24) and a
priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:6; 6:20; 7:17). In contrast to
Levitical priesthood, Jesus priesthood/brokerage is vastly superior because Jesus is able
for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make
intercession for them (Heb 7:25).
We are hardly the first to read John 17 in terms of mediation. Already back in
patristic times, the prayer which comprises John 17 was labeled the high priestly prayer,
a tag still affixed to it. Our interpretation accepts the perception of Jesus role as a mediator
figure, not simply in ch 17, but in the whole of the Farewell Address. Building on past
studies of John 14-17, we wish to use the social science model of patron, broker, and client
to interpret the role of Jesus as broker as an essential part of understanding worship in the
Fourth Gospel. [lxxi]
How does a broker or mediator function in a system of patron-client relations? One
anthropologist identifies four elements of a brokers functioning: (1) capital, he has to have
something to broker; (2) tariff, remuneration for his services; (3) debt, the promises he
makes, and (4) interest, his calculation of when and how his tariff will be paid. [lxxii] Inasmuch
as he brokers goods and services, what is exchanged in a patron-broker-client relationship?
Clients typically seek protection and access to scarce resources, which are called first-order
resources. [lxxiii] A broker most frequently has second-order goods, namely, access to patrons
and skill in connecting the right client with the right patron. In the rough and tumble of
village or urban life in antiquity, there might be many clients working through many
brokers to gain access to many patrons. [lxxiv] But in the Fourth Gospel, there is only one
patron (God) and one clientage (Israel), but competing brokers (Jesus vs Moses, Abraham,
Temple, synagogue). [lxxv]

577

Jesus as Broker in John 14-17

Let us situate Jesus first in relationship to the

Patron-Father and then to the clients-disciples. It is generally agreed that a successful

broker must be part of the two worlds which he joins. The author expresses Jesus relation
to the heavenly world in many ways. For example, Jesus was sent by God (17:3, 21), which
social- science interpreters call his ascribed authority or honor. Moreover, in 17:5 and 24
Jesus speaks of glory which he had from his Patron before the world was made, which
clearly describes Jesus as belonging to the heavenly world or totally dedicated to the affairs
of the Father. [lxxvi] Thus Jesus relationship to the Patron is ancient, intimate, and enduring. In
John 17, moreover, Jesus repeatedly tells us how loyally he has served the interests of his
Patron:
17:4
17:6
17:8
17:12

I glorified You on earth, having accomplished what you gave me to do

I manifested your name to whom you gave me
I have given them the words which you gave me
While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you gave me

17:14 I have given them Your word.

He accomplished what God gave him to do, which specifically means manifesting the
Patrons name (also in 17:11, 12) and delivering the Patrons words. In addition, Jesus
brokered the following for his earthly clients: (1) power (17:2), (2) protection (17:12), and
(3) glory (17:22). Thus Jesus belongs to the Patrons world, shares in the riches of that
world, and loyally serves the interests of his Patron.
Jesus the broker also belongs to the clients world and serves their interests as well.
For example, Jesus confesses to the Patron the many ways in which he has brokered the
safety of the clients:
17:12 I kept them in your name, none is lost but. . .
17:13 These things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in
them
17:15 I do not say take them out of the world, but keep them from the evil one
17:19 For their sake I consecrate myself, that they may be consecrated in truth
He not only protected them, but seeks their continued safety. Moreover, he envisions a
future brokerage which includes: (1) keeping them from the evil one (17:15), and (2) being
578

with Jesus where he is in glory (17:24). In an expression of limitless brokering, Jesus

repeatedly declares that his clients are assured of his brokerage when they ask in my
name:
14:13
14:14
15:16
16:24
16:26

Whatsoever you ask for in my name, I will do it

If you ask anything in my name, I will do it
So that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he will give it to you
Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name; ask, and you will receive
In that day you will ask in my name; and I do not say to you that I shall pray
the
Father for you; for the Father himself loves you.

Jesus is the unique broker, for no one comes to the Father, but by me (14:6).
Summary, Conclusions, Further Questions
Summary. This study began by providing a current descriptive inventory of
worship. In addition to which we developed a social science model of worship based on
communication theory which adequately explains how both prayer and other types of
worship (prophecy, homily, etc.) all belong together as diverse aspects of worship. The
communications model identifies and interprets the two directions of communication: (1)
worshipers sending a message to the deity for a specific purpose and (2) the deity sending a
message to the worshipers for a various purposes via various persons in the group. The
model identifies both the medium of the communication and the channel along which it is
sent, as well as a wide variety of purposes for the communication.
In regard to prayer, the communication model provided a rich typology of prayer,
which advances our understanding of the various effects that prayer seeks to have on the
deity. While we are all familiar with the purpose of petitionary prayer, we found the
typology of prayer particularly helpful in identifying petitionary and self-reflective prayers
in John 14-17. Moreover, the communication model allowed for a nuanced reading and
understanding of other forms of worship, which in the model describe the communication
of the deity with worshipers. We identified the following such types of communication in

579

John 14-17, namely, prophecy (oracles of assurance and of judgment), homily and study of
the words of Jesus.
In examining the issue of where the Johannine group worshiped, we were greatly
aided by the use of a model of fixed versus fluid sacred space. Fluid sacred space, unlike
fixed spaces as found in temples, does not embody the system of temple personnel such as
we find in Jerusalems temple. [lxxvii] But we can go further than the standard rejections of
Mts. Gerizim and Zion and their facile replacements of spirit and truth. The model of
fluid sacred space urges us to examine how both the person of Jesus and the persons of the
group become the sacred space. Jesus does not take his disciples out of the world, even
though he has prepared a place (i.e., relationship) for them. The key element in
understanding the where of worship for the Johannine group lies in appreciating how the
Risen Jesus continues to offer christophanies to the group, especially in the revealing the
sacred name I AM to them. In short, God draws near to the group through Jesus and the
disciples are drawn near to God through Jesus, especially as the figure who bridges the
heavenly and earthly worlds. Thus we look to relationships as the where of worship.
We addressed the issue of the roles which constitute the relationship just described.
The model of patron/broker/client, known both from ancient authors and modern
anthropologists, seems particularly applicable to worship as we find it described in John 1417. Broker, both the choice of New Testament writers and our best understanding of Jesus
role vis--vis God and his disciples, provides an adequate interpretation of the
communication in John 14-17: the clients petitions to the heavenly Patron are all made in
my name, just as the Patrons words and commands all come through Jesus to the
disciples. Whether we label him broker, mediator or priest, we have both a social
and functional understanding of Jesus role in the verbal worship of the Johannine group.
Finally, scholars agree on the prayer aspect of the section of the Fourth Gospel
labeled as a Farewell Address. But it also contains materials which have never been
considered as elements of worship which have remained in the shadows for want of an
580

adequate model to identify them. When one adds to discussions of worship both a
communications model as well as notions of fluid vs sacred space, then we find that a
surprising amount of material in John 14-17 can then be seen to be part of a large discourse
on worship in the Fourth Gospel. A familiar text is thus freshly interpreted precisely
because new models of reading and interpretation suggest new data.

581

Further Questions. Because we have focused on John 14-17, our investigation of

worship is not complete in two ways. First, how are we to interpret pilgrimage feasts to
Jerusalem? How do we understand baptism (3:22-26) and eating the bread of life (6:3256)? As Aune earlier stated, worship consists of various types of rituals. . . Christians
gathered to eat together, to baptize new members, to experience healing. [lxxviii] The very
presence of the foot washing in 13:12-17 suggests a ceremonial welcome of group
members by its officials. This is the raw material of a study of group worship? The details
of a purificatory ritual described in 20:23 are absent, although Jesus authorizes those on
whom he breathed to forgive and retain sins. What, then, still needs to identified and
interpreted? The inquiry is just beginning. Second, the more forms of worship that are
identified, the more need we have of a consideration of roles and statuses within the group.
How might the patron-broker-client model assist us in interpreting the roles of elite
members of the group, if this is possible? Third, if we have focused only on John 14-17,
then are there other data in the gospel about various forms worship and various aspects of it
(time, place, ritual). We claimed to find most of the elements of worship described by those
who make surveys of what constitutes early Christian worship. What, however, have
we notfound in John 14-17? Finally, the worship models exposed here can only benefit
from their application to other worship materials in the New Testament. N O T E S

Christian Worship [London: SCM Press, 1953]) describes basic

characteristics of the early Christian worship service in the quarter of his book, and then
with a sacramental focus treats the various episodes in the Fourth Gospel which have to do
with water/baptism, bread/Eucharist, sabbath, and temple. On occasion, one finds a
treatment of worship in the Fourth Gospel as part of a larger work, for example, David E.
Aune, The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity (Leiden, Brill,
1972) 45-135.
[ii]
James McCaffrey, The House with Many Rooms. The Temple Theme of Jn. 14,2-3 (Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1988) 21.
[iii]
For example, Herman Ridderbos, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1997) 163.
[iv]
The sources consulted are: Cullmann, Early Christian Worship; C. C. Richardson, Worship in
New Testament Times, Christian, IDB 4.883-94; Gerhard Delling, Worship in the
NT (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1962); Ralph P. Martin, Worship in the Early
Church (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1964); Ferdinand Hahn, The Worship of the
Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973); David E. Aune, Worship, Early
Christian, ABD 6.973-989.
[i]

Oscar Cullmann (Early

[v]

Early Christianity differed from worship in the Greco-Roman world, in that it had no temples, no cult
statues and no regular sacrifices. Thus Aune stated: Christian worship had a primarily verbal character, and
in this respect it was similar to synagogue Judaism (Worship, Early Christian, 973).
[vi]
Aune, Worship, Early Church, ABD 6.973.
[vii]
See Ralph P. Martin, Worship in the Early Church (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott,

1964) 18-27.
Fernando Segovia (The Farewell of the Word [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991] 5) provides the
most complete and exhaustive treatment of this material both in his text and in note # 2.
[viii]

582

Malina, What is Prayer? 21-18 and Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Scientific Commentary on the
Gospel of John (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998) 246-47.
[x]
See Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, esp. 244-48.
[ix]

[xi]

It is a commonplace among commentators to divide John 17 into three sections: vv 1-8 = Jesus prayer for
himself; vv 9-19 = Jesus prayer for his disciples; and vv 20-26 = Jesus prayer for those whom his disciples
will recruit. See Brown,The Gospel According to John, 748-51; and with minor variations, see

Talbert, Reading John, 224-31. As accurate as this literary division may be, it obscures the
different types of prayers which occur throughout 17:1-26. Hence a different kind of model
is needed which can do just this.
[xii]

Readers are reminded of the full treatment of self-focused prayer in the first chapter.
It has long been a staple of commentaries on John 17 to compare and contrast it with the Our Father
found in the synoptics. See William O. Walker, The Lords Prayer in Matthew and
John, NTS (1982)237-56.)
[xiv]
Although he seems to consider prayer only as petitionary speech, Ernst Ksemann ( The Testament
[xiii]

of Jesus: A Study of John in the Light of Chapter 17 [London: SCM Press, 1968] 5)
commented on the variety of Jesus speech in John 17, Yet he writes: This is not a
supplication, but a proclamation directed to the Father in such manner that his disciples can
hear it also. The speaker is not a needy petitioner but the divine revealer and therefore the
prayer moves over into being an address, admonition, consolation and prophecy.
[xv]
Raymond Brown (The Gospel According to John, 747) said: If Jesus is a high priest here,
it is not primarily in the sense of one about to offer sacrifice, but more along the lines of the
high priest described in Hebrews and in Rom viii 34 one who stands before the throne of
God making intercession for us.
[xvi]
Other samples of this include Rhetorica ad Herrenium: (justice is shown) if we contend that
alliances and friendships should scrupulously be honored; if we make it clear that the duty
imposed by nature towards parents, gods, and fatherland must be religiously observed; if
we maintain that ties of hospitality, clientage, kinship, and relationship by marriage must
inviolably be cherishes; if we show that neither reward nor favour nor peril nor animosity
ought to lead us astray from the right path; if we say that in all cases a principle of dealing
alike with all should be established" (3.3.4). Similarly, Menander Rhetor: "The parts of
justice are piety, fair dealing and reverence: piety toward the gods, fair dealing towards
men, reverence toward the departed. Piety to the gods consists of two elements: being godloved and god-loving. The former means being loved by the gods and receiving many
blessings from them, the latter consists of loving the gods and having a relationship of
friendship with them" (I.361.17-25).

583

[xvii]

It
should
be
noted
that
God
is
addressed
as
Just
Father
("6*$
<[xvii], 17:25), indicating that God too has duties toward Jesus and his disciples.
[xviii]
See Robert Picirelli, The Meaning of Epignosis, EvQ 47 (1975) 85-93; see also Jerome H.

Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 149. See Titus 1:16, where know is
juxtaposed with deny, Rom 1:20-21, where knowing does not lead to acknowledging,
and James 2:19, where knowing that God is one does not lead the demons to honor God.
[xix]

In John 5:23-24, Jesus declared that God had given all judgment to the Son so that all may honor the Son
even as they honor the Father. Who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

584

Representative of these is Cullmann ( Early Christian Worship, 22), who asserts We may
assume with certainty that Confessional formulae were recited in the early Christian service
of worship. The verbs and - &[xx](Rom 10,9; Phil 2,11, etc.) connect above all
with the confession that Christ is the Lord, in the same way as the early liturgical
prayer Maranatha is concerned with his second coming. See also Ralph Martin, Worship in
the Early Church, 52-65; Gerhard Delling, Worship in the New Testament, 77-91; and
David Aune, Worship, Early Christian, 981 and Otto Michel, 84, TDNT 5.199-213.
[xxi]
Peder Borgen, "God's Agent in the Fourth Gospel," Religions in Antiquity (Jacob Neusner, ed;
Leiden:
Brill,
1968)
137-48
and
George
W.
Buchanan,
Apostolic
Christology, SBLSP 1986 172-82.
[xx]

[xxii]

John 9:22 and 12:42 tell us that those who makes the confession found in 17:3 will be expelled from the
synagogue. Confessional prayers are sometime (a) thanksgivings or doxologies, such as Matt 11:25//Luke
10:21; 1 Tim 1:16 and 6:12-16, (b) protestations of loyalty, such as Matt 10:32//Luke 12:8, or (c) the honorific
acknowledgment of Jesuss new role and status (Rom 10:9-10; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:11).
[xxiii]
M. Eugene Boring, The Continuing Voice of Jesus (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John

Knox, 1991) 38.

David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean
World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983) 320-25.
[xxiv]

[xxv]

Along with announcing a traitor, Jesus states the purpose of this communication: I tell you this now,
before it takes place, that when it takes place, you may believer that I am he (13:19). The prediction of
Peters future death (21:18-19), which is given by the Risen Jesus, likewise functions as a prophecy given to
offset the shock of future suffering.
[xxvi]
For a fuller exposition of the pattern along with other data on esoteric information in the Fourth Gospel,
see Jerome H. Neyrey, The Sociology of Secrecy and the Fourth Gospel (Fernando Segovia,

ed., What is John? Volume II. Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998) 98-101, 107-08.
[xxvii]

The classic example of later reception of the esoteric meaning of earlier speech of Jesus is found 2:19,
21-22. Only when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they
believed the scripture and the word Jesus had spoken. This insight must be mediated by someone in the
group, namely, the prophet.
[xxviii]
Everett Ferguson, Early Christians Speak (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Company,

1971) 86-87; Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, 12-14, 28-29; Delling, Worship in the
New Testament, 92-103; Martin, Worship in the Early Church, 66-76; Richardson,
Worship in the New Testament, 887-89; Aune, Worship, Early Christian, 983.
[xxix]
[xxx]

Joseph Heinemann, The Proem in the Aggadic Midrashim, 100-22.

J. W. Bowker, Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yelammedenu Form,

NTS 14 (1967) 96-

111.
[xxxi]

Yet important advances have been made by Lawrence Wills, The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic
Judaism and Early Christianity, HTR 77 (1984) 277-99 and C. Clifton Black, The Rhetorical

Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence
Wills, HTR 81 (1988) 1-18.
[xxxii]

Black. The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon, 5.
Other unless demands include: 3:3, 5; 6:53; 8:24; 12:24; 13:8. See Jerome H. Neyrey, An

Ideology
of Revolt. Johns Christology in Social-Science Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1988) 143-44, 155-56).
[xxxiii]

[xxxiv]

Black. The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon, 5.

585

[xxxv]

Harold W. Attridge, Paraenesis in a Homily (@( "[xxxv]$[xxxv]:&4(): The Possibile Location of, and
Socialization in, the Epistle to the Hebrews, Semeia 50 (2004) 211-26.
[xxxvi]
S. K. Tefft, Secrecy as a Social and Political Process. P. 320 in S. K. Tefft, ed., Secrecy: A Cross-

Cultural Perspective (New York: Human Sciences Press, 1980).

[xxxvii]

Elizabeth Brandt, On Secrecy and the Control of Knowledge: Taos Pueblo. Pp. 125-34 in S. K. Tefft,
ed., Secrecy: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (New York: Human Sciences Press, 1980).
[xxxviii]
David E. Aune, The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early

Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 1972) 121; this is continuously argued in 45-135.

[xxxix]
Aune, The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity, 126.
[xl]
Ernst Ksemann, Sentences of Holy Law in the New Testament, New Testament Questions of
Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979) 66-81. His location of this material in worship
contexts is based on Hans Lietzmann, Mass and the Lords Supper. A Study in the history of
the Liturgy (Leiden, E. J. Brill 1979) 186 and Gunther Bornkamm, Das Anathema in der
urchristlichen Abendmahlsliturgie, TLZ 75 (1950) 227-30.
[xli]
Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, 320-25.
[xlii]
[xliii]

[xliv]

In addition, see the curse anathema 1 Cor 16:22; Gal 1:8-9; Rom 9:3.
Frequently in his defense Jesus, the accused, became the accuser; and his judges were judged::
I know that you do not have the love of God within you (5:42, see 5:43-47)
Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment (7:24)
You judge according to the flesh (8:15, see 16-18)
You know neither me nor my father (8:19)
You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world,
I am not of this world (8:3)
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your fathers desires (8:44)
The reason you do not hear them [the words of God] is that you are not of God (8:47)
See Tricia Gates Brown, Spirit in the Johannine Writings: Johannine Pneumatology

in

Social-Science Perspective (T & T Clark International: New York, 2003) 221-27.

[xlv]

On this reading of John 16:8-11, see D. A. Carson, The Function of the Paraclete in John 16:711, JBL 98 (1979) 547-66. See also Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to

John 705.
[xlvi]
As always, the premier sin is they do not believe in me, (3:19;
8:21, 24; 9:41; 15:22). This means that some never had any belief and
were always hostile; others were liars who faked belief to escape
censure (8:30), but were exposed as liars and murderers.
[xlvii]
When Jesus qualifies righteousness by saying that he is going to
the Father, this expresses the right relationship to God: acting as Gods
agent, fulfilling Gods command to speak Gods word and the command
to lay down his life. As one who has always done his duty to God, he is
welcome in Gods presence. But many see their duty to God as putting
Jesus to death and exterminating his disciples (16:1-2). Thus, their
relationship with God is tragically wrong; their true duties are left
unfulfilled; they dishonor God with wrongdoing.
[xlviii]
. On the principle that as you judge, so you are judged (Matt 7:2),
the enemies of the group share the judgment of the ruler of this world.
And those who judge unjustly will be judged by the same judgment
(7:24; 8:15; 9:16 and 24). Instead of judging Jesus justly as Gods agent,
they judged him according to appearances (7:24) and as having a
586

demon (8:48; 10:20). But Jesus has already judged this ruler: now shall
the ruler of this world be cast out (12:31).
[xlix]

See Tod D. Swanson, To Prepare a Place. Johannine Christianity and the Collapse ;of Ethnic
Territory, JAAR 62 (1994) 248-51.
[l]
Although the disciples remain in the world, Jesus repeatedly tells them that they do not belong to this
world and that they are not of this world (17:9, 14, 15, 16).
[li]
Strabo attest to a long tradition that Delphi, its most sacred shrine, was the center and the navel of the
earth: For it (temple at Delphi) is almost in the center of Greece taken as a whole. . .it was also believed to
be in the center of the inhabited world, and people called it the navel of the

earth (Strabo, Geography 9.3.6); see also Plato, Republic 427b-c; Pausanias, Descriptions
of Greece 16.2.3; see also Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey,Portraits of Paul: An
Archaeology of Ancient Personality (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 120-22.
Judean authors applied the navel of the world label to Jerusalem: Just as the navel is
found at the center of a human being, so the land of Israel is found at the center of the
world. . .and it is the foundation of the world. Jerusalem is at the center of the land of Israel,
the Temple is at the center of Jerusalem, the Holy of Holies is at the center of the Temple,
the Ark is at the center of the Holy of Holies and the Foundation Stone is in front of the
Ark, which spot is the foundation of the world (Tanhuma, Kedoshim 10).
[lii]
Robert D. Sack, Human Territoriality. Its Theory and History (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1986) 19. Other important definitions have been given by Godelier
(Casimir p. 19), Michael J. Casimir, Mobility and Territoriality: Social and Spatial
Boundaries among Foragers, Fishers, Pastoralists, and Peripatetics (Oxford: Oxford
University Press 1992) 19 ; and Ralph B. Taylor, Human Territorial Functioning: An
Empirical Evolutionary Perspective on Individual and Small Group Territorial Cognitions,
Behaviors and Consequences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 6).
[liii]
Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 31.
[liv]
Malinas description of a leading city such as Jerusalem is similar to Jonathan Z. Smiths ( Map Is Not
Territory [Leiden: Brill, 1978] 132-33, 160-61 and 293) attention to archaic urban
cultures. As noted, the latter constantly appeals to the Pan-Babylonian School at the end of
the nineteenth century, whose focus was the archaic, agricultural city-empire; see
[lv]
Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 38.
[lvi]

Because birth by blood or water avails nothing and because the flesh is of no avail, the Fourth Gospel sees
no value in any form of hereditary roles or statuses.
[lvii]
McCaffrey, The House with Many Rooms, 49-64.
[lviii]
McCaffrey, The House with Many Rooms, 29-32. See also Sjef van Tilborg, Imaginative

Love in John (Leiden: Brill 1993).

See John 17:20-22; also Tod D. Swanson, To Prepare a Place, 244-45, 248-51, 257-60.
One thinks of Stephens vision of the heavens opened and his sight Jesus at the throne of God (Acts 7:5556). Moreover, Jesus remark to Philip should not be forgotten: who sees me sees the Father (14:9).
[lxi]
For example, Richard P. Saller, Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire (Cambridge:
[lix]
[lx]

Cambridge University Press, 1982); and Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, ed., Patronage in Ancient
Society (London: Routledge, 1989).
[lxii]
Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor. Epigraphical Study of a Graeco-Roman and New
Testament Semantic Field, mentioned above in note 43. 1982.
[lxiii]

The initial study is Bruce J. Malina, Patron and Client: The Analogy Behind Synoptic
Theology, Forum 4,1 (1988) 2-32; this article was made more widely available in

Malinas The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels (London: Routledge, 1996) 143-75.
587

See also Halvor Moxnes, Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in LukeActs, The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation (Jerome H. Neyrey, ed.;
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 241-68.
[lxiv]

The important anthropological literature includes Steffen Schmidt, James Scott, Carl Land, and Laura
Guasti, Friends, Followers and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientalism (Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press, 1977); Jeremy Boissevain, Friends of Friends: Networks,

Manipulators and Coalitions (New York: St. Martins Press, 1974);and Shlomo Eisenstadt
and Louis Roniger, Patrons, Clients, and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure
of Trust in Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).
[lxv]

The description of patron-client relationships by A. Blok is particularly helpful: Patronage is a model or

analytic construct which the social scientist applies in order to understand and explain a range of apparent
different social relationships: father-son, God-man, saint-devotee, godfather-godchild, lord-vassal, landlordtenant, politician-voter, professor-assistant, and so forth (Variations in Patronage, Sociologische

Gids 16 [1969] 366).

[lxvi]

See Malina, Patron and Client, 3-4.

See Stephen Charles Mott, The Power of Giving and Receiving: Reciprocity in Hellenistic
Benevolence, Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (Gerald Hawthorne, ed.;
[lxvii]

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975) 60-72; Bruce J. Malina, The Social World Implied in
the Letters of the Christian Bishop-Martyr (Named Ignatius of Antioch), SBLSP 1978
2.71-119; Holland Hendrix, Benefactor/Patron Networks in the Urban Environment
Evidence from Thessalonika, Semeia 56 (1992) 39-58; and Seth Schwartz, Josephus in
Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown, Josephus and the History of the GrecoRoman Periods (F. Parente and J. Siever, eds.; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 290-306.
[lxviii]

To my knowledge, Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh were the first to introduce the role of
broker to the study of Fourth Gospel (Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 117-

119).
[lxix]

This discussion of broker borrows heavily from Malina, Patron and Client, 11-18.

588

A. Oepke, &*(, TDNT 4. 598-624.

Jesus brokerage in the Fourth Gospel is best understood in terms of his being sent by God; see Malina
and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 118; Peder Borgen,
[lxx]

[lxxi]

Gods Agent in the Fourth Gospel, Religions in Antiquity (Jacob Neusner, ed.; Leiden:
Brill 1968) 137-48; George W. Buchanan, Apostolic Christology, SBLSP
[lxxii]
Jeremy Boissevain, Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and Coalitions (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1974) 158-62.
[lxxiii]

The petition in the Our Father, deliver us from the Evil One, seeks protection or Gods power; requests
to Jesus for healing are similar, especially if spirit aggression is the dominant cause of sickness. Nicolas of
Myra is reputed to have provided dowries for a mans three daughters, in this scheme, wealth. Job might be
said to beg of God knowledge, a different resource. Thus, using the model of exchange found in Turner and
then in Malina, a patron has first order goods: power, commitment, inducement, and influence.
[lxxiv]
As all know, non-Israelite persons in antiquity might become clients of many deities; there was no sense
of monotheism to preclude a multiplicity of patron-client relations.

589

[lxxv]

Oepke (&*(, 618-20); Ronald A. Piper, Glory, Honor and Patronage in the Fourth Gospel:
Understanding the Doxa Given to the Disciples in John 17, Social Scientific Models for

Interpreting the Bible. Essays by the Context Group in Honor of Bruce J. Malina (John J.
Pilch, ed.; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 295-97. In this regard, one thinks of rival rabbinic teachers,
such as Shammai and Hillel.
[lxxvi]

In the vein, one might include claims such as 1:18. Expressions such as no one . . .but the Son serve to
articulate Jesus relationship to God and the heavenly world: see 3:2, 13; 6:44; and 14:6.
[lxxvii]
See Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press,

1969) 21-27, 127-221 and K. C. Hanson and Douglas E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of
Jesus (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998) 131-60.
[lxxviii]
See Aune, Worship, Early Church, ABD 6.973.

"The 'Noble' Shepherd in John 10:

Cultural and Rhetorical Background"
Jerome H. Neyrey
@ Sept 30, 1999
(not to be cited or quoted
without author's explicit permission)

1.0 Introduction, State of the Question and Thesis(1)

Interpretation of the death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel has proved fragmentary
and elusive. Some interpreters contrast it with that of Paul, (2) while others focus
on different motifs, such as glorification, (3)sacrificial references, (4) ascent and
lifting up,(5) or cosmic war.(6) This article adds still another study of a select
cultural motif, namely, the death of the "noble" shepherd in 10:11-18.
Some translate the adjective in 10:11 and 14 which describes the shepherd as
"noble,"(7) "ideal,"(8) "model,"(9) "true"(10) or "good."(11) The Greek adjective is , not
; and these two words refer to quite different semantic domains, (12) although they
were linked together in certain circumstances. (13) The opposite of is shame (),
while the opposite of is evil (). is best understood in terms of the cultural value of
honor and shame, which is not the same as the moral sphere of good and evil.
The evangelist, moreover, labels the shepherd "noble" for two reasons, because
590

(1) he lays down his life for the sheep (14) and (2) he knows his sheep (10:14).
Commentators add one more reason from 10:17-18 which refers to the
"voluntary" character of the death of the shepherd, (15) a traditional criterion of a
"noble" death.
These exegetical insights, however, remain scattered and incomplete, and so
invite a fuller consideration from several perspectives. We suggest that rightly
belongs to the cultural world of honor and shame; it qualifies behavior generally
recognized as noble or excellent, and so worthy of public praise. We propose to
examine Greek rhetorical literature on "noble death" to discover the rich complex
of terminology, reasons and motifs whereby the ancients labeled a death as
"noble." Our hypothesis is that the labeling of the shepherd as "noble" reflects the
rhetoric topos of "noble death" in the Hellenistic world. As a result, we shall
come to see that 10:11-18 is not a sequence of miscellaneous remarks, but is
structured like the topos on noble death found in Greek rhetoric.
2.0 An Honorable Death.
The argument that the shepherd dies a "noble death" begins with an analysis of
Greek rhetoric on the topic. This consists of (1) anecdotal mention of "noble
death" to establish that the concept truly existed in the culture of ancient Greece,
(2) Athenian funeral orations celebrating the "noble death" of the city's fallen
soldiers, (3) the criteria for praise in epideictic rhetoric, and (4) the rules for an
encomium in the progymnasmata which instruct how to draw praise from death.
(16)

2.1 Anecdotal Mention. Although the ancients praised success and victory above
all, the hard experiences of a military society required that suitable honor be paid
to those who died in battle for their city. Extant Athenian funeral orations provide
ample data about the expression "noble death." (17) It may be considered "easy,"
"good," "noble" or "famous"; a life might "end well." 1. An Easy or Good Death
().Anecdotes about the deaths of public figures mention that so-and-so died a
"good death" ()."(18) 2. Noble or Famous Death ( , , ). More commonly ancient
authors qualified the verb "to die" with an adverb such as "nobly" or "honorably,"
often indicating why they judged a particular death "noble." For example,
Isocrates urges soldiers faced with battle to act nobly, even if this means death:
"Strive by all means to live in security, but if ever it falls to your lot to face the
dangers of battle, seek to preserve your life, but with honour and not with
disgrace; for death is the sentence of all mankind, but to die nobly ( ) is the
special honour which nature has reserved for the good" (ad Dem. 43).(19) His
perspective is that of a military society (20) in which courage to fight and die brings
honor; in contrast, other actions are shameful, such as cowardly flight. The battle,
591

moreover, was fought in defense of Athens, and so benefitted the city's

inhabitants. At stake, then, are the issues of honor (and shame), which are being
publicly reinforced by this funeral oration. (21) Isocrates once more provides an
example of the third term being examined. "For we shall find that men of
ambition () and greatness of soul () not only are desirous of praise for such
things, but prefer a glorious death ( ) to life, zealously seeking glory rather than
existence" (Evag. 3). This sparkles with terms celebrated in the rhetoric of praise
and blame: those who "die nobly" are "lovers of honor" () and "great souled"
(); they seek "glory," which can be found even in death. In general, then, Greek
orators describe as "noble" the death of soldiers in which courage is contrasted
with cowardice and where death is declared honorable but flight shameful.
(22)
3. Ending Well. Orators also labeled a death noble by declaring that it "ended
well" ( ). Herodotus, for example, frequently speaks of warriors ending their lives
well in combat or choosing battle rather than flight. He records how Croesus
asked Solon if he knew of someone truly blest. Solon told him of a certain Tellus
of Athens, whose crowning blessing was to die a noble death:
[h]e crowned his life with a most glorious death ( ): for in a battle between the
Athenians and their neighbours at Eleusis, he attacked and routed the enemy and
most nobly died ( ); and the Athenians gave him public burial where he fell and
paid him great honour (Hist. 1.30).
He "ended" his life in a superlative manner ("most glorious," "most nobly"), that
is, as a warrior in the city's army where military prowess translated into honor
and praise. His manly courage, moreover, benefitted Athens and led to
posthumous honors, such as "public burial" and special forms of praise ("great
honour").
This sample of terms for "noble death" yields some important points. 1. There
was a popular understanding of a heroic or noble death. 2. The context in which
death was called "noble" was generally a military one in which Athens' soldiers
died in her defense. 3. The calculus of honor and shame (i.e., fight versus flight
and death versus life) motivated heroes to die nobly; thus honor was their
paramount motive and reward. 4. Comparisons were frequently made: (a) manly
courage vs cowardice, (b) fight versus flight and (c) praise and glory versus
disgrace and shame. 5. Deaths were noble because they benefitted others,
generally Athens. 6. Noble deaths were celebrated with posthumous honors:
graves built at public expense, annual commemorations in funeral speeches, fame
in history and legend.
2.2 Funeral Orations and Noble Death. The ancients quibbled over who
invented the funeral speech, the Greeks or the Romans. (23) But the overwhelming
592

evidence from antiquity about the funeral speech ( ) comes from Greek orators
living between 450-300 b.c.e. who delivered annual orations to honor the dead of
Athens' various wars.(24) These authors explicitly state that the task of a funeral
oration is to "enkomiaze"(25)
the dead and to "praise them."(26) Funeral orations, then, share the same formal
aim as epideictic rhetoric, that is, honor and praise, the pivotal value of the
ancient world.
All of the extant examples of Athenian funeral orations closely follow a regular
pattern of topics which are the sources of praise, each of which is developed in a
remarkably similar manner.(27) We mention this only to underscore the fact that
praise and honor were pivotal values already in the times of Thucydides, Plato
and Demosthenes, as well as in those of Menander Rhetor and Pseudo-Dionysius.
Moreover the content of praise was even then remarkably constant, as evidenced
by the stereotyped manner in which conventional sources of honor are developed.
Men are praised for their ascribed honor: (1) origin in the land of Greece and
descent from ancient and noble ancestors, and (2) nurture, education and training
in the value codes of Athens. They are praised moreover for their achieved honor:
(1) excellence of body, soul and fortune. (2) They might, moreover, be compared
to famous heroes.(28) This same sequence of topics and their contents was
eventually codified in the encomium genre found in progymnastic literature.
Thus the conventionality of the criteria for honor and praise remained constant
for many centuries,(29) including the common appreciation of what constituted a
noble death.
Just as orators structured their funeral orations according to commonplace topics
from a shared sense of what constituted a praiseworthy life, so also they praised
the death of military heroes according to a common set of canons for a noble
death. The data yield six major criteria. 1. The orators stress how the death of
Athens' soldiers benefitted the city. Hyperides, for example, regularly touts the
gift of freedom given Athens and Greece by its fallen soldiers: "Their courage in
arms. . .reveals them as the authors of many benefits conferred upon their country
and the rest of Greece" (Funeral Speech 9; see 15-16, 19, 20-22). Later he says
that these soldiers "sacrificed their lives that others might live well" (Funeral
Speech 26). Similar remarks are made by Thucydides, Plato and Demosthenes.
(30)
Indeed many of those who fell in defense of Athens were called "saviors." (31)
2. In a variation of the motif of benefit to others, orators argue that Athens' fallen
heroes displayed exceptional justice toward the polis by their deaths. According
to the ancients, justice is one of the four cardinal virtues, the one according to
which duties are paid. Ps-Aristotle says: "To righteousness () it belongs to be
593

ready to distribute according to desert, and to preserve ancestral customs and

institutions and the established laws. . .and to keep agreements." To whom does
one owe anything? "First among the claims of righteousness are our duties to the
gods, then our duties to the spirits, then those to country and parents, then those
to the departed" (Ps-Aristotle, Virtues and Vices, V.2-3).(32) The premier aspect of
justice celebrated in the annual memorial for Athens' fallen soldiers was the duty
they paid to the polis and its institutions. For example, many orators rehearsed
the history of Athens, in particular its struggles to be free of tyranny and its
willingness to fight to preserve the ancestral way of life. The fallen who died
were duty-bound to be faithful to that political history at the cost of their lives.
Demosthenes summarizes this succinctly: "The considerations that actuated these
men one and all to choose to die nobly have now been enumerated: birth,
education, habituation to high standards of conduct, and the underlying principles
of our form of government in general" (Funeral Speech 27, italics added). Their
death, then, is noble not only because it benefitted polis and family,(33) but
because it demonstrated the virtue of justice as completely as possible. (34)
Since this material will be very important in our consideration of the Johannine
shepherd, let us read another sample passage from Lysias.
Now in many ways it was natural to our ancestors. . .to fight the battles of justice
( ): for the very beginning of their life was just. . .They were the first and only
people in that time to drive out the ruling classes. . . and establish a democracy;
by sharing with each other the hopes of their perils they had freedom of soul in
their civic life. For they deemed that it was the way of wild beasts to be held
subject to one another by force, but the duty of men to delimit justice by law, to
convince by reason, and to serve these two in act by submitting to the
sovereignty of law and the instruction of reason (Funeral Oration17-19).
Lysias indicates that current citizens are heirs of a political system based on
justice and are accustomed to "fight the battles of justice." And it is their duty to
protect this legacy. Hence this defense of fatherland even at the cost of one's life
most fully exemplifies justice for them. (35) 3. Athens reveled in its political
freedom and despised the world of slaves and the rule of tyrants. Its orators
expressed this civic value in another criterion for a noble death, that is,
its voluntary character.(36) The fallen soldiers were often said to "prefer noble
death to a life of servitude" or to "choose" their death. This tradition of a
voluntary death(37)
Indeed Nero is reported to have inquired whether Seneca himself, when faced
with extreme royal displeasure, was preparing for a "voluntary death"
(voluntariam mortem, Tacitus, Ann. 15.61). is found already in
594

Plato's Menexenus, where the speaker's remarks contain most of the conventions
of a noble death voluntarily undergone: "We, who might have ignobly
lived choose () rather to die nobly (k ) before we bring you and those after you
to disgrace or before we shame you with our fathers and all our earlier
forebearers" (Menexenus 246d). The basic issues are those of honor and shame,
the pivotal values of the ancient world: honor = "die nobly"; shame = "disgrace."
Honor, moreover, comes from voluntary death, that is, from choosing one way
rather than another; thus those who perish in battle arenot victims whose fate is
decided by others, but courageous soldiers who take fate in their own hands.
Pericles' oration over the war dead contains two versions of this motif, one which
celebrates the preference of death with honor to life with shame and another
which emphasizes the choice made in taking up the fight. As regards the first
expression Thucydides records:
[W]hen the moment of combat came, thinking it better to defend themselves and
suffer death rather than to yield and save their lives, they fled, indeed, from the
shameful word of dishonour, but with life and limb stood stoutly to their task, and
in the brief instant ordained by fate, at the crowning moment not of fear but
glory, they passed away (History 2.43.4, italics added).
Again, the value context is that of honor and shame: "shameful word of
dishonor" versus "crowning moment of glory." The author claims that the fallen
soldiers were formally "thinking" about the honor code of elite Athenians. That
is, they appreciated the calculus of shame (i.e. flight, fear of dying, dishonor) and
honor ("better to die than yield," "stood stoutly"). Hence their preference was
clear: flight, saving one's life and fear are dishonorable and disgraceful, but
fighting, faithfulness and death are glorious and honorable. (38)
The second aspect of the voluntary character of a noble death is the simple note
by the orator in another place that the deceased formally chose their fate: ". .
.deeming the punishment of the foe to be more desirable than these things
(wealth, escape), and at the same time regarding such a hazard as the most
glorious of all, they chose (). . ." (Thucydides, History 2.42.4; italics added).
Their death, then, was voluntary; they did not die like slaves or captured troops
whose lives are taken from them. They willingly chose their death. (39)
4. On occasion orators declare that, although a warrior died in battle, he died a
noble death. In the logic of honor and glory, he can be said to be undefeated or to
have conquered his foe by his dying. For example, Lycurgus writes of the war
dead:
595

Unconquered ( ), they fell in the defense of freedom, and if I may use a paradox,
they triumphed () in their death. . .neither can we say that they have been
defeated whose spirits did not flinch at the aggressor's threat. . .since by the
choosing of a noble death they are escaping slavery (Leocrates 48-49; italics
added).
We hear in Lycurgus' speech the cultural horror of death, which means weakness,
loss of control and finally "slavery," a shameful status. But a military death, in
which manly courage is displayed ("did not flinch") and which was endured for
the benefit of Athens ("defense of freedom"), means that in the world of honor
and shame the fallen have "triumphed" and "have not been defeated." (40) Thus,
this small excerpt from Lycurgus contains almost the complete inventory of
reasons why a death is called "noble."(41)
5. On occasion funeral orations declare a death "noble" because of
some uniqueness. Orators assert that "no one" else has ever been able to perform
this deed and achieve this honor. In his funeral oration Hyperides articulates the
uniqueness of those he praises in this manner: "Never before ( ) did men strive
for a nobler cause, either against stronger adversaries or with fewer friends,
convinced that valour gave strength and courage superiority as no mere numbers
could" (Funeral Speech 19).(42) Uniqueness is argued in two ways. First, no one
before them had a more noble cause for which to fight. Second, a series of
comparisons dramatizes their excellence: they faced a foe stronger than has ever
been faced and they advanced with fewer allies than anyone else. Their honor
calculus tells them that valour () produces strength and courage () superiority.
6. A truly noble death was generally identified as such by the posthumous
honors paid to the deceased. This esteem might be expressed by public
celebration of the dead, such as games or monuments. (43)The very funeral orations
which we are examining themselves serve to give glory to the dead first by
giving a public evaluation of their worth and later by annual burnishing of their
reputation.(44) Whether games, monuments, or annual funeral orations, the aim
was to give a type of eternal glory to the dead. Hence, we frequently find the
claim that those being celebrated are in one sense like the gods, because their
glory too is now deathless and everlasting. Demosthenes sums it up tidily: "It is a
proud privilege to behold them possessors of deathless () honours and a memorial
of their valour erected by the State, and deemed deserving of sacrifices and
games for all future time" (Funeral Oration 36).(45)
7. Immortality on occasion is said to be the aim and result of a noble death. The
common meaning of this point typically finds expression in terms of the undying
and immortal fame that is attached to the hero and his exploits. (46)
596

This survey of extant Athenian funeral orations yields the following points. 1.
Their formal aim is praise and honor (47) of the fallen. Thus the various meanings
of "noble death" must be understood in light of this pivotal value. 2. Noteworthy
also is the utter conventionality of the topics from which praise is drawn. 3.
Seven criteria for a noble death emerge from the speeches: a death is noble which
(a) benefits others, (b) displays justice to the fatherland, (c) is voluntarily
accepted, (d) proves that the fallen died unvanquished and undefeated, (e) is a
unique death, (f) produces posthumous honors, and (g) leads to immortal fame
and glory.
2.3 Amplification in the Rhetoric of Praise. Although Athens developed the
genre of the funeral speech, Aristotle surprisingly had little specifically to say
about a noble death. Yet in his exposition of epideictic rhetoric, he collected the
arguments one might use to acknowledge someone's claims to honor and nobility,
whether ascribed honor (origins and birth) or achieved honor (deeds popularly
considered noble). Aristotle's catalogue of topics for amplifying praise bears
striking resemblance to the items mentioned frequently in the funeral speeches
we have been examining. Thus, we argue, Aristotle's general material on the
amplification of praise directly reflects the specific remarks made by orators who
eulogized and honored the dead. The funeral orators reflect the actual practice of
calling a death noble according to the very criteria Aristotle identified later as
criteria for developing praise of the living. The point is, the reasons for labeling a
death or a life "noble" are both ancient, widespread and consistent.
Aristotle begins his discussion of the rhetoric of praise and blame with a focus on
"virtue and vice": "Let us speak of virtue and vice ( ) and honorable and shameful
( ) ; for these are the points of reference for one praising and blaming ( )" (Rhet.
1.9.1). When discussing "virtue," Aristotle lists its subdivision: "justice, manly
courage, self-control, magnificence, magnanimity, liberality, gentleness,
prudence, and wisdom" (1.9.5), with a focus primarily on courage and justice. At
this point, Aristotle catalogues attributes for evaluating actions to determine if
they are "honorable" or noble. If we extrapolate from this, we have a precise list
of criteria from a native informant on what constitutes a "noble life." The relevant
part of Aristotle's analysis goes as follows:
16. And things for which the rewards are an honor are kala, especially those that
bring honor rather than money; and whatever someone does, by choice, not for
his own sake; 17. and things absolutely goodand whatever someone has done for
his country, overlooking his own interest. . .18. and whatever can belong to a
person when dead more than when alive (for what belongs to a person in his
lifetime has more of the quality of being to his own advantage); 19. and whatever
works are done for the sake of others (for they have less of the self); and
597

successes gained for others, but not for the self and for those who have conferred
benefits (for that is just); and acts of kindness (for they are not directed to
oneself); 20. and things that are the opposites of those of which people are
shamed . . . 23. And those that givepleasure to others more than to oneself;
thus, the just and justice are honorable. 24. . . . not to be defeated is characteristic
of a brave man. 25. And victory and glory are among honorable things; for they
are to be chosen even if they are fruitless, and they make clear a preeminence of
virtue. And things that will be remembered [are honorable]; and the more so, the
more [honorable]. And what follows a person when no longer alive (and glory
does follow) and things extraordinary and things in the power of only one
person are more honorable, for [they are] more memorable (Rhet. 1.9.16-25).
Let us summarize Aristotle's complex criteria according to which he labels an
action honorable or praiseworthy. An action is honorable if :
(1) it benefits others (17, 19, 23), and is not done for self-interest (16, 17, 18)
(2) it is just or demonstrates justice (19, 23)
(3) it produces honor (16) and glory (25), or advances one's reputation (21),
especially
after death (18), and causes one to be remembered (25).
(4) it was done voluntarily, by choice (16, 17, 25).
(5) it ended in victory; the actor was not defeated (24)
(6) it is unique to this particular person or distinctive of a special class of persons
(25). (48)
(7) it yielded posthumous honors (25).
2.4 The Encomium: Death as a Source of Honor.
Students in the second level of education in the Greco-Roman world learned to
compose a series of genres which equipped them to study rhetoric and so enter
civic life. Their grammatical handbooks, calledprogymnasmata, codified various
genres and their contents, with occasional examples for imitation. We focus on
the rules for the encomium, which instructed students how to construct a speech
of praise. As noted earlier, many funeral orations state that they are
"enkomiazing" someone.
598

Only Hermogenes, of all the extant progymnastic authors of rules for an

encomium, provides criteria for spelling out what might be praiseworthy about a
death.(49)
Then, too, from the manner of his end, as that he died fighting for his fatherland,
and, if there were anything extraordinary under that head, as in the case of
Callimachus that even in death he stood. You will draw praise also from the one
who slew him, as that Achilles died at the hands of the god Apollo. You will
describe also what was done after his end, whether funeral games were ordained
in his honor, as in the case of Patroclus (italics added). (50)
The perspective is that of warriors and war, which is the preserve of elites and
heroes and the arena of honor and shame. Among the criteria for a noble death
we find: (1) benefit ("fighting for the fatherland"), (2) uniqueness ("anything
extraordinary"), and (3) posthumous honors ("games" and "oracle concerning his
bones").(51) Most of the criteria for a noble death described by Hermogenes
occurred in earlier Greek rhetorical literature. Hence, they reflect a common
cultural consensus.
Theon's remarks below are not said specifically about a noble death; they are a
composite instruction on the ways that an orator may "amplify" praise, that is,
honor someone. This list is of great importance to us for several reasons. First,
Theon's list closely resembles the reasons used in classical funeral orations to
argue that a certain death was noble. Second his list attests to the conventionality
and continuity of motifs from the time of Lysias and Isocrates to that of Theon.
Of "noble" actions Theon says:
Noble () actions are those which we do for the sake of others, and not ourselves;
and in behalf of what is noble, rather than on account of what is advantageous or
pleasant; and on account of which most people also receive great benefits. . .
Praiseworthy () actions are also those occurring in a timely manner, and if one
acted alone (), or first (), or when no one () acted, or more than others, or with
afew, or beyond one's age, or exceeding expectation, or with hard work, or what
was done most easily and quickly (9.25-38, italics added). (52)
We note the concern to specify "praiseworthy" deeds: (1) actions "done for the
sake of others" and "on account of which most people receive great benefits," (2)
actions which are "noble," that is, virtuous, and not advantageous, and (3) unique
actions which the actor did "alone or first" or in circumstances which point to
leadership or excellence or precocious ability. Thus, the conventional criteria
found in funeral orations about a "noble" death continue as the measure for praise
599

of the living. Hence, materials found in epideictic rhetoric are also suitable for
honoring a "noble" death.
2.6 Summary of Greek Rhetoric. From the sources examined, we find the
following consistent criteria for a "noble" death. In most cases we read about
males who were soldiers. A death is noble if: (1) it benefitted others; (2) it was
either voluntarily accepted or chosen; (3) the deceased died unvanquished in
death or not as a victim; (4) the manner of death manifested both courage and
justice; (5) there was something unique about the death of this soldier; (6) death
produced posthumous honors, such as glory, fame and renown; (7) the fallen
enjoy a type of immortality in their praise and glory by the polis.
3.0 The Noble Death Tradition and the Greek Literature of Israel
Did the Greek tradition of noble death become part of the rhetorical world of
Israelite literature written in Greek?(53) Did Jerusalem learn anything from Athens
besides its alphabet? The books of Maccabees indicate that, in addition to the
Greek language, Israel also adopted the cultural world of honor and shame and
the tradition of praising a noble death for many of the same reasons as did the
Greeks.(54)
In general, 1, 2 and 4 Maccabees illustrate the presence of the Greco-Roman
understanding of a noble death in both their terminology and logic. The
Maccabean literature frequently speaks of "dying nobly" ( ) (55) or "ending nobly"
( ).(56) Death might also be "glorious" ( ) (57) or "honorable" ( ).(58) They cite the
same reasons as Greek rhetoric for declaring a death "noble." Death is noble if it
benefits the nation or is suffered on its behalf or saves it. (59) For example, Eleazar,
called Aravan, charged an elephant he thought was carrying the king and speared
it; unfortunately the king was not aboard and the elephant crushed him as it fell.
Nevertheless, the author says of him "So he gave up his life to save his
people and to win for himself an everlasting name" (1 Macc 6:43-44). (60)
The voluntary character of a noble death is expressed in several ways. (61) It may
be formally stated that the dying person chose or accepted death or willingly
went to it. In regard to Eleazar's death, the author of 2 Maccabees twice states
that "[he] welcoming death with honor rather than a life with pollutions, went to
the rack of his own accord ()" (2 Macc 6:19); shortly he records Eleazar saying,
"I will leave to the young a noble example (62) of how to die a good death
nobly and willingly" (2 Macc 6:28). (63) The alternate expression of the voluntary
character of a noble death consists of the calculus made by the dying person that
noble death is preferable to a shameful escape. Consider 1 Maccabees: "It is
600

better for us to die in battle than to see the misfortunes of our nature and of the
sanctuary" (3:59; see 2 Macc 6:19).(64)
Dying unconquered or conquering in death is found abundantly in 4 Maccabees.
Of the martyrs the author says, "By their endurance they conquered the tyrant"
(1:11). Eleazar won a victory over his torturers: "Although his sacred life was
consumed by tortures and racks, he conquered the besiegers with the shield of his
devout reason" (7:4).(65)
The manner of death conforms to the canons of honor accepted by the audience
and so elicits from both observers and hearers the essence of honor:
acknowledgment, glory, fame, honor, an everlasting name, renown and the like.
For example, 1 Maccabees says of Eleazar, "So he gave his life to save his people
and to win for himself an everlasting name" (6:44). Similarly, when Judas faced
the enemy he remarked: "If our time has come let us die bravely for our kindred
and leave no cause to question our honor" (9:10).(66) Thus both Eleazar and Judas
are credited with noble motives for dying, namely, benefit to others ("save his
people" and "for our kindred") and quest for immortal honor ("everlasting name"
and "unquestionable honor").
Noble deaths regularly contain mention of the virtue of those who died, both their
courage and justice. Courage, the manly virtue of endurance of hardships, is
often claimed both on behalf of the characters in the Maccabean literature. For
example, Judas exhorted his army before battle with the remark, "If our time has
come, let us die bravely ( ) for our kindred" (1 Macc 9:10). Similarly Eleazar
eulogizes the Israelite law by claiming that "it trains us in courage () so that we
endure any suffering willingly" (4 Macc 5:23). (67) But justice emerges as the
paramount virtue which warrants our praise of Eleazar and the seven sons.
(68)
Inasmuch as justice refers to one's duty to God, family/fatherland, and
ancestors, the story about the old man and the seven brothers regularly calls
attention to the fact that they died explicitly in fulfilment of their duty to one of
the three figures mentioned above. One author acknowledges the duty shown to
God by death as evidence of the virtue of justice: "They by nobly dying fulfilled
their service to God" (4 Macc 12:14).(69) Readers regularly hear in this literature
that the martyrs' deaths are noble because they are endured for the sake of
ancestral laws. Eleazar boasts that he will leave a noble example to others of how
to die a good death "willingly and nobly for the revered and holy laws" (2 Macc
6:28).(70) This refers of course to God, the author of the laws, but also to the
fatherland or ethnos which collectively keeps those laws rather than Greek ones.
(71)
Judas' exhortation made his army ready "to die for their laws and their
country" (2 Macc 8:21). Finally the Maccabean heroes fulfill their duty toward
their kin: "Let us bravely die for our kindred" (1 Macc 9:10). All of the
601

Maccabean literature, therefore, acknowledges two virtues in particular as

constitutive of a noble death: (1) courage to die a painful death and (2) justice or
loyalty to God, the laws of the ethnos, the ethnos itself and one's kindred. (72)
The Maccabean literature argues that not only did many Israelites know the
Greek language (since the works were composed in Greek for a Greek-speaking
Israelite audience), but that their authors learned as well the Greco-Roman
canons of honor which earn public praise. The same criteria in Greek rhetoric for
labeling a death "noble" occur in Israelite literature as well. (73) As we turn to John
10, we are aware that Greek-speaking audiences are quite likely to know and
appreciate the value code of the dominant culture. What now of the death of the
"noble shepherd?"
4.0 The Noble Death of Jesus
As we now examine now the death of Jesus informed by the rhetoric of "noble
death," we focus on two passages in John, namely 10:11-18 and 11:46-53.
4.1 The Noble Shepherd (10:11-18) Because of the rich tradition about a
"noble" death in the rhetoric of praise, we argue that the adjective qualifying the
"shepherd" should also be translated as "noble" () and not simply "good." The
author immediately tells us that the shepherd is labeled "noble" because of his
death which benefits to the flock: "the 'noble' shepherd lays down his life for his
sheep." We observed above that orators most frequently declared the death of
fallen soldiers noble because it benefitted the polis. The same reason is cited here
to specify why and how the shepherd is honorable, namely, he benefits his flock
by laying down his life on their behalf. Compare the passage in John 10 with
Hyperides' remark about the general and soldiers of Athens:
Jn 10:11
Hyperides: E .(74) The Greek orator praises the soldiers who died in Athens'
defense, and he cites the fact that they "died in battle for her" as the clearest proof
of their benefaction to the homeland. John cites the same behavior of Jesus-theshepherd ("lay down his life for his flock") as most beneficial to the flock and as
the grounds for praise of the shepherd ("the noble shepherd"). The rhetoric of
praise, especially that found in funeral orations, provides an adequate background
to interpret culturally John's honor claim for the shepherd. There is no question
but that the qualifying remark, "lay down his life," refers to death. (75)
Part of the argument that the shepherd is "noble" consists in the typical
comparison found in funeral orations between heroes and cowards. In John, if the
602

"noble" shepherd lays down his life for his sheep, by comparison the "hireling"
flees when the wolf attacks. Like comparisons in the rhetoric of praise, two
options are compared: (1) manly courage versus cowardice, (2) flight versus
fight, (3) death versus life, and finally (4) honor/glory versus shame/disgrace. In
this light we read the contrast between the hireling and the noble shepherd as
follows. The noble shepherd displays courage, decides to fight the enemy and
thus dies for the flock. Therefore, he receives the acknowledgment of being
"noble" for his honorable deeds. In comparison, the hireling cowardly flees from
the conflict; by choosing to save his life he earns only contempt and disgrace.
(76)
We argue that any audience in the world of the fourth evangelist would
understand the implication of "courage" and "cowardice" in this comparison and
thus honor the virtuous deed and cast shame on its opposite.
It is sometimes argued that the wolf stands for Satan or the Ruler of the World.
(77)
If accurate, we recall that in Hermogenes' rules for an encomium, he
prescribed that honor may be drawn "from the one who slew him, as that Achilles
died at the hands of the god Apollo."(78) The cosmic identification of Jesus' foe as
"Ruler of the Word," then, serves as grounds for even greater praise of Jesus for
he dies fighting the ultimate foe.(79) Similarly, the scene where the Jerusalem elite
gathered in counsel to destroy Jesus leads to the same conclusion: the elites of
Israel rallied together to kill him, a Galilean peasant. They may not be a "noble"
foe, but their collective, powerful action against Jesus elevates their conflict
between them and Jesus. The best battle the best.
In 10:14 the shepherd is once again declared "noble" because he "knows his
own" [sheep]. We suggest that this phrase describes Jesus' just duty to his own,
and so is an act of virtue. "Knowing" did not surface as a criterion for a noble
death in the rhetoric of praise. But it was there in another guise. All "virtuous"
actions are noble and worthy of praise, especially courage and justice. A
prominent virtue of Athens' soldiers who fell in combat is courage (), (80) which we
saw credited to Jesus in the comparison of shepherd with hireling. The shepherd,
however, displays another mark of nobility, the virtue of justice (). Representing
a long tradition, one progymnastic writer defined justice as the virtue whereby
people honor their basic obligations. "The parts of justice () are piety (), fair
dealing () and reverence (): piety toward the gods, fair dealing towards men,
reverence toward the departed."(81) We suggest that in 10:11-18 the evangelist has
two aspects of justice in view: piety to God and fair dealing toward the
disciples/sheep.(82) Beginning with the latter, we note that the hireling has no duty
to the sheep; they are not his, but belong to another. In no way is he obliged in
justice to face the wolf on their behalf; the owner should, but not the hireling. In
contrast, the shepherd proclaims that he "knows his sheep," that is, he owns them
as his own and assumes responsibility for them. His sheep, moreover, "know"
603

him, thus assuring the reader that duties are understood on both sides. "Knowing"
has the sense of acknowledging, owning, feeling responsibility toward. (83) The
sheep show their relationship to the shepherd by the fact that they "hear his voice,
he calls them by name . . .and the sheep follow him because they know his voice"
(10:3-4).(84) The duty in justice which the shepherd owes the sheep is then
expressed in the declaration that "I lay down my life for my sheep" (10:15). Thus
when Jesus the shepherd said that "I know mine and mine know me" (10:14), he
declares his loyalty to the sheep and thus acknowledges his duty in justice to "his
own."
The justice of the shepherd points in another direction, piety or to Jesus' Father
who is God. Paralleling the remark made about the reciprocal "knowing"
between shepherd and sheep, Jesus declares a similar relationship with the
Father: "the Father knows me and I know the Father" (10:15). In addition to what
we learned about "knowing" above, we are reminded of Bultmann's remark about
the verb "to know," namely, that one of its basic meanings is "acknowledgment,"
as when the scriptures talk about "knowing God" or "knowing God's
name."(85) Although "to know" forms an important part of the way John's gospel
distinguishes insiders from outsiders and ranks those within in terms of what they
know, this other meaning of "to know" has to do with social relationships which
entail reciprocal duties. Some formno relationship with Jesus: they do not know
him (1:10; 16:3; 17:25), whereas God, Jesus and his disciples "know" each other
and so indicate intimate levels of loyalty and commitment (6:69; 10:38; 13:31;
17:3, 23). All of this aids in our appreciation of 10:15 as expressing a relationship
in which duties are fulfilled, God and Jesus as well as Jesus and his disciples.
This encodes what was meant by the virtue of justice. Thus two virtues, justice
and courage, mark the behavior of the shepherd, just as they did for Athens'
soldiers who died noble deaths. These virtues, moreover, are articulated in the
context of the death of the noble shepherd, thus giving further warrant to the
"noble" shepherd's death.
In 10:16 Jesus states that he has "other sheep, not of this fold" and so there will
be "one flock and one shepherd."(86) This remark, too, becomes more accessible
when seen in terms of "noble death." First, it surely benefits the sheep to be
safely gathered into one, that is, into close association with the shepherd, who
can pasture and protect them all. This represents another example of the duty of
the shepherd, that is, his virtue of justice toward the sheep. Second, when or how
is this achieved? Comparable remarks in 11:52; 12:23-24, and 32 indicate that
Jesus' death occasions these benefits. Caiaphas' prophecy, we are told, really
meant "that Jesus would die. . .not for the nation only, but to gather into one the
scattered children of God" (11:52). Jesus' death, then, benefits the sheep currently
around him and those "scattered." Similarly, in his exhortation to the Greeks
604

whom Philip and Andrew brought to him, Jesus declares that when a seed dies
and falls into the ground, it bears much fruit (12:23-24). Finally in an
unmistakable reference to his death Jesus says: "When I am lifted up from the
earth, I will draw all to myself" (12:32). His death ("lifted up") benefits others by
"drawing all to myself." Thus 10:16, especially when seen in relationship to
similar remarks in chs 10-12, bears the reading of "noble" death because of
benefits rendered and the display of the virtue of justice.
The Father's relationship to Jesus is further developed when we are told, "For this
reason my Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up
again" (10:17). Examining this in the light of the rhetoric of noble death, we
know that "love" was considered a part of justice in antiquity. Although modern
commentators have tended to interpret this verse in light of romantic attachment,
in the cultural world of the New Testament love basically referred to group bonds
or group glue that held persons together, especially kinship groups. (87) The
Father's "love" contains a strong element of approval, which suggests the pride of
the Father in Jesus. Obedient sons, moreover, show justice to their fathers and so
honor them. The reason for this "love" is the complex statement that Jesus both
lays down his life and takes it back. We have already seen that a noble death
warrants praise and honor, which should enlighten our understanding of "lay
down my life" in this context. But the second part, "in order that I may take it
again," seems utterly obscure and has no parallel in funeral oratory. No one in the
history of humankind has ever come back from the dead. In fact we are called
"mortals," i.e., those who die, to distinguish our status from that of God or the
gods who are the "immortals." Is Jesus crossing a boundary line here? For a mere
mortal to claim such would be ludicrous, and thus shameful (see John 8:52, 5658). In fact such a claim would violate justice for it would be blasphemy toward
God, not piety (see 10:33). How are Jesus' remarks just and so honorable? Jesus
claims authorization from God for his speech and actions: "I have received this
command from my Father" (10:18). A son who obeys his father honors him; he
fulfills the basic justice which offspring owe their parents.
Looking more closely at 10:17-18, we recall how in epideictic rhetoric a death
was labeled "noble" because it was voluntary. Both vv 17 and 18 affirm the
voluntary nature of Jesus' death. For the third and fourth times, Jesus states
that he lays down his own life.(88)
10:11 The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep.
10:15 I lay down my life for my sheep
10:17 The Father loves me because I lay down my life
605

10:18 I have power to lay it down

He may well declare that his death is God's will or that he goes as it was written
of him and other such remarks. But the substance is the same: he chooses, he
agrees, he "lays down his life willingly" (' ). (89)
But 10:17-18 state more, for Jesus proudly declares "No one takes it from me."
We saw above in the gloss on the "wolf" that Jesus confronts a very powerful foe.
But this foe has no power over Jesus (14:30); in fact, as Jesus faces his death, he
declares "I have overcome the world" (16:33). Thus the remarks in 10:17-18
assert two things: first, Jesus is no victim; he is not mastered by anyone (see
18:4-6).(90) Second, the cause of Jesus' death lies entirely in his own hands both to
"lay it down" and "take it up." Thus it would be fair to say that he dies
unvanquished and unconquered, which are marks of a noble death.
Finally, Jesus claims "power" () to lay down his life and to take it back. In light
of the rhetoric of a noble death, the first half of this expresses for the fourth time
that his death is voluntary, namely, "I lay it down." Voluntary deaths are always
"noble." The claim to have "power," moreover, belongs to the world of praise and
honor. People with "power" are, as we say, movers and shakers. They control
their own destiny; they accomplish what they set out to do. This suggests, then,
that Jesus stands very high on the scale of people who do difficult deeds and who
are masters of their fate. Whence comes this power? "I have received this
command () from my Father" (v 18b). At the very least, v 18 states that it is God's
will that Jesus lay down his life, thus referring to his "obedient death." (91) Hence
Jesus claims to be fulfilling the dutiful relationship between himself and the
Father, a virtuous or just thing to do.
But the claim to have power "to take it [my life] again" does not register with
anything in the Hebrew Bible or the Greek rhetoric of praise. This is nothing else
but a claim to be equal to God, that is, to have one of the exclusive powers of
God.(92) Jesus claims that even though he dies ("I lay down my life"), he will
conquer the last enemy ("I take it back again"). (93) This remark is but a claim until
evidence is provided. But as a claim, it lays hold of the greatest power in the
cosmos of which humans could conceive. If the claim is true, then great honor
should be accorded Jesus, for he has what no one else (except God) has. Thus, his
death is noble for two reasons: (a) he claims the greatest of all powers, namely, to
conquer death and (b) his empowerment is unique: no one but his donor has or
will have this power.
What, then, does consideration of John 10:11-18 in the light of the rhetorical
tradition of a noble death tell us? There seems to be a close affinity on the
606

following

points:

Rhetorical Tradition about "Noble Death"

1. Death benefitted others, especially fellow citizens.
2. Comparison between courage/cowardice, fight/

John's Discourse on the Noble Shepherd

1. Death benefitted the sheep, who enjoy a special
relationship with the shepherd.
2. Comparison between shepherd/hireling: courage/
cowardice, fight/flight, death/life, honor/shame

flight, death/life, honor/shame

3. Manly courage displayed by soldiers who fight and 3. Manly courage displayed by shepherd who battles
die
wolf and dies
4. Deeds and death unique
4. Power over death and return to life unique to God
and Jesus
5. Voluntary death is praised
5. Voluntary death repeatedly claimed: "I lay it down
of my own accord"
6. Unconquered in death; victory in dying nobly
6. Not a victim: "No one takes it from me. . ." "I lay
it down; I take it up again"
7. Justice and noble death: soldiers uphold the honor of 7. Justice: the shepherd manifests loyalty to his sheep
their families and serve the interests of the fatherland: and his Father/God; he has a command from God:
duties served = justice
duties served = justice

The presence of so many and such important motifs in one Johannine passage
warrants comment. First, we trust that the similarities noted in the previous chart
are correct. This amplification of the nobility of certain kinds of death is
regularly found scattered throughout Greek rhetorical theory and praxis, but is
clustered in John 10:11-18. This amplification of praise suggests that one of the
formal strategies in the telling of John 10 is to claim and demonstrate the
nobleness of Jesus precisely by his death.(94) .
4.2 John 11:45-53
The evangelist talks again about Jesus' death in 11:45-53, a passage which has
received only cursory treatment in commentaries and articles. (95) Bringing our
knowledge of the "noble death" tradition to bear, let us examine what is said of
Jesus' demise. The narrative context describes a situation caused by Jesus' raising
of Lazarus, which is an act of justice or loyalty to a "beloved" friend and which
occasions a surge of his reputation and honor (11:45-46). Hence the Pharisees
express envy of Jesus' success, because they understand that Jesus' honor means
their corresponding loss of prestige (11:47-48). (96) Thus the situation is one of
intense conflict, which the opponents magnify by claiming that unless Jesus is
cut down to size a war with Rome will occur. While their envy provides no
solution to the conflict, it makes salient the issue at stake: honor -- Jesus' or
theirs.

607

After shaming them ("You know nothing. . .you do not understand") the high
priest proclaimed, "It is expedient that one man should die for the people and that
the whole nation should not perish" (11:50). The evangelist immediately tells us
that this is a prophecy uttered unwittingly, so that the readership should examine
it for important, ironic information.(97) First, the verb "expedient" indicates
achieving profit or advantage.(98)
But as we saw above in Aristotle's exposition of grounds for praise, honorable
actions are not done for one's own sake (Rhet. 1.9.16-17) and have "less of the
self" (1.9.19) and are not for one's own advantage (1.9.18). Yet the implications
of envy and the actions which follow this conference are indeed to the self
advantage of the elite. Yet according to the irony of the scene, Jesus' death will
yield a noble result which benefits others but not Jesus himself. In contrast to
Caiaphas' remark to the Pharisees, profit or advantage truly comes when one
man dies for the nation.As the death of Athenian soldiers benefitted their
homeland, Jesus' death too will benefit the ethnos of Israel. It will be a noble
death because as Aristotle said, "[that is noble] whatever someone has done for
his country" (Rhet. 1.9.17) and "whatever works are done for the sake of others"
(1.9.19). Third, actions are noble which benefit others, but nobler actions benefit
many more. Hence the editorial comment in 11:52 boosts the effect of Jesus'
death, thus calling for even greater honor: ". . .and not for the nation only, but to
gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." The expansion of
Caiaphas' prophecy echoes what Jesus said earlier in his role of noble shepherd
about achieving "one flock and one shepherd" (10:16; see 12:32). As Raymond
Brown has argued, we are touching here the evangelist's sense of a universal
membership,(99) implying that Jesus' death benefits the whole world, which would
make it unspeakably honorable.
5.0 Conclusions and Further Questions
5.1 What Have We Learned?
First, the data from funeral orations, epideictic rhetoric and encomiums attest to
the existence of a clear topos on "noble death." The ancients indeed articulated
the concept and provided the rationale for assessing a death as noble. Second, the
extant literary tradition about "noble death" extends from Thucydides' record of
Pericles' funeral speech, through Aristotle and to the school exercises called the
progymnasmata which were taught at the time of the early church. This tradition,
moreover, was remarkably constant and highly conventional. Third, the
Johannine discourse about the shepherd contains a cluster of seven of the
classical criteria for a noble death: 1) death which benefits the sheep, 2)
comparison between shepherd/hireling, 3) manly courage displayed by the
608

shepherd who battles the wolf , 4) uniqueness of power over death and return to
life, 5) voluntary character of his death , 6) dying not as a victim, and 7)
manifestation of shepherd's justice for his sheep and to his Father/God. Both the
clustering(100) of so many classical criteria and their patently Hellenistic character
persuade us that we should think of a Greco-Roman background to this material.
Fourth, how did the author of the Fourth Gospel come to know this material? We
claim that for a person to write Greek as well as the author of the Fourth Gospel,
he would have been trained in progymnastic exercises. The Johannine treatment
of the "noble" shepherd would be plausible from the mastery of someone
learning to write Greek through the medium of the progymnastic encomium.
Fifth, it is not our intention to assault the solid argument about the overwhelming
Judean background to the Fourth Gospel. (101) Rather, we see no conflict in the
assertion that in addition to the Johannine use of Israelite traditions we find
overwhelming evidence of Hellenistic influence on a specific topic such as
"noble death." For, the author would have learned to write Greek through the
medium of progymnastic exercises, especially epideictic rhetoric as embodied in
the encomium.
Sixth, one did not simply learn a genre, but also a code of values and a grammar
of worth which was the formal aim of an encomium and epideictic rhetoric. One
learned "honor and shame" in terms that would be appreciated by an audience
who shared the same. The acclamation of a "noble death" serves to honor a
deceased person. When we recall how Paul combated an assessment of the death
of Jesus as "folly" and "scandal" (1 Cor 1:18-25) and how the author of Hebrews
declared that Jesus "despised the shame of the cross" (12:2), John like other NT
authors emphasizes the ironic honor and status elevation Jesus experienced
through the cross. "Ought not the Christ suffer and so enter into his glory?" (Luke
24:25).
5.2 Further Questions
Other passages in the Fourth Gospel seem to connect with John 10 and the noble
death of the Shepherd. It is beyond the scope of this study to present a complete
analysis of these, but let us briefly mention some. First, the exhortation in 15:13
declares: "Greater love has no one than this, than that one lay down one's life for
one's friend." This paraenetic remark to the disciples echoes Jesus' noble death in
10:11 and 15, and thereby canonizes "laying down one's life for one's friends" as
honorable. The comparative here ("greater" love) suggest that such behavior is
the highest form of love, thus claiming for it uniqueness and thus maximum
worth. A disciple's "laying down his life for his friends" models the death of the
609

Noble Shepherd in these terms: 1) benefit for others, 2) uniqueness, 3) the virtue
of justice, i.e., duty and devotion to one's own.(102)
In a series of remarks Jesus declares that in his death he will be glorified: "The
hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified" (12:23; see 13:31 and 17:1). It
is generally agreed that "glory" in these remarks refers to a form of posthumous
vindication by God (see Acts 2:23-24; 3:14-15; 4:10; 10:39-40) or to Jesus'
enthronement with a status and role greater than he enjoyed on earth (see Acts
2:36; Phil 2:6-11).(103) In John the posthumous glory of Jesus is a direct grant of
honor from God, which students of honor and shame call "ascribed honor."
Nevertheless in the context of this study we consider it posthumous glory, not
unlike that bestowed on soldiers who died a noble death.
We should compare the remarks about the Noble Shepherd in John 10 with what
is said about other "shepherds" of the group. Peter boasts that he would "lay
down my life for you" (13:37), an action which this gospel considers noble and
associates with another shepherd, Jesus (10:11, 15). But Peter lacks sufficient
courage and nobility.(104) Although Jesus shames him for his vain claim (13:38),
yet the issue of nobility if not the role of shepherd remains accessible to him as
Jesus says: "Where I am going you cannot follow me now; but you will follow
afterwards" (13:36). In contrast, the Beloved Disciple acts like a shepherd in
18:15-16 when he persuades the maid who kept the door to admit Peter. (105) This
closely resembles the parable in 10:1-5 in which the shepherd enters by the door,
the gatekeeper opens the door for him, his sheep hear his voice, and he either
leads them in or out. The very fact that the Beloved Disciple and Peter enter the
dwelling of Jesus' enemy, the high priest, tells us that this is a life-risking scene
(i.e., "lay down my life"). But Peter's subsequent cowardice (18:17-18, 25-27)
demonstrates his disqualification to be a noble shepherd at this time..
The gospel concludes with the investiture of Peter with the role of shepherd
(21:15-17). In conjunction with this, Jesus predicts the death of Peter (v 18), by
which he would "glorify" God (v 19). We ask again: what constitutes a worthy
shepherd? Is Peter, who once failed in courage and loyalty toward Jesus, now a
"noble" shepherd? The text would suggest that we now reappraise Peter as a
person willing to lay down his life, either in imitation of Jesus or to benefit the
flock in some way. His triple declaration that he "loves" Jesus qualifies him
according to 15:13 as one whose "greater" love leads him to "lay down his life
for his friend." "Love," we remember, is a part of justice. This much is clear:
worthy shepherds are they who die in service of their flocks, thus highlighting a
death which benefits others, is voluntarily accepted, and manifests justice toward
a group in one's care. Thus, we have another "noble" shepherd in the Fourth
Gospel.
610

Finally, the scene of Jesus' arrest in 18:1-11 contains many dramatizations of the
criteria for a noble death. Throughout the episode, Jesus stands between his
disciples and those who would apprehend him, that is, he boldly comes forward
like a shepherd who positions himself between the flock and the wolf (18:4-7).
Second, by coming forward (18:4) and taking control of the conversation (18:5),
Jesus voluntarily enters into the process of his arrest. He is not captured, but
allows himself to be taken. Like a good shepherd, he benefits his flock by
commanding his captors, "Let these men go" (18:8). The evangelist interprets his
remark as the fulfilment of a prophecy which means that the shepherd has
benefitted the flock by preserving all of those so destined. (106) And at the end of
the episode, when the disciples act to protect Jesus, he claims that their zeal is
misplaced. Jesus' arrest and death are "the cup which the Father has given me"
(18:11); that is, Jesus obeys the will of God here, voluntarily choosing to do this
and in it to demonstrate justice by paying his duty to Father and God. (107) This
scene, then, both contains many of the criteria for a noble death and seems to be a
dramatization of the same materials claimed in John 10:11-18.
Therefore, in addition to the our reading of John 10:11-18 and 11:45-52 in light
of the rhetoric of a noble death, other passages and themes in the gospel seem to
contain either direct references to the noble shepherd material or to illustrate one
or another of the criteria which serve to qualify a death as noble. In this sense,
"noble death" is not just another aspect of John's presentation of the death of
Jesus, as are sacrifice or departure. It might be said to emerge as the dominant
articulation
of
Jesus'
death
in
the
Fourth
Gospel.

NOTES
1.

I am indebted to Ronald A. Piper for his thorough and excellent criticism of this
study.This article has also benefitted from the constructive editorial advice of The
Context Group at its 1999 meeting in Portland, Oregon.
2.

Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; New York:

Scribner, 1955) 2.52-53.
3.

Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John. A Commentary (Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1971) 632-33.
4.

See B. Grigsby, "The Cross as an Expiatory Sacrifice in the Fourth

Gospel," JSNT 13 (1982) 51-80; G. Carey, "The Lamb of God and Atonement
Theories," TynBul 32 (1981) 97-122.
611

5.

See Geofrey C. Nicholson, Death as Departure. The Johannine Descent-Ascent

Schema (SBLDS 63; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983).
6.

See Judith Kovacs, "'Now Shall the Ruler of This World Be Driven Out': Jesus'
Death as Cosmic Battle in John 12:20-36," SBL 114 (1995) 227-47.
7.

D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, Mi: Eerdmans,

1991) 386.
8.

Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (Garden City:

Doubleday, 1966) 386, 395-96; Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (London:
Oliphants, 1972) 361.
9.

Brown, The Gospel According to John, 395-96.

10.

See Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 364; George R. BeasleyMurray, John (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987) 170; and John Painter, The Quest
for the Messiah, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993) 349, 353.
11.

As another instance of his body-desires vs mind-philosophy contrast, Philo

distinguishes cattle-grazers and shepherds. The shepherd ( ) makes an excellent
leader, yet this line of inquiry is not useful here because Philo has nothing to say
about the shepherd's death (Philo, Agr. 28-41).
12.

See Aristotle, Rhet. 1.3.6. But the ancient rhetorical distinction between and is
blurred by commentators. Some argue that expresses "the highest moral beauty"
(Frdric Godet, Commentaire sur L'vangile de Saint Jean [Neuchatel: L.-A.
Momnier, 1970] 3.89) or the perfection of living out the role of shepherd (J. H.
Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St.
John [New York: Scribners, 1929] 2.357).
13.

See Georg Bertram, "," TDNT 3.538-40, 544. See also Walter Dolan, "The
Origin of ," AJP 94 (1973) 365-74.
14.

Brown, The Gospel According to John, 395; Lindars, The Gospel of John, 361;
Carson, The Gospel of John, 386.
15.

See Leon Morris, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: 1971) 510; John
Painter, The Quest for the Messiah, 356; Raymond Brown (The Gospel
According to John) 399-400).
16.

Other sources of information about "noble death" include: (1) the epitaph; see
Richard Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana, IL: University
612

of Illinois Press, 1942) esp. 237-40; (2) the death of the philosopher-hero
resisting the tyrant; see Herbert A. Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan
Martyrs (New York: Arno Press, 1979) 236-46; (3) the aretologies studied by
Moses Hadas and Morton Smith in their Heroes and Gods. Spiritual Biographies
in Antiquity (New York: Harper and Row. 1965); (4) Hellenistic and
Roman exitus illustrium virorum (see A. Ronconi, "Exitus Illustrium
Virorum,"RAC 6 (1996) 1258-68, who is the primary source for Adela Y. Collins,
"The Genre of the Passion Narrative," ST 47 (1993) 3-38; (5) and miscellaneous
references such as can be found in the Rhetoric to Herennius 3.7.14 and
Horace, The Art of Poetry 469.
17.

Two books have recently been published whose titles include the phrase "noble
death": David Seeley, The Noble Death. Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul's
Concept of Salvation (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) and Arthur J. Droge and
James D. Tabor, A Noble Death. Suicide and Martyrdom among Christians and
Jews in Antiquity (San Francisco: Harper, 1992). Both books employ the phrase
"noble death" but do not tell their readers whence it comes. Droge and Tabor
concern themselves with suicide, while Seeley focuses on vicarious expiation as
the background for Paul's doctrine of salvation. In contrast, this study begins with
the actual phrase "noble death" as it appears in Greek rhetoric, especially in the
Athenian funeral orations.
18.

See also Polybius 32.4.3;

Alexandria, Strom. 5.11.68.

see

Philo, Sac.

100

and

Clement

of

19.

Texts and translations come from the Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press). Texts other than the Loeb edition will be noted when
they appear.
20.

Although Seeley (The Noble Death 15, 95-96, 107-9, 125-26) identifies
"military setting" as one of the tags used by philosophers to give nobility to the
struggle between mind and passions, he never investigates occasions when actual
soldiers were celebrated for dying a "noble death."
21.

Diodor of Sicily provides another example: describing a beseiged city, he

commented on the reactions of the men there: "Others, as they heard the laments
of their wives and helpless children, sought to die like men ( ) rather than see
their children led into captivity" (14.52.1-2). The same thing could be said of
Josephus' account of the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. When Saul and his son
realized that they were in a hopeless situation, they died nobly "throwing all their
ardor into the fight" (Ant. 6.368); see also Josephus B.J. 7.380-383.
613

22.

For
other
examples,
see
Lycurgus, Leocrates 48-49;
Xenophon, Anabasis 3.1.43-44; Plato, Menexenus 246d; Demosthenes, Funeral
Speech 37; Aristotle, Virtues and Vices 4.4 and 6.5; Polybius,Histories 18.53.3;
Dionysis of Halicarnassus 10.45.4-5 ; 2 Macc. 14:42; 6:28; 4 Macc 6:22 and 30;
Plutarch, Alex. 64.5; Cato Min. 15.4; Otho 15.4, 6; Diodor of Sicily 14.52.1-2;
Josephus, Ant. 6.368; B.J.7.380-383; Aelius Aristides, Panathen. 132.10;
Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.4.38.
23.

See Dionysius of Halicarnassus 5.17. Peter L. Schmidt ("Laudatio

Funebris," Der Kleine Pauly [Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmller, 1969] 3.518 )
remarks that whereas the Greek funeral oration was a civic event, sponsored by
the polis to support civic virtues, the Roman laudatio funebris was originally a
family ceremony, which honored the dead members of a family for virtues other
than military courage. The Roman funeral ceremony often consisted of the public
wearing of the clay images of both the deceased and ancestors of the household;
see Polybius, Hist. 6.53-54. Thus two different social institutions are in view
(polis and family) and two different sets of social values are praised. On the
Roman funeral oration, see Fredericus Vollmar, "Laudatio Funebrum
Romanorum Historia et Reliquia Editio," Jahrbuch fr Classische
Philologie.Supp. 18 (1892) 445-528; Marcel Drury, " Laudatio Funebris et
Rhtorique," Revue de Philologie et Littrateur Ser. 3 16 (1942) 105-14; and
John M. McManamon, Funeral Oratory and the Cultural Ideas of
Humanism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989).
24.

Cicero states than an annual funeral oration was delivered in Athens: ". . .in
that public oration which it was customary to deliver at Athens in an assembly in
honour of those fallen in battle; which was so popular that it had to be read aloud
every year, as you know, on that day" (Orator 44.151).
25.

For example, Isocrates states that his difficult task is "to eulogize () in prose
the virtues of a man" (Evagoras 8; see 11). Hyperides too describes his task as
(Funeral Speech 7-8, 15). Many centuries later, Menander Rhetor described the
funeral speech as pure encomium: (II.419.2); see D.A. Russell and N.G.
Wilson, Menander Rhetor (Oxford: Clarendon, 1981) 172. And Ps. Dionysius
said: "In a word, the epitaphios is a praise of the departed. This being so, it is
clear that it must be based on the same topics as encomia, viz. country, family,
nature, upbringing, actions" (D.A. Russell and N. G. Wilson,Menander Rhetor,
374). See Theodore Burgess, Epideictic Literature (New York: Garland
Publishing Co., 1987) 146-57.
26.

For example, Isocrates regards his speech as but part of the honor shown to the
dead: "In gratitude we honored () them with the highest honors and set up their
614

statues" (Evagoras 57). Praise is the formal aim of all the funeral speeches:
Lycurgus (Leocrates 51) states that his speech aims to "pay the highest honors" to
the fallen. Similarly, Lycius (Funeral Oration) talks of "glorifying and honoring"
the dead (3); he says, "Their memory can never grow old, while their honour is
every man's envy" (79). Demosthenes (Funeral Speech) is the most explicit in his
grants of praise: "For knowing that among good men the acquisition of wealth
and the enjoyment of the pleasures that go with living are scorned, and that their
whole desire is for virtue and words of praise, the citizens were of the opinion
that we ought to honour them with such eulogies as would most certainly secure
them in death the glory they had won while living" (2).
27.

On the Greek funeral oration, see Theodore Burgess, Epideictic Literature,

146-56; John E. Ziolkowski, Thucydides and the Tradition of Funeral Speeches
at Athens (Salem, N.H.: The Ayer Company); Nicole Loraux, The Invention of
Athens. The Funeral Oration in the Classical City (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1986).
28.

Despite its late date, the rules for a "funeral oration" by Ps-Dionysius explicitly
list the formal categories of the encomium as the grounds for praise in the
speech: "In a word, the epitaphios is a praise of the departed. This being so, it is
clear that it must be based on the same topics as encomia, viz., country, family,
nature upbringing, actions" (see D. A. Russell and Nigel Wilson, Menander
Rhetor, 374-76). On these conventional topics, see Jerome H. Neyrey,
"Josephus' Vita and the Encomium: A Native Model of Personality," Journal for
the Study of Judaism 25,2 (1994): 177-206 and Honor and Shame in the Gospel
of Matthew. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox 1998
29.

Although John E. Ziolkowski (Thucydides and the Traditions of Funeral

Speeches at Athens) argued that the funeral speeches in Thucydides' time did not
enjoy common terminology, yet his chart of the fixed element of the rhetoric of
praise (pp. 95-97) indicates that there is virtual agreement on the contents of
speeches between him and myself.
30.

Thucydides, History 2.42.3;

Plato, Menexenus 237a,
242a-b,
246;
Demosthenes, Oration 38 8, 23 and Funeral Speech # 60 8, 10, 29; see also
Lycurgus, Against Leocrates 46.
31.

Demosthenes, Oration # 37 8, 23. Iphigenia consoled her mother in a final

speech where she catalogues the benefits to Hellas by her death: "The whole
might of Hellas depends on me. Upon me depends the passage of the ships over
the sea, and the overthrow of the Phrygians. With me it rests to prevent the
barbarians from carrying our women off from happy Hellas in the future...All
615

these things I shall achieve by my death, and my name, as the liberator of Hellas,
shall be blessed. Indeed, it behooves me not to be too fond of life; you bore me
for the common good of all the Hellenes, not for yourself alone"
(Euripides, Iphigenia at Aulis 1368 -).
32.

Closer in time to the New Testament is Cicero's definition: "Duty is the feeling
which renders kind offices and loving service to one's kin and country. Gratitude
embraces the memory of friendships and of services rendered by another, and the
desire to requite these benefits (Inv. 2.160-161).
33.

One of the clearest examples of death resulting from duty to family is that of
Antigone, who performed the sacred burial rites for her brother in violation of the
decree of her uncle that the dead brother not be buried.
34.

It goes without saying that courage () was equally honored, and a noble death
is
impossible
without
it.
See
Lycurgus, Against
Leocrates 46;
Demosthenes, Funeral
Speech,
17;
Isocrates, Evagoras,
65-66;
Hyperides, Funeral Speech, 15-16.
35.

Other Examples include: Lycurgus, Leocrates 50; Lysias, Funeral Oration 33,
61, 68, 70; Demosthenes, Funeral Speech 11, 18, 19, 23, 27, 36;
Isocrates, Evagoras 8, 23, 35, 38, 42-44, 52, 66; Hyperides,Funeral Speech11, 16,
19, 24, 26.
36.

It was also important that animals about to be sacrificed "give their consent";
for this purpose cold water and/or grain were suddenly thrown on the head and
face of the animal so that it wagged its head from side to side, which motion was
interpreted as voluntary consent to die. See Marcel Detienne, "Culinary Practices
and the Spirit of Sacrifice," The Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks (M.
Detienne and -P Vernant, eds.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989) 9.
37.

There is notable Roman evidence for the same topos. Seneca, for example,
contrasts the ignoble and unfree death of gladiators with the noble death of a wise
man who dies voluntarily: "From the men who hire out their strength for the
arena, who eat and drink what they must pay for with their blood, security is
taken that they will endure such trials even thought they be unwilling; from you,
that you will endure them willingly and with alacrity (volens libensque). The
gladiator may lower his weapon and test the pity of the people; but you will
neither lower your weapon nor beg for life. You must die erect and unyielding
(invictoque)" (Ep. 37.2-3).

616

38.

Socrates recounts the conversation between Achilles and his mother, Thetis, on
death: "He [Achilles] made light of danger in comparison with incurring dishonor
when his goddess mother warned him, eager as he was, to kill Hector, in some
such words as these, I fancy.'My son, if you avenge your comrade Patroclus'
death and kill Hector, you will die yourself - Next after Hector is thy fate
prepared.' When he heard this warning, he made light of his death and danger,
being much more afraid of an ignoble life and of failing to avenge his friends.
'Let me die forthwith,' said he, 'when I have requited the villain, rather than
remain here by the beaked ships to be mocked, a burden on the ground'"
(Plato, Apology 28 c-d).
39.

Isocrates, Evagoras
#
9 3;
Demosthenes Oration # 37 1, 8, 26.

See

also

Plato, Menexenus 246d;

40.

Centuries later Plutarch writes: "For the best thing is that a general should be
victorious and keep his life, 'but if he must die,' he should conclude his life with
valour (),' as Euripides says; for then he does not suffer death, but rather achieves
it" (Pelopidas and Marcellus 3.2).
41.

See Demosthenes, The Funeral Speech 19; # 18 192, 207-208.

42.

Isocrates says in praise of Evagoras: "I would say that no one (), whether
mortal, demigod, or immortal, will be found to have obtained his throne more
nobly, more splendidly, or more piously" (Evagoras39). Other instances of
uniqueness include Hyperides, Funeral Speech 19; Lycurgus, Against
Leocrates15; Demosthenes states in regard to the dead: "How, then, since the
whole country unites in according them a public burial, and they alone ()
receive the words of universal praise. . .how can we do otherwise than consider
them blessed of fortune" (Funeral Oration 60, 33).
43.

The Greek celebrations of posthumous honors was well known in antiquity, as

Dionysius of Halicarnassus notes: "These writers [Greeks] have given accounts
of funeral games, both gymnastic and equestrian, held in honour of famous men
by their friends, as by Achilles for Patroclus and, before that, by Herakles for
Pelops" (History 5.17.4). Isocrates lists the various posthumous honors that might
be celebrated to honor Evagoras, adding that his own speech gives greater glory
to the dead man: "When I saw you, Nicocles, honouring the tomb of your father,
not only with numerous and beautiful offerings, but also with dances, music, and
athletic contests, and furthermore, with races of horses and triremes. . ."
(Evagoras 1).

617

44.

This is illustrated by the following inscription. A public decree, both read

aloud at the tomb of a certain Theophilos and subsequently carved in white
marble honors the deceased by the public declaration of his worth: ". . .of very
noble ancestral stock, having contributed all good -will towards his country,
having lived his life as master of his family, providing many things for his
country through his generalship and tenure as agoranomos and his embassies as
far as Rome and Germany and Caesar, being amicable to the citizens and in
concord with his wife Apphia, now it is resolved that Theophilos be honoured
with a painted portrait and a gold bust and a marble statue" (New Documents
Illustrating Early Christianity 2 [1982] 58-60).
45.

Ziolkowsky lists many examples of this motif of posthumous glory

(Thucydides and the Tradition of Funeral Speeches at Athens, 126-28).
46.

For example, see Josephus, Ant. 17.152-54.

47.

The orators frequently stress that part of the honor of the fallen is the arousal
of envy and emulation in those who hear the speech. Lysias most of all employs
this rhetorical topic; for example, speaking of Athens' fallen heroes, he honors
them: "Thus the struggles at the Peiraeus have earned for those men the envy of
all mankind" (Funeral Oration 66; see also 68-73). See also
Isocrates, Evagoras 6,
70;
Hyperides, Funeral
Speech 31-32;
Demosthenes, Funeral Speech 60. On the relationship of envy and honor, see
Anselm Hagedorn and Jerome Neyrey, "'It Was Out of Envy that They Handed
Jesus Over' (Mark 15,10): The Anatomy of Envy and the Gospel of
Mark," JSNT 69 (1998) esp. 15-38.
48.

In regard to this point Aristotle has more to say. "A praiseworthy person is one
who is. . .the only one or the first or one of a few or the one who most has done
something; for all these things are honorable. And [praise can be taken] from the
historical contexts. . . if a subject has often has success in the same way (for that
is a great thing and would seem to result not from chance but from the person
himself); and if incitements and honors have been invented and established
because of him. . . and if he was the first one to receive an encomium, as in the
case of Hippolochos; and [if for him], as for Hermodius and Agistogeiton, statues
were set up in the marketplace" (Rhet. 1.9.38, italics added).
49.

Theon mentions as one of the external qualities of a person, probably meaning

by it an "easy death" free from illness or disease (James Butts, The
"Progymnasmata" of Theon [unpublished dissertation: Claremont, 1994] 9.19).
Herodotus' remark on an "easy death" is important: "[a blest man must be] free
618

from deformity, sickness and all evil, and happy in his children and his
comeliness" (1.32).
50.

Charles S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic (New York: Macmillan Co.,
1928) 32.
51.

Quintilian instructs on what occurs "after death," viz., posthumous honors: "It
is not always possible to deal with the time subsequent to our hero's death: this is
due not merely to the fact that we sometimes praise him while still alive, but also
that there are but few occasions when we have a chance to celebrate the award of
divine honours, posthumous votes of thanks, or statues erected at the public
expense" (Inst. Orat. 3.7.17).
52.

Butts 1987: 468-71.

53.

Both Seeley (The Noble Death, 83-112) and Droge and Tabor (A Noble Death,
53-84, 86-96) discuss the Maccabean literature, the latter with an eye to suicide
and the former with focus on the background for Paul's soteriology. Neither bring
to their task the rich data from Greek rhetoric, and so a new survey of 1, 2 and 4
Maccabees in warranted precisely on the fact that they are not only written in
Greek but reflect Greek popular understanding of what constitutes a noble death.
54.

The fullest treatment of the motif of noble death in 2 and 4 Maccabees is that
of Jan Willem Van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish
People (Leiden: Brill, 1997). In particular he examines the importance of
"voluntary" death and death as benefit. He too appreciates the Judean dependence
on motifs long ago made sacred in Greek literature (see especially pp. 140-50,
157-59, 213-25).
55.

2 Macc 6:28; see 1 Macc 4:35; 9:10; 2 Macc 6:28, 31; 4 Macc 6:30.

56.

2 Macc 7:5; see 4 Macc 6:22.

57.

4 Macc 10:1.

58.

4 Macc 10:15; on the translation of as "honorable," see K. C. Hanson, "'How

Honorable! Hos Shameful!' A Cultural Analysis of Matthew's Makarisms and
Reproaches," Semeia 68 (1994) 81-112.
59.

Besides speaking about an effective death which benefits the people, van
Henten argues persuasively that the author describes the death in 2 Macc 7:33-39
as benefitting the people because it is an atonement sacrifice (The Maccabean
619

Martyrs as Saviours, 140-56); and he notes the important Greco-Roman parallels

in pp. 156-61.
60.

Although many authors call attention to the sacrificial or atoning significance

of the demise of Eleazar and the seven brothers (see also 17:22;), yet see
Seeley, The Noble Death, 97-98.
61.

For a more detailed examination of this, see van Henten, The Maccabean
Martyrs as Saviours, pp. 58, 95-98.
62.

On the martyrs as exemplary figures, see van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs
as Saviours, 210-43.
63.

See also 2 Macc 7:14 and 29; 4 Macc 5:23.

64.

See also 2 Macc 7:14; 4 Macc 9:1 and 4.

65.

See also 4 Macc 7:14; 10:7; 11:20-21 and 18:22. The same thing is said of
Jesus' death in Heb 2:14-15.
66.

See also 2 Macc 7:5-6 and 29.

67.

See also 2 Macc 6:28 and 31; the mother of the seven sons is praised for her
display of "manliness," otherwise know as courage: 2 Macc 7:20-21; 4 Macc 1:8.
68.

Time and again we are told that they suffer death "for the sake of virtue" (4
Macc 1:8; see 1:10), which must be justice.
69.

See also 4 Macc 6:22 and 11:20-21.

70.

4 Macc 9:29 reads: "How sweet is any kind of death for the religion of our
ancestors."
71.

See also 2 Macc 8:21; 4 Macc 6:22 and 27-28; 9:1

72.

Again, van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours, 270-88.

73.

For example, Josephus, Ant. 17. 152-54.

74.

Hyperides, Funeral Speech 16.

75.

Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, 386-87. He notes also that
the expression occurs also in 13:37; 15:13; 1 John 3:16.
620

76.

The contents of John 10:1-17 contain other comparisons: true and false
shepherds (10:1-5), as well as true provider of the sheep and "thieves and
bandits" (10:8-10).
77.

See Judith Kovacs, " 'Now Shall the Ruler of This World Be Driven Out':
Jesus' Death as Cosmic Battle in John 12:20-36." She points to three clusters of
material (12:20-36; 14:30-31; and 16:8-11), which indicate how the author of the
Fourth Gospel elevated Jesus' death by seeing it as combat with the world's most
powerful figure, thus giving increased significance to his death. A long tradition
exists which identifies the wolf as Satan; vicious wolves, moreover, are often
predicted as attacking the fold (Matt 7:15; Acts 20:29-20; Did. 16:3;
Ignatius Phil. 2:2; 2 Clement 5:2-4).
78.

See Charles Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic, 32.

79.

A comparable remark is made in Hebrews 2:14-15, that "through death he

might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all
those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage." See Harold
Attridge, Hebrews (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 92.
80.

In the Athenian funeral speeches, all of the orators praise the courage of the
fallen, both that of their ancestors and their own: Thucydides, Histories, 2.42;
Isocrates, Evagoras, 29, 42-44; Plato,Menexenus, 237-246; Hyperides, Funeral
Speech, 8-19; Demosthenes, Funeral Speech and Lysias .
81.

Menander Rhetor I.361.17-25. Another ancient definition of justice is similar:

"First among the claims of righteousness are our duties to the gods, then our
duties to the spirits, then those to country and parents, then those to the departed ;
among these claims is piety (eusebeia), which is either a part of righteousness or
a concomitant of it. Righteousness is also accompanied by holiness (hosiots)
and truth and loyalty (pistis) and hatred of wickedness" (Ps. Aristotle, Virtues and
Vices, V.2-3, italics added). See also Cicero, Inv. 2.160-161.
82.

John Ashton (The Understanding of the Fourth Gospel [Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1992] 328) makes the same point in terms of Israelite religious language:
"The Father's 'knowing' the Son is in the old Testament and Judaic tradition of
election, while knowing on the Son's part means acknowledgment: the Son
accepts the Father's revelation and his will."
83.

Commentators are of many minds on how to understand and translate "know"

here; Brown (Gospel According to John, 396) wisely links 10:14 with the
original parable in 10:3-5. Hence "knowledge" is not simply information or
621

recognition, but acknowledging someone or accepting a relationship. In Brown's

special note on "know" (p 514) he lists as illustration of the personal meaning of
"know" texts which tell of the world or sinners not knowing the Father or Jesus:
1:10; 16:3; 17:25; 1 John 3:1, 6. "Not knowing" God or Jesus means not
accepting them, acknowledging them, becoming their disciples. This posture
refuses a personal relationship which is the basis of duty which is a key element
of justice.
84.

Apropos of the shepherd's just duty to the sheep by a noble death, one might
also consider the way the shepherd demonstrates the same duty to the sheep by
his noble life. He protects them in a sheepfold, leads them to pasture and to
water. Thus he leads them out to pasture and water and leads them home; he loses
none but the one destined to be lost. His virtuous life, then, parallels his virtuous
death.
85.

Rudolf Bultmann, "," TDNT (Grand Rapids: Wm. E. Eerdmans, 1964) I.698.

86.

See Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, 396; Rudolf

Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to John. Vol. 2 (New York: Crossroads,
1982) 299.
87.

John Pilch and Bruce Malina, editors, Handbook of Biblical Social

Values (updated edition; Peabody, MA:Hendrickson, 1998) 127-28.
88.

C. K. Barrett (The Gospel According to John. [2nd edition. Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1978] 374-75) made two useful observations on this phrase. First, it
is peculiar to John and 1 John (10:11, 15, 17f; 13:37f; 15:13; 1 John 3:16);
second, in John always carries the significance of death (in addition to the
citations above, see 6:51; 18:14).
89.

Scholars have called attention to the voluntary character of 10:17-18; but to

my knowledge no one has suggested any Hellenistic parallels to this. Rather they
refer to parallels in the Hebrew Scriptures such as David facing the bear and lion
in 1 Sam 17:34-35. Thus Brown states: "The similarity [with Old Testament
materials] suggests that we need not go outside the OT for the background of this
particular aspect of the Johannine picture of the shepherd: it is a combination of
elements from the OT descriptions of the shepherd and of the Suffering Servant"
(Gospel According to John 398).
90.

Helen C. Orchard (Courting Betrayal. Jesus as Victim in the Gospel of John.

JSNTSup 161. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) argues just the
opposite in her study of the mounting violence against Jesus. While on the one
622

hand one must agree with Orchard that the entire narrative in John describes
incessant and increasing hostility to Jesus, on the other hand she brings to the
discussion no mention whatsoever of the rhetoric of death in the ancient world.
Where I talk of "noble" death which is articulated in a clear body of ancient
rhetorical materials, Orchard speaks of the "victimization" of Jesus in terms of
liberation theology and current anecdotes of political martyrs.
91.

See Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, 398.

92.

See Jerome H. Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt. John's Christology in SocialScience Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 22-29 and 59-74.
93.

The evangelist does not necessarily share the view of Death which Paul had.
For Paul Death was the enslaving taskmaster who ruled all mortals before the
coming of Jesus (Rom 5:14, 17) or the last enemy to be put under Christ's feet (1
Cor 15:26). Similarly, Heb 2:14-16 describes Death as the evil monarch who held
all in slavery for fear of it. Both, however, envision some sort of combat between
Jesus and Death.
94.

Yet "shepherd" outside of the context of ruler carried with it base and shameful
connotation. It is listed among the "despised trades" documented by Joachim
Jeremias from mishnaic and talmudic texts (Jerusalem in the Time of
Jesus [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969] 303-12), On the double meaning of the
term shepherd, see Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh, Social-Science
Commentary on the Gospel of John (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 179.
95.

Most scholarship has focused on two issues: (1) the background to the
prophesy of the high priest (Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John,
442-43; B. Lindars, The Gospel of John [London: Oliphants, 1972] 406-7) and
(2) irony (Paul Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel [Atlanta: John Knox, 1985] 8690).
96.

Similar instances of envy of Jesus' success include John 3:25-30; see also
Mark 9:38-41. On the topic of limited good, honor and envy, see Anselm
Hagedorn and Jerome Neyrey, "'It Was Our of Envy that They Handed Jesus
Over' (Mark 15.10): The Anatomy of Envy and the Gospel of Mark," JSNT 69
(1998) 15-65. Envy, moreover, is often an important element in Greek funeral
orations; see Ziolkowsky, Thucydides and the Tradition of Funeral Speeches in
Athens, 128.
97.

Roger David Aus argues that the appropriate background for this narrative is
the midrash describing the surrender of Jehoiakim and his son Jehoiachin and
623

also of Sheba, the son of Bichri; he identifies six motifs in the midrash that
correspond to John 11:46-53 - namely, 1) a gathering of the Great Sanhedrin, 2)
the destruction of the temple, 3) rebellion and judgment, 4) one life for others, 5)
"what shall we do?", 6) scattering ("The Death of One for All in John 11:45-54 in
Light of Judaic Traditions," Barabbas and Esther and other Studies in the Judaic
Illumination of Early Christianity [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992] 29-63). His
treatment of John 11:45-54 could not be more different than mine. It will be up to
readers to see whether the rhetoric of noble death accounts for more items here
and offers a more satisfying interpretation of this passage, especially in light of
the noble death topos in John 10.
98.

See Konrad Weiss, "," TDNT 9.69-78

99.

Brown, The Gospel According to John, 442-43.

100.

Some Athenian funeral orations contain clusters of the various motifs

identified; the same is also true of Josephus, Wars 1.650 and 7.323-36; see
also Rhetoric to Herennius 4.44.57.
101.

See Hugo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel (Uppsala: Almquist and Wicksell,
1929); Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King (Leiden: Brill, 1967). I myself have
argued this repeatedly in a series of articles: "Jacob Traditions and the
Interpretation of John 4:10-26," CBQ 41 (1979): 419-37; "'I Said: You are God':
Psalm 82:6 and John 10," JBL 108 (1989): 647-63; "Jesus the Judge: Forensic
Process in John 8, 21-59," Bib 68 (1987): 509-41.
102.

On the relationship of the parables of the shepherd and the vine, see John F.
O"Grady, "Good Shepherd and the Vine and the Branches," BTB 8 (1978) 86-96.
See also Martin Dibelius, Botschaft und Geschichte (Tbingen: Mohr, 1953)
1.204-10.
103.

See G.B. Caird, " The Glory of God in the Fourth Gospel. An Exercise in
Biblical Semantics," NTS 15 (1969) 265-77; Brown, The Gospel According to
John, 470-71, 6-9-11; Barrett, The Gospel According to John, 450.
104.

See my article "The Footwashing in John 13:6-11: Transformation Ritual or

Ceremony?" in L. Michael White and Larry Yarborough, eds., The Social World
of the First Christians (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 206-13.
105.

See "The Footwashing in John 13:6-11," 210-11.

106.

See John 6:39; 10:28 and 17:12.

624

107.

An analysis of this passage in terms of honor and shame can be found in my

article "Despising the Shame of the Cross: Honor and Shame in the Johannine
Passion Narrative," Semeia 68 (1994) 119-20

'He must increase, I must decrease' (John 3:30):

A Cultural and Social Interpretation
Jerome
University
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Richard
Lewis
Portland, OR 97219

H.
of

Neyrey,
Notre
L.

&

Clark

S.J.
Dame
Rohrbaugh
College

The episode in John 3:22-30 regularly gets short shrift from commentators.1 That
is especially true of the Baptizer's striking remark in v. 30 that at best is praised,
but never interpreted.2 Nor has anyone taken notice of how foreign to
Mediterranean culture that remark really is; hence to our knowledge no one has
ever felt the need for or found suitable ancient, non-biblical parallels that might
be brought to bear on its interpretation. In the discussion that follows, however,
we shall examine relevant parallel material that is indeed illuminating. Yet we do
not do so as just another history-of-religions investigation. Instead, we bring to
the task models from comparative anthropology that enable us to assess John
3:30 in its proper cultural and social context.
It is also true that this passage is rarely compared with other materials in the
Fourth Gospel that might offer clarification. Monographs and commentaries
typically investigate the links between John and Jesus in John 1, and indicate
their continuance in John 3:22-30. Yet we will argue that at least in 11:45-52 we
find an important but unnoticed contrast to 3:22-30. Whereas John the Baptist did
not suffer envy at Jesus' success, the Jerusalem elite did so. The interpretive key
to that contrast, we argue, lies in the sociology of perception (limited good) and
the anthropology of envy.
Our thesis is that in this story John's disciples are on the verge of envying Jesus
and his disciples. Like most people in antiquity, they appear to share the view
625

that all goods are limited in quantity and are already all distributed. There is only
so much land, gold, fame or praise existing in the world. Thus if someone seems
to be gaining any of these, inevitably others must be losing -- possibly me or one
of my friends. In other words, the world is a zero-sum game: for some to
increase, others must decrease. The Baptizer himself steps apart from the game,
but not so his disciples. For them, Jesus' success appears to be a gain that implies
their loss. It is this cultural concept of limited good and relevant ancient
instances of it that we bring to our interpretation of John 3:30.
1.0 Preliminary Reading of John 3:22-30
The scene begins with notice that both Jesus and John are baptizing in the Judean
territory.3 That sets the stage for the controversy that follows. The disciples of
John engage in a controversy with someone4 over purification. The key term
here, ztsis, can have such neutral meanings as philosophical inquiry or
investigation, but it can also have a much more highly charged meaning such as a
controversy or legal investigation.5 The sense in 3:25 is that of controversy and
even of envy. These disciples then go to John to voice their interpretation of the:
ztsis Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore
witness, here he is, baptizing and all are going to him (v 26).6 Their complaint
clarifies the subject of the ztsis a rivalry between Jesus (and his disciples) and
John (and his disciples).
The nub of the ztsis resides in the perception that Jesus' growth in fame and
reputation comes at the expense of John and his disciples. In many ways John's
disciples voice the same kind of remark as do Jesus' enemies in 11:47 at the
growth of Jesus' fame because of his raising of Lazarus: This man performs
many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him. . . In
both stories some people perceive that their own worth diminishes precisely as
Jesus gains greater respect and honor. In fact, Jesus' increase causes their
decrease.
The audience of the Fourth Gospel has been carefully prepared how to assess
remarks such as those of Johns disciples. No less than three times John
announced Jesus superiority to himself, indicating that he and Jesus are not in
competition but that Johns career is precisely to herald Jesus.
1:15 He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.
1:26-27 . . .among you stands one whom you do not know, even he who comes
after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.
1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me comes a man who ranks before me,
for he was before me.
626

John, then, has already declared his position on the success of Jesus; he himself
does not see the situation in terms of limited good, nor will he engage in envy.
However John steps apart from this typical game of envy by making several
critical remarks. First, he declares that Jesus has not achieved anything on his
own. No one, including Jesus, has anything but what is given him from above
(v 27). Thus in the jargon of honor and shame, the honor Jesus enjoys is honor
ascribed by God with which mortals may not disagree (Acts 5:39). In this way
John states that he himself does not share his disciples' perception of a
controversy since it is God who gives Jesus' status and fame. Second, he reminds
his disciples of his own earlier testimony to Jesus (3:28; see 1:19-23), indicating
that his major role has been to herald and acknowledge Jesus' honorable
precedence and status before all. John has always promoted Jesus; it is his
mission to see Jesus increase. Third, he describes his relationship to Jesus as the
friend (philos) who stands close by and rejoices greatly at the groom's voice
(v 29).7 Surely groom and friend are not rivals; nor does the friend lose
anything if the groom is happy. In fact, as John says, this joy of mine is now
full, that is, in no way has it diminished because of Jesus' success. Thus John
disputes his own disciples' interpretation of the situation. Whereas they see only
loss in Jesus' growing success, John sees fullness of joy at Jesus' fame, just as
the philos revels in the voice of the groom.
Finally, John makes one of the most counter-cultural statements in the New
Testament: He [Jesus] must increase, but I must decrease (v 30). Why
counter-cultural? What is taking place between the characters of the story and
the reader and his audience? How would readers know that John has made a
remark so unusual as to turn their world upside down? To answer this we must
borrow from cultural anthropology a model for assessing social perceptions of
gain and loss in honor-shame (agonistic) societies.
2.0 Cultural Model of Limited Good"
The anthropologist George Foster8 long ago described how peasants perceive
that all good things in the world exist in limited supply:
By Image of Limited Good I mean that broad areas of peasant behavior are
patterned in such a fashion as to suggest that peasants view their social,
economic, and natural universes--their total environment--as one in which all of
the desired things in life such as land, wealth, health, friendship and love,
manliness and honor, respect and status, power and influence, security and safety,
exist in finite quantity and are always in short supply, as far as the peasant is
concerned. Not only do these and all other good things exist in finite and
627

limited quantities, but in addition there is no way directly within peasant power
to increase the available quantities.9
For peasants, ancient as well as modern, the world exists as a zero sum game in
which land provides the basic analogy for understanding the world. There is only
so much arable land in the world and it is already all distributed. If one person
gets more, someone else has to get less. Moreover, the same is true of all other
good things in the world including water, food, wealth, as well as respect and
fame. Thus Foster argues that any advantage achieved by one individual or
family is seen as a loss to others, and the person who makes what the Western
world lauds as 'progress' is viewed as a threat to the stability of the entire
community.10
The key here is the perception that everything good is already all distributed and
cannot be increased. Foster suggests that when people view the world in this way,
two things will happen: (1) people are reluctant to advance beyond their peers
because of the sanctions they know will be leveled against them and (2) anyone
who is seen or known to acquire more becomes much more vulnerable to the
envy of his neighbors.11 Social relations become heavily dependent not just on
maintaining what one has in life but also on avoiding the perception of gaining
more. To gain is to steal from others. Thus peasants will not tolerate neighbors
who acquire beyond what they have. Because goods are limited, envy follows
acquisition as surely as night follows day. Two things, then, are at stake in our
discussion of John 3:25-30: 1) the perception of limited good, such that one's
gain comes at another's expense, and 2) the reaction of envy to prevent this
gain/loss.12
3.0 Cultural Illustrations of Limited Good in Antiquity
While the notion of limited good was formulated by a modern scholar studying
modern peasant societies, it has direct relevance for interpreting a host of ancient
texts, both Greco-Roman and biblical.
13 These examples, once appreciated, illustrate the presence of the concept in
antiquity and thereby confirm the utility of using an anthropological model for
interpretation of biblical documents. Thus our argument is that ancient
expressions of limited good can serve as interpretative parallels for understanding
John 3:25-30.
We begin with an ancient saying of Iamblicus which fully expresses what we saw
in regard to the attitude of John's disciples: People do not find it pleasant to give
honor (tim) to someone else, for they suppose that they themselves are being
628

deprived of something."14 Evidently, those described here (people) perceive

the world in the same way as do Foster's peasants: everything is limited,
especially honor, such that another's gain comes at one's own loss. Of course
this naked quote tells us nothing of the reaction of those who are deprived of
something; but since this gain is perceived as an injury or insult of some sort,
the common social reaction would likely be anger and/or envy to stop the loss
and restore the former balance.
Plutarch (On Listening to Lectures 44B) describes a situation of limited good
when he remarks that some persons hear a speaker and react in envy at his
success: As though commendation were money, he feels that he is robbing
himself of every bit that he bestows on another.15 Here again the issue is one of
reputation or respect, and the perspective is that of limited good. Another's gain
means robbery of oneself. While Plutarch does not say that this situation results
in agonistic behavior, it remains a distinct possibility. In another place (Old Men
in Public Affairs 787D) Plutarch states: And whereas men attack other kinds of
eminence and themselves lay claim to good character, good birth, and honour, as
though they were depriving themselves of so much of these as they grant to
others.16 Obviously honor is both to be sought and defended. But a pattern is
also emerging here: a grant of honor to another means depriving oneself of honor
in equal measure. The perspective is one of limited good, and agonistic
reactions would likely follow.
In a number of places Josephus also describes situations that presume some sort
of perception of limited good. First, when he describes the envy of John, son of
Levi, at his own rise in fortune, he comments:
. . .believing that my success involved his own ruin, he gave way to immoderate
envy. Hoping to check my good fortune by inspiring hatred of me in those under
my command, he tried to induce the inhabitants of Tiberias, Sepphoris, and
Gabara -- the three chief cities of Galilee -- to abandon their allegiance to me and
go over to him, asserting that they would find him a better general than I was
(Vita 25 122-23).17
The issue is once again honor or reputation, and the perception is again that of
limited good. Josephus' success meant John's ruin. The result was envy
and an attempt by John to win back what he saw Josephus as taking from him.
In another place (B.J. 1.23.5. 459) Josephus reports how Herod demanded that
his sons be treated each according to his particular honor, because to give honor
unfairly to one son was to take it unjustly from a deserving son: ...let the
honours you award them be neither undeserved nor unequal (anmalos), but
629

proportioned to the rank of each; for in paying deference to any beyond the
deserts of his age, you gratify him less than you grieve the one whom you
slight.18 Once more, the focus is honor and the perception that of limited
good: the deference given one son is seen as loss of another. Feuding among the
royal sons is sure to follow in an attempt to redress the perceived wrong.
Josephus's account of Moses' peril (A.J. 2.11.1 255) clearly reflects his own
appreciation of limited good. Even as certain Egyptian nobles urged Pharaoh to
put Moses to death, He [Pharaoh] on his own part was harbouring thoughts of so
doing, alike from Moses' generalship and from fear of seeing himself abased, and
so, when instigated by the hierarchy, was prepared to lend a hand in the murder
of Moses.19 As we have come to expect, honor is the limited good: Pharaoh
perceived that Moses' reputation came at his own expense (fear of seeing
himself abased), and the appropriate envious reaction was to kill Moses and thus
restore himself to prominence.
Finally, in Josephus' account of Korah's revolt (A.J. 4.2.4 32), the author
comments: It were monstrous that Korah, in coveting this honour, should
deprive God of the power of deciding to whom He would accord it.20 Not
accidentally the issue is over honor and the perception, at least of Josephus, is
that of limited good: Korah's acquisition of status and honor in this regard
comes at God's expense. The deity must and will respond to this threat.
In one place (Ebr. 28 110) Philo compares and contrasts people of insight with
those with mere earthly vision. The wise and all-seeing soul, he says, stretches
toward God and interprets created things as benefactions of God; moreover, he
honors God as the only Cause of these material benefactions. In contrast, the man
of undiscerning vision, whose eye is blinded, does not perceive the Cause at all,
but considers material benefits as causes of what he hopes to receive. Hence, he
worships many gods, building idols of stone and wood. Philo then makes a claim
(Ebr. 28 110) that relates this material to his perception of limited good:
Polytheism creates atheism in the souls of the foolish, and God's honour is set at
naught by those who deify the mortal. . .they even allowed irrational plants and
animals to share in the honour which belongs to things imperishable.21 As we
have come to see, honor in this case, God's honor is proportionately
diminished as more creatures are honored as gods; the honor of the imperishable
God wanes insofar as honor is given to perishable beings. It is clear, therefore,
that there is only so much honor in the cosmos, and when honor is unworthily
given to some, it diminishes the legitimate honor of others. For this reason Philo
labels the just honoring of God as hosiots, but the improper honoring of
creatures, asebeia.
630

Fronto's letter to Marcus Aurelius provides another striking illustration of the

phenomenon we are investigating. Fronto begins by comparing Orpheus' ability
to charm sheep and doves with wolves and eagles with that of a political leader
who gathers together different nations endowed with diverse characteristics.
Orpheus' following, nevertheless, lived sociably together in unity and concord,
the gentle with the fierce, the quiet with the violent, the meek with the proud,
the sensitive with the cruel. While Fronto exhorts the Emperor to the same
achievement, he concedes that at court the emperor faces a far harder task than
to charm with the lyre the fierceness of lions and wild beasts. His endeavors,
then, should be focused on this: Set yourself to uproot and utterly stamp out one
vice of mutual envy and jealousy among your friends, that they may not, when
you have shown attention or done a favor to another, think that this is so much
taken from or lost to themselves. Envy among men is a deadly evil and more fatal
than any, a curse to enviers and envied alike.22 The stage is the imperial court,
where clients seek the emperor's patronage, thus climbing the fragile ladder of
honor and shame. Despite the fact that Fronto talks about imperial elites and not
peasants, the social perception is the same: all things are limited, and the success
of one is perceived as another's loss. However a new element emerges here: the
explicit remark that envy follows the perception of another's success. That is so
because all are grasping for the same prize. All seek a high reputation in the eyes
of their peers.
At this point we turn from the Greco-Roman world to examine some of the
evidence in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. The story of Esaus lost blessing
in Gen. 27:30-40 provides a good example. Esau returns from hunting and asks
his fathers blessing. But as a result of Jacobs deceit, Isaac has already blessed
his younger son. When Esau returns, and Isaac recognizes him, he is distraught.
Esau pleads, Bless me, me also, father! But Isaac cannot. There is only one
blessing and it is already distributed. So too are the servants, grain and wine that
go with it and sustain it. Esaus second plea (27:38) to his agitated father is even
more telling. It makes clear the limited nature of the good: Have you only one
blessing, father? Indeed he does. Esau receives a curse instead.
Once, when Gideon and his army were prepared to go into battle, the Lord said to
him: The people with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their
hand, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, 'My own hand has
delivered me' (Judges 7:2). The point of view is that of the person who stands to
lose honor by the actions of another. The deity perceives that if Gideon wins the
victory with a large army, the likely result is the rise of Gideon's reputation as a
great warrior and Israel's reliance on him. This, it is implied, comes at God's
expense. Hence the command is given to reduce Gideon's troops by two-thirds so
that the victory remains with God.
631

Similarly, David was returning to Saul from slaying the Philistine and was
acclaimed in city after city by women who came out singing and dancing, with
timbrels, with songs of joy, and with instruments of music. And they sang: Saul
has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands (1 Sam 18:6-7). The
narrative states that when Saul heard this, he was very angry, and this saying
displeased him, 'They have ascribed to David ten thousands, and to me they have
ascribed thousands; and what more can he have but the kingdom' (18:9). This
represents a classic situation of the birth of envy. Saul, like so many other figures
we have seen, perceives that David's success comes at his own expense.
Moreover, the issue continues to be one of honor, in this case a reputation for
military valor and success. Obviously Saul calculates that David will not be
satisfied with this honor but will in time aim to have Saul's very throne: What
more can he have but the kingdom? Thus from that time on, we are told, Saul
eyed David,23 indicating that he continued to interpret David's every plan or
success as wounding his own honor.
Next we turn to Mark's account of Jesus' teaching in the synagogue of his home
village (patris) (6:1-6//Matt 13:53-58; Luke 4:16-30).24 His public act of
speaking in so formal a setting as the synagogue at the most significant of
times (on the sabbath) embodies a claim of qualification to do something that
he apparently did not have prior to his departure. Now disciples follow him!
Evidently Jesus has changed radically since he left Nazareth, and has become a
person of considerable stature and honor. But his public speech immediately
provokes a negative reaction, they were astonished.25 In a string of questions
the villagers voice their objections to Jesus' public behavior.26 First, they call
attention to what they find most offensive in Jesus, namely his newly found
capabilities and the corresponding honor they bring him:
Where
did
this
man
get
What
is
the
wisdom
What mighty works are wrought by his hands? (6:2)

all
given

this?
him?

Evidently such actions would hardly be expected of a peasant artisan. They are
perceived as increases in Jesus' status vis--vis his former neighbors. Such a
quantum leap in honor is apparently processed via the perception of limited
good, which adequately explains the hostile reaction to Jesus. His gain is
interpreted as their loss.
In antiquity, the chief cultural grounds for an individual's status are pegged to his
kin, since a man's origin and birth ordinarily provide a reliable index of his worth
for the rest of his life.27 Hence, the question where did he get all this? implies
that Jesus could not have gotten wisdom and powers from his family who are
632

ordinary peasants: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of
James and Joses and Simon and Judas, and are not his sisters with us? (6:3).
This means that their social location in the village environment is that of
typically poor peasants and artisans.28 Born of humble stock,29 Jesus has no
means in their eyes to deserve any new honor. As an artisan he received no
schooling (John 7:15),30 and so the qualifications for his public voice in the
village synagogue remain uncertain. And yet, here he is enjoying a most
favorable and increasing reputation. Jesus' increase in respect throughout Galilee
lifts him high above his village peers, a situation which his neighbors perceive as
an intolerable and unbalancing force that means their corresponding loss of honor
in proportion to Jesus' gain.31 Although the term envy does not appear here,
the complete ingredients for it are present, as we shall shortly see.
What do people do who perceive a serious imbalance in the zero-sum game of
honor and status? Luke concludes his version with an attempt on Jesus' life (Luke
4:29). Resort to violence is an open admission of loss.32 Matthew and Mark both
record a hostile reaction, although not life-threatening: they took offense
(eskandalizonto) at him. In short, they deny his claim to public voice; they
attempt to cut him down to size. Jesus has the final word, quoting a common
proverb that A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his
own house. Granted that Jesus' remark is a generic sort of maxim that is
sufficiently broad to apply to many situations, nevertheless it does have to do
with role and status (prophet), honor, and peer envy, items regularly found in a
limited good perspective. We do not think it far from the mark to translate
Jesus' remark as a person of distinction [prophet] lacks no acknowledgment of
his role/status [honor] except in situations of limited good, where his closest
associates and relatives [in his own country and in his own house] perceive
themselves as losing honor precisely as his increases. 33
In Marks gospel we find several other stories that reflect the perception of
limited good (7:24-30; 9:38-41 and 10:35-45). In the story about the Canaanite
woman (Mark 7:24-30), Jesus first refuses her request, saying: Let the children
first be fed, for it is not right to take the childrens bread and throw it to the
dogs. The plain meaning of his words states that there is only so much bread,
and it belongs to the children. To give any to the dogs means that the childrens
share will necessarily shrink. But the woman argues in response that even the
dogs under the table eat the childrens crumbs. She effectively neutralizes the
limited good perspective by stating that she is not encroaching on the childrens
portion (bread), but wishes to share in that part of the portion that has always
been fed to dogs (the bread crumbs). The story depends on the audience
understanding limited good to grasp both Jesus words and the womans
argument.
633

In Mark's gospel we also hear John the son of Zebedee reporting to Jesus about a
situation that resembles the dialogue between John the Baptizer and his disciples.
John and others saw a man who was not a disciple use Jesus' name in
successfully casting out a demon (9:38), and they forbade him. Jesus' disciples
evaluate what they observe in terms of some notion of limited good, and so the
focus is on the name of Jesus and the honor that this non-disciple gains. His
success means that Jesus (and his disciples) suffers some corresponding loss; and
to staunch this flow, the disciples forbade him. Jesus, however, does not
perceive the incident in terms of limited good and criticizes the disciples'
actions: Do not forbid him. Far from being a proclamation of tolerance,34
Jesus words admit of a different interpretation, namely, that Jesus continues to
gain an honorable reputation when another uses his name. When and until this
other person speaks ill of Jesus (katalogsai), the Teacher experiences a net gain
in honor. What is clear is that the disciples evaluate the episode in terms of
limited good, seeing the exorcist's success coming at their and Jesus' expense.
Jesus does not contradict the evaluation of limited good so much as to indicate
that currently he and his disciples continue to experience a net gain in honor.
Hence, do not forbid him, indicates that Jesus does not feel envy and thus
hostility.
One further example from Mark 10:35-52 concludes our survey of parallel
materials. Two disciples, who are already prominent among the Twelve (Mark
5:37; 9:2), approach Jesus and request further special favors. They wish to sit at
his right hand and his left hand in his glory (10:37). We today consider someone
at the right hand of the boss to have extraordinary status; so also was that true in
antiquity. Psalm 110:1 states it quite clearly: The Lord said to my Lord: 'Sit at
my right hand.' Thus James and John have asked for a truly unique honor.
However Jesus persuades them to accept his new calculus of honor, which is the
cup of sufferings that he will drink and the baptism of his passion and death.
Instead of receiving what they asked for, James and John are given the honor of
sharing Jesus' fate.
But the damage has been done. The other ten disciples hear of the request and
react in anger. Their reaction makes perfect cultural sense in terms of limited
good because if James and John were to receive the honor status they requested,
there would be little or no special honor left for them. The success of two would
come at the expense of ten. Thus the ten understand that the request of James and
John will hurt themselves. Moreover, the indignation and anger (aganaktein) with
which they react was understood as the appropriate emotional response to a sense
of injury. The episode, we are told, does not escalate into a situation of envy and
agonistic behavior because Jesus intervenes (10:42-45). But all of the elements of
a battle born of limited good perceptions are present.
634

Yet as Jesus did with James and John (10:38-40), he now does with all of the
Twelve (10:43-45). He redefines honor such that limited good will make no
sense. He criticizes positions of power and status by reminding the Twelve that
people in such situations despoil those below themselves. In his circle of
disciples, Jesus states, the great one is the servant of the rest and the first
person is the slave of all. Ambition for these particular status positions is
acceptable, for no one loses anything; all gain. Jesus then concludes by
presenting himself as an honorable example of what he is saying: the Son of
man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as ransom for many.
In sum, the ancient illustrations of limited good we have examined exhibit the
following traits. First, they all clearly indicate the perception of a zero-sum game
in which one's success means another's failure. A causal connection is invariably
perceived between the gains of one person and the losses of another. In addition,
almost all of the illustrations indicate that the commodity being contested is
honor, that is, commendation by another, reputation, precedence, role and
status, attention or favor from a high ranking person. The result is that in most
instances those who perceive themselves as losing because of another's success
take hostile action to redress the imbalance. Sometimes it is active harm that is
done, including gossip and vilification, or murder or dismissal and disdain.
Finally, many of the illustrations describe a situation of envy, a most important
element in the social dynamics of ancient Greeks, Romans and Israelites. The
data thus appear as follows:
Table 1 Ancient Illustrations of Limited Good

Author
Work

Expression
&of
Limited
Good

Iamblicus clearly stated

Plutarch:
Listening clearly stated
44B
Plutarch:
Old
Menclearly stated
787D
Josephus,
Vita
clearly stated
122-23
Josephus,
Ant. 4.32 &clearly stated
4:51

Reaction,
Commodity
Especially
in Dispute
Envy

Agonistic
Redress

honor

not mentionednot mentioned

honor

implied

not mentioned

honor

implied

attack

success,
immoderate
good fortune envy

inspiring
hatred
and
defection

honor

divine
judgment

635

not mentioned

Philo, Ebr.
clearly stated
110
Fronto,
clearly stated
Letters 4.1
Judges 7:2 clearly stated

honor

attention,
favor
honor
reputation,
1 Sam 18:9 clearly stated
honor
reputation,
Mark 6:1-5 implied
honor
Mark 7:24patronage,
implied
30
honor
Mark 9:38implied
41
Mark
implied
10:35:35-45

not mentionednot mentioned

explicitly
deadly
&
mentioned
fatal
not mentionednot mentioned
implied

eyed David

too offense
at him
bestowed
not mentioned
favor
they
reputation,
implied
commanded
honor
him to stop
they became
angry
at
status, honor implied
James
&
John
implied

4.0 Limited Good and Envy

Although only two of the passages discussed above explicitly state that envy
follows the perception of limited good, we assert that it is implied in all of the
others. We base this on our analysis of envy in the ancient world as well as our
investigation of limited good. Let us briefly examine envy in terms of five
issues: a) what is envy, b) what is envied, c) who envies whom, d) how one
envies, and e) how one avoids envy.
1. In his analysis of the emotions speakers typically arouse, Aristotle (Rhet.
2.10.1) defines envy as a kind of pain at the sight of [another's] good fortune, a
distress which comes not from any effort to match the success of the person
envied, but simply because others possess it.35 Cicero (Tusc. Disp. 4.8.17)
repeats this centuries later: Envy is distress incurred by reason of a neighbour's
prosperity.36 In Plutarch's words (On being a Busybody VI:518C, 6), Envy is
pain at another's good.37 Envy, then, means pain or distress at another's success,
a sense of being injured, which seeks redress.
2. The object of envy seems always to be honor in one of its manifestations.
Rhetoricians declare that success (eupragia) is envied, a judgment verified by
authors who describe the arousal of it.38 We suggest that whatever patronage
someone received, wealth one acquired, status one enjoyed, reputation one
636

earned, prowess one displayed, in short, the Greco-Roman contents of the

cultural value of honor, caused the distress and pain which describe envy.
3. Who envies? Basically peers, as Aristotle (Rhet. 2.10.1) said: Envy is defined
as a kind of distress at the apparent success of one's peers?39 Cicero (De Or.
2.52.209) echoes this: People are especially envious of their equals, or of those
once beneath them, when they feel themselves left behind and fret at the other's
upward flight.40 Envy, we are told, also arises within families: Kinship, too,
knows how to envy (Aristotle, Rhet. 2.10.5).41 Foster's excellent study of envy
indicates that every society designates those of its members who are deemed
eligible to compete with each other for desired goals, that is, conceptual
equals.42
4. Although Cicero (Tusc. Disp. 4.8.17) states that envy does not always translate
into harmful behavior toward the envied person, we find in numerous instances
that it does.43 When we ask how enviers typically envy, our research indicates
six ways: a) ostracism, b) gossip and slander, c) feuding, d) litigation, e) the evil
eye and f) homicide.44 Saul's eyeing David after he heard of Saul's thousands
and David's ten thousands likely illustrates ocular malevolence,45 which
festered until Saul attempted to kill David. Jesus' endless controversies with
Pharisees and others represent feuding at its most savage level, for Jesus cannot
say or do anything without incessant criticism and carping from his rivals.
Likewise the various reactions to Jesus at Nazareth are examples of either
ostracism (Mark and Matthew) or attempted homicide (Luke). Jesus' enemies
spread slanderous gossip about his empty tomb (Matt 28:11-15).46 And Jesus is
the formal object of judicial proceedings before the Sanhedrin and the Roman
procurator.47
5. How does one avoid envy? Foster's study indicates four ways to avoid envy: a)
concealment, b) denial, c) the sop, and d) true sharing.48 If one does noble
deeds in secret and hides one's prowess, then no one will know of any reason for
feeling envy. But Jesus' mission is to proclaim the kingdom of God (Mark 1:1415) in all the towns of Galilee (Mark 1:35-39), for which he must be as public as
possible. Moreover, Jesus instructed his disciples in a parable about putting a
lamp on a lamp stand and not under a bushel (Mark 4:21-23), virtually
prohibiting them from concealment, a strategy he himself followed.49 Second,
Jesus appears to use the strategy of denial when he refuses the compliment of
the rich man, Good Teacher, what must I do? (Mark 10:17). He instructs this
man Why do you call me good? No one is good except the one God (Mark
10:18). Third, a sop refers to some form of forced sharing of goods to placate a
group likely to envy the success that earned the goods, such as the liturgies in
ancient Greece.50 One can only speculate about the remarks in Mark 6:5-6 that
637

Jesus could not work any power there because of their unbelief. No possibility
of sharing his benefaction of wisdom and power is available to Jesus, and it is
odious to imagine that Jesus allowed himself to be a victim or to be pressured
into buying off his critics. Jesus, then, offered no sop to avoid envy. Finally, the
rich deposit of Markan references to Jesus' healing power and his lavish feeding
of the multitudes argue that Jesus almost continually engaged in true sharing of
God's benefaction. Thus, except for Jesus' refusal of the compliment in 10:17, he
does not appear to have engaged in any of the classical strategies of avoiding
envy.
We remarked earlier about the widespread prevalence of the perception of
limited good in the ancient world. Now we argue that in the context of limited
good envy is the logical and social next step in the sequence of events that occur
when the ancients perceive that another's gain means their own loss. This is
expressed and clearly implied in the catalogue of materials that illustrate both the
existence of a limited good perception in antiquity and lay bare its anatomy.
This implies a continuous, conflictual social dynamics, which modern scholars
label as an agonistic society.51 For example, biblical scholars readily point out
how the principal literary form of the gospels, the chreia, embodies agonistic
behavior.52 The responsive type of chreia typically begins with criticism of a
sage's behavior and teaching or with a hostile question put to him. Thus
provoked, the sage must respond with sharp wit. This native rhetorical form
corresponds to what cultural anthropologists describe as situations of challenge
and riposte, where the claims of some to honor (prowess, precedence, power) are
challenged, generally by a peer who finds the other's honor painful or distressing
to himself.53
When one reads the narrative of Mark and identifies the responsive chreiai and
their cultural shape as challenge-riposte episodes, it becomes clear that the
narrative episodes in the story of Jesus contain a pervasive sense of antagonism,
whether the reader analyzes them in terms of rhetoric as responsive chreiai or in
terms of cultural anthropology as challenge-riposte exchanges. Thus, we
conclude, there was a widespread perception of limited good by the ancients
generally and by the characters of the gospels specifically. This perception
generally aroused envy in the perceiver, which frequently issued in hostile
behavior to cut down to size the person perceived as gaining honor. This gives
rise to the constant tension between claimants of honor and those who envy them
that is typical of an agonistic society. These perceptions, the envy they arouse,
and the agonistic behavior they give rise to are expressed in the ubiquitous
rhetorical form of the responsive chreia, an exercise taught to young students.
Thus both the model of social dynamics drawn from cultural anthropology and
the forms of ancient rhetoric tell a similar story.
638

5.0 John 3:22-30 In Cultural Context

The materials we have just surveyed and the model of agonistic social dynamics
that we have described can be brought to bear on John 3:22-30 with considerable
profit. First, the ztsis in which John's disciples are involved should be
described as an envious reaction. They perceive the situation in terms of limited
good, in that they interpret Jesus' rise in reputation and fame as causing decrease
in that of John the Baptist and thus their own. Their complaint that All are going
to him means that fewer are flocking to John or that John is losing popularity.
This perception, then, causes in them what is expected in that society: pain at
another's good fortune and distress at his success. Since injury must be answered,
they are poised to act out their envy in some hostile way.
That of course is exactly what happens in 11:45-52. There we get the culturally
expected response when the perception of loss (limited good) leads to envy and
eventually to hostile action. In 3:27-30, however, John stops the spiral of envy.
He corrects one part of his disciples' perception when he declares that God is the
source of Jesus' honor and success (3:27); human beings should in no way
challenge God's sovereignty as benefactor. When God is gracious and causes an
increase, no fault accrues to the recipient of his favor. Thus John reminds his
envious disciples that he himself has never felt injured or distressed by Jesus; in
fact, his greatest honor has been to witness to Jesus (1:19-23).54 In other words,
he does not perceive the present situation in terms of limited good, as do his
disciples. Jesus' success means his own success as herald of or witness to the
Lamb of God.(1:29-34). Indeed, John himself pointed Jesus out to two of his
disciples who then heard and followed Jesus (1:35-39).55 Evidently John was
pleased that Jesus succeeded, even if it meant loss of two of his own disciples.
By way of the metaphor of a wedding party John totally denies any rivalry
between himself and Jesus. John, the philos of Jesus the bridegroom, listens to
the bridegroom's voice and rejoices with joy at it (3:29a). No pain at Jesus'
good fortune here! No distress at his success! My joy is now filled (3:29b). If
there is no perception of limited good, then there is likewise no sense of pain or
distress, nor is any envy aroused that leads to agonistic behavior. John, then,
completely contradicts his disciples' perception of the situation.
John concludes his response to his disciples with an utterly counter-cultural
remark: He must increase, I must decrease (v 30). Most commentators read the
must here as a statement of divine necessity, signaling God's will that Jesus
increase.56 This final remark repeats what John said earlier about the
contentment that the philos should have at the bridegroom's taking of a wife. But
it also addresses the heart of the cultural model we have been studying. Jesus'
639

success in fact means that John's reputation and significance wanes. The
fundamental perception of limited good is again validated, but in this case it
does not lead to envy and hostility. In this way it is counter-cultural. For John
insists that he is not pained or distressed at Jesus increase. And so, he readily
surrenders his reputation and honor, which belong to Jesus by right. Rarely does
one find in Greek or Israelite literature a public figure who willingly and
peacefully allows his honor and prestige to diminish without envy and hostile
reaction.57 Therefore, it is only when readers appreciate the cultural perception
of limited good, which leads to a sense of pain and distress, and issues in envy,
that they hear what the characters are saying and understand the strikingly
unusual response of John to his disciples.
NOTES
1. Typical of commentaries is that of Martin Stowasser, Johannes der Tufer im
Vierten Evangelium (Klosterneuburg, sterreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk,
1992). He pays close attention to the logical and rhetorical shape of the material,
text-critical problems, and the history of the tradition of the material. Yet his
focus, like that of most commentators, rests on the bridegroom metaphor in 3:29
(pp 184-90).
2. From the time of the Church Fathers, the typical commentary on 3:30 pointed
to the astral parallel of auxaanein - elattousthai with the careers of Jesus and
John. See Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1971); Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (AB 29;Garden
City: Doubleday, 1966) 153; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to
St. John (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968) 1.417.
3. Some scholars have suggested a relationship between Acts 18:25, 19:1-7 and
John 3:22-30. For example, Raymond E. Brown suggests that John had many
disciples who continued his teaching and baptismal practice after his and Jesus
death. Indeed they were in conflict with the Johannine community; see Browns
Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979) 29-30 and
69-71. We do not consider this for two reasons. First, this is an historical question
but we are asking social questions. Second, even if Brown is correct, there is no
impact on our treatment of 3:22-30. Our focus is on he must increase, But I
must decrease, which in Johns narrative serves to undercut an expected pattern
of limited good and agonistic behavior.
4. There is uncertainty about the identity of the Ioudaioi in v 25. Raymond E.
Brown (Gospel According to John, I-XII, 150) translates it as a certain Jew.
The reading of P66, )* (et al) is Ioudain Rudolf Bultman (The Gospel of John,
640

171) claimed that the controversy is between Johns disciples and Jesus; for a
more recent argument that the conflict is between the Baptizers disciples and
Jesus, see John W. Pryor, John the Baptist and Jesus: Tradition and Text in John
3:25, JSNT 66 (1997) 15-26.
5. See H. Greeven, ztsis, TDNT 2.756-57 and BAGD 339.
6. Only one study of this passage has noticed the social implications of the
disciples reaction; Robert L. Webb (John the Baptizer and Prophet. A SocioHistorical Study [JSOTSup 62; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991] 74)
remarked: In hyperbole derived from envy, they state all are coming to him
(3:26).
7. In Greek the phrase literally means friend of the bridegroom. In Israelite
society the term (shushbinim) referred to close friends of similar age who formed
associations for mutual aid in putting on a wedding. The obligations incurred
were always reciprocal.
8. George M. Foster, Peasant Society and the Image of Limited Good,
American Anthropologist 67 (1965) 293-315); see his Interpersonal Relations in
Peasant Society, Human Organization 19 (1960) 177 and Cultural Responses to
Expressions of Envy in Tzintzuntzan, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 21
(1965) 24-35.
9. Foster, Peasant Society, 296. The world of biblical scholarship is indebted to
Bruce J. Malina for bringing Fosters work to our attention; see his The New
Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology, (revised edition;
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993) 90-116.
10. George M. Foster, The Anatomy of Envy: A Study in Symbolic Behavior,
Current Anthropology 13 (1972):169.
11. Foster, Anatomy of Envy, 169.
12. This material has been successfully applied to aspects of ancient Greek
culture; see Peter Walcot, Envy and the Greeks: A Study in Human Behavior
(Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1978) 22; David Cohen, Law, Sexuality, and
Society: The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991) 183-98 and Law, Violence and Community in Classical
Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 26, 63-70; J. Elster,
Norms of Revenge, Ethics 100 (1990) 862-85 and John J. Winkler, Laying
Down the Law: The Oversight of Mens Sexual Behavior in Classical Athens, in
641

Before Sexuality. The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek

World (ed. David M. Halperin, John J. Winkler and Froma I. Zeitlin; Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1990) 174.
13. For a biblical example, see R.L. Rohrbaugh, "A Peasant Reading of the
Parable of the Talents: A Text of Terror?" Biblical Theology Bulletin 22/4
(1993):32-39.
14. Anonymus Iamblici in H. Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 5th edition
(ed. W. Kranz; Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1935) 2.400.
15
. The translation here is that of Frank C. Babbitt, Plutarch (11 vols.; LCL;
London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927) 1.237.
16. The translation here is that Harold N. Fowler, Plutarch (11 vols.; LCL;
London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927) 10.99.
17. The translation here is that of H. St. J. Thackery, Josephus (9 vols; LCL;
London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926) 1.47-8.
18. The translation here is that of H. St. J. Thackery, Josephus (9 vols; LCL;
London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927) 2.217.
19. The translation here is that of H. St. J. Thackery, Josephus (9 vols; LCL;
London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930) 4.215-16.
20. The translation here is that of H. St. J. Thackery, Josephus (9 vols; LCL;
London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930) 4.491.
21. The translation here is that of F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker, Philo (10 vols;
LCL; London: Heinemann; New York: Putnam, 1930) 3.377.
22. Fronto, Correspondence of Marcus Cornelius Fronto 4.1, as cited in Stanley
Stowers Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1986) 81-82.
23. This is almost certainly a reference to the evil eye, the essence of which is
envy. See n. 31 below.
24. For a discussion of the Lukan version of the story in terms of honor and
shame, see R.L. Rohrbaugh, Legitimating Sonship: A Test of Honor: A Social
Science Study of Luke 4:1-30, in Modelling Early Christianity (ed. Philip F.
Esler; London: Routledge, 1995) 183-97.
642

25. LSJ (517) translates the verb here (exeplssonto) as connoting a sense of
distance created by someone or something (drive away from) or hostile
reaction to something (shocked or amazed); BAGD (244) give as meanings
for this verb astound, overwhelm, sometimes with the sense of joy and at other
times suggesting fear or fright.
26. For a study of questions as aggressive and challenging weapons, see Jerome
H. Neyrey, Questions, Chreiai, and Challenges to Honor: The Interface of
Rhetoric and Culture in Marks Gospel, CBQ 60 (1998) 657-81.
27. Ancient rhetoric of praise and blame and the progymnastic exercise called the
encomium both indicate how offspring were ascribed the same social status as
their parents and ancestors; for examples of this, see Bruce J. Malina and Jerome
H. Neyrey, Portraits of Paul. An Archaeology of Ancient Personality. (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1996) 23-27, 92-93, 158-60 and Neyrey, Honor
and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew, 37-40, 78-80, 91-101.
28. See George W. Buchanan, Jesus and the Upper Class, NovT 7 (1964) 195209.
29. We must not forget the humble status of Nazareth, as voiced by Nathaniel
in John 1:46; on the degree to which the city of ones birth can contribute to an
individuals status and reputation, see Malina and Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, 11324, 131-32, Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew, 91-97 and
Jerome H. Neyrey, Lukes Social Location of Paul: Cultural Anthropology and
the Status of Paul in Acts, in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of
Acts, (ed. Ben Witherington, III; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1996)
251-79.
30. In the encomium and other rhetorical sources, a persons education was
routinely noted; no student could hope to match much less surpass his teacher;
but at least the reputation and honor of the teacher would become the source of
the disciples ascribed honor. See Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of
Matthew, 8-9, 80, 102-04.
31. All of the Gospel writers repeatedly anticipate and counteract negative
responses to Jesus because of his low status at birth. For a discussion of the
strategies each Gospel writer uses in addressing this problem, see R.L.
Rohrbaugh, Locating Jesus: Strategies for Persuasion in The New Testament
World (ed. Philip F. Esler; forthcoming from London: Routledge).
32. Rohrbaugh, Legitimating Sonship, pp. 185-86.
643

33. Evidently Jesus remark in Matt. 13:57 is a rhetorical sententia or maxim; its
success in this chreia rests on its being a common explanation of the
phenomenon we are observing, namely peer envy which is based on a perception
of limited good. For Hellenistic parallels, see M. Eugene Boring, Klaus Berger,
and Carsten Colpe, Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1995) 96) and for Israelite ones, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The
Gospel According to Luke (Garden City: Doubleday, 1981) 527-28.
34. See D. A. Nineham, Saint Mark (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963) 253; and
C. F. D. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1959).
35. The translation here is that of John H. Freese, Aristotle, Rhetoric (LCL;
London: Heinemann; New York: Putnam, 1926) 239.
36. The translation here is that of J.E. King, Cicero (28 vols.; LCL; London:
Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1945) 18.345.
37. The translation here is that of W.C. Hembold, Plutarch (16 vols.; LCL;
London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939) 6.491.
38. Aristotle states that the good fortune (eupragia) of another occasions envy
(Rhet. 2.10.1); Josephus describes in his Life how his personal success (eupragia)
cause immoderate envy in others (122).
39. Freese, Aristotle, Rhetoric, 239.
40. The translation here is that of E.W. Sutton and H. Rackham, Cicero (28
vols.;LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1945)
6.351.
41. Freese, Aristotle, Rhetoric, 241.
42. George Foster, Anatomy of Envy, p. 170.
43. The observation of Alvin W. Goulder (Enter Plato [New York: Basic Books,
1965] 57) is striking: In one manner or another, Greece usually finds occasion to
punish its greatest men Aristides, Alcibiades, Anaxagoras, Cimon,
Demosthenes, Phidias, Pericles, Themistocles, Xenophon while Aeschylus and
Euripides die in self-imposed exile. However novel Socrates life in other
respects, his fate at the hands of the Athenians is scarcely unique. G.C. Field
remarks that by the fourth century b.c., one thing that strikes anyone. . .is the
644

extraordinary sense of insecurity which all public men, orators and generals alike,
must have felt. Hardly anyone of prominence escaped trial at some period of his
career, and few avoided condemnation either to payment of a heavy fine, or even
to death.
44. Anselm C. Hagedorn and Jerome H. Neyrey, It Was Out of Envy that They
Handed Jesus Over (Mark 15:10): The Anatomy of Envy and the Gospel of
Mark, JSNT 69 (1998):32-34.
45. In a series of studies on the evil eye, John H. Elliott has made clear the
presence and extent of this social phenomenon, which is generally related to
envy. See "The Fear of the Leer. The Evil Eye from the Bible to Li'l Abner,"
Forum 4.4 (1988) 42-71; "Paul, Galatians and the Evil Eye," CTM 17 (1990)
262-73; "The Evil Eye in the First Testament: The Ecology and Culture of a
Pervasive Belief," in D. Jobling, G. Sheppard and P. Day, eds., The Bible and the
Politics of Exegesis (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1991) 147-59; "Matthew 20:1-15:
A Parable of Invidious Comparison and Evil Eye Accusation," BTB 22 1992) 5265; "The Evil Eye and the Sermon on the Mount," Biblical Interpretation 2
(1994) 51-84.
46. For a study of gossip in the New Testament, see R.L. Rohrbaugh, Gossip in
the New Testament. In John J. Pilch, ed., Social Scientific Models for
Interpreting the Bible: Essays by The Context Group in Honor of Bruce J.
Malina. (forthcoming from Leiden: Deo).
47. For a fuller account of the ways in which Jesus was envied in Mark, see
Hagedorn and Neyrey, It Was Out of Envy, 38-54.
48. Foster, The Anatomy of Envy, 175-82; see also Hagedorn and Neyrey, It
Was Out of Envy, 36-38.
49. Yet it must be admitted that Mark contains some instances where Jesus seems
to keep secret his presence (7:24) or his actions (1:44; 7:36). But these are
significantly outweighed by commands to broadcast news about healings he has
done (5:19-20) and by reports about Jesus which circulate widely (1:28, 45; 2:12; 3:7-8; 4:1 etc.). Thus we do not wish to perpetuate the mistaken construct of a
Messianic Secret. See Hagedorn and Neyrey, It Was Out of Envy, 51-53; also
John Pilch, Secrecy in the Mediterranean World: An Anthropological
Perspective (BTB 24 [1994): 151-57); John Pilch, Lying and Deceit in the
Letters to the Seven Churches: Perspectives from Cultural Anthropology (BTB
22 [1992]: 126-34). On prohibition of secrecy, see Matt 5:14-16.
645

50. See Friedrich Oertel, Die Liturgie. Studien zur ptolemischen und
kaiserlichen Verwaltung gyptens (Leipzig: Teubner, 1917); N. Lewis, The
Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt (Florence: Edizioni Gonnelli,
1983); S. R. Llewelyn, The Development of the System of Liturgies, New
Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 7 (1994) 93-111; David Whitehead,
Competitive Outlay and Community Profit: III in Democratic Athens,
Classica et Mediaevalia 34 (1985) 55-74.
51. Jean-Pierre Vernant, Myth and Society in Ancient Greece (New York: Zone
Books, 1988) 29-56; Peter Walcot, Envy and the Greeks, 52-76; and Alvin W.
Gouldner, Enter Plato: Classical Greece and the Origins of Social Theory (New
York: Basic Books, 1965) 41-77; and now David Cohen, Law, Violence and
Community in Classical Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)
70-75, 90-101, 128.
52. Any student of the chreia in gospel research about Jesus is well aware of the
agonistic setting of most of them. Some hostile remark, such as a criticism, or
some aggressive question is put to a sage to test and possibly defeat him. See in
this regard, Neyrey Questions, Chreiai and Culture. For ancient rhetorical
documents about chreia, see Ronald F. Hock and Edward N. ONeil, The Chreia
in ancient Rhetoric. Volume I. The Progymnasmata (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1986); on Markan chreia, see Burton L. Mack and Vernon K. Robbins, Patterns
of Persuasion in the Gospels (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1989). Both Mack
and Robbins have contributed individual essays on the chreia: Burton Mack,
Anecdotes and Arguments: The Chreia in Antiquity and Early Christianity
(Occasional Papers 10. Claremont, CA: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity,
1987); Vernon Robbins, The Chreia, in Greco-Roman Literature and the New
Testament (ed. David E. Aune; SBLSBS 21; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 1-23
and Pronouncement Stories and Jesus Blessing of the Children, Semeia 29
(1983) 43-74.
53. See Hagedorn and Neyrey, It Was Out of Envy, 43-46; see also Neyrey
Questions, Chreiai and Culture, 664-70.
54. Morna Hooker (John the Baptist and the Johannine Prologue, NTS 16
[1970] 354-58) makes the case that Johns primary role in John 1:6-8, 19-34 is to
witness (martyrein) to Jesus, a role secondary to that of reforming prophet with a
special washing rite.
55. On Johns active recruitment for Jesus, see Walter Wink, John the Baptism in
the Gospel Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968) 91.
646

56. For example, Raymond E. Brown (The Gospel According to John I-XII 146
and 153) likens the must in 3:14 to comparable expressions in the synoptic
passion narrative; the must in 3:30 has the same sense of divine necessity.
57. Speaking of marks of honor, Aristotle states: And to take vengeance upon
enemies and not to be reconciled; for to retaliate is just (Rhet. 1.9.24). On the
common expectation that hurts and injuries would be repaid, see Jerome H.
Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew, 203-205.

THE
SOCIOLOGY
OF
AND THE FOURTH GOSPEL
Jerome
University
Nov. 15, 1994

SECRECY

H.
of

Neyrey
Notre

1.0 A Taste for Secrecy

1.1 Outright Secrecy
1.1.1
Hiding
1.1.2
Lying
1.1.3
Evasive
Speech
1.1.4 Deception
1.2 "In the Know/NOT in the Know"
1.3 How Does One Get to Know?
1.3.1
Statement/Misunderstanding/Clari
fication
(Maybe)
1.3.2
Revealers
1.3.3
Gossip
Network
1.3.4 Asides
and
Footnotes
1.3.5 Forensic Examination of
Testimony
1.4 Why Are Some "NOT in the Know"?
1.5
Irony
1.6
Ambiguity
1.7 Who Knows Everything?
2.0 The Sociology of Secrecy
2.1
Secrecy
Defined
2.2
The
Secrecy
Process
2.3 The Functions of Secrecy
647

Dame

2.3.1 Manifest and Latent Secrecy

2.3.2 Extra-group and Intra-group
Secrecy
2.4 Who Knows What? When?
2.4.1
Who
Knows?
2.4.2
Who
Knows
What?
2.4.3 When Is It Known?
2.5 Secret Societies
3.0 The Fourth Gospel and the Sociology of
Secrecy
3.1 Secrecy Process and John
3.1.1
Secrecy:
Controlling
Information
3.1.2 Entrusted Disclosure (+
gossip
network)
3.1.3
Espionage:
Discovering
Secrets
3.1.4 Evaluation of Espionage
3.2 Secrecy and Differentiation of
Characters
3.2.1 Outsiders: "Not in the
Know"
3.2.2 Insiders: "Not in the Know"
3.2.3 Insiders: Degrees of Being
"In the Know"
3.3 Secrecy and Scrutiny of Jesus' Words
3.4 Functions of Secrecy

1.0
A
Taste
for
Secrecy
Bultmann once remarked that in the Fourth Gospel Jesus reveals that he is the
revealer, but not much else (Bultmann ). Yet "information control" emerges as a
central phenomenon in this document and provides significant clues about the
social dynamics of the community for which it was written. "Information
control" is a social-science label which describes the process whereby secrets,
private information, and the like are shared with some, but not with others. "In no
society do individuals treat all others with complete candor" (Tefft 39).
Unlike the Synoptic gospels, John does not contain a commissioning by Jesus to
his disciples to "go make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all
that I have commanded you" (Matt 28:19). Information from and about Jesus,
when it is spread, is accomplished through a "gossip network" to select
individuals (Neyrey 1994). And although Jesus declares before one of his judges,
648

"I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple. . .I have said nothing in
secret" (John 18:20), that hardly explains the intricate patterns of double-meaning
words, irony, lying, deception and misunderstanding and actual hiding in the
Fourth Gospel.
Sometimes information about Jesus is communicated "secretly" (lathra, 11:28).
People urge Jesus not to act in secrecy, but to act "publicly" (parrsia, 7:4) or to
speak "publicly" (10:24; Peterson 49-52), which urging he rejects (Giblin). When
there is ambiguity, Jesus occasionally speaks "publicly" to clear up
misunderstandings (11:14; 16:25, 29). His speaking "publicly" is judged proof of
his orthodoxy (7:13, 26; van Unnik ).
Yet even when he speaks in public, more often than not people misunderstand his
words. In addition to the lexicon of double-meaning terms used by Jesus
(Richard), we find a repetitive pattern of "statement-misunderstandingclarification." Jesus states something which hearers invariably misunderstand,
which prompts Jesus to speak clarifying words, which may or may not be
understood (Leroy). His "parables" are not understood, either by the crowds
(10:6) or by his disciples (16:25).
Data such as these invite a fuller investigation of the numerous and significant
patterns of "information control" in the Fourth Gospel. Once we start to pull back
the veil, we notice numerous instances of hiding-revealing, secrecy, ambiguity
and even lying. The following is an attempt to catalogue the primary and related
instances of secrecy and "information control" in the document.
1.1 Outright Secrecy
1.1.1 Hiding. On occasion, Jesus "hides himself." After revealing great
revelations in 8:56 and 58, Jesus "hid himself" as his enemies took up stones to
throw at him (8:59). A strategic move, no doubt, but one fraught with ambiguity
when compared with Jesus' revelation to the crowd in 12:27-35 and his
subsequent "hiding himself from them" (12:36) when there was no death threat.
He warned his audience, "The light is with you a little longer. Walk while you
have the light" (12:35). But the light does not last long, for "when Jesus had said
this, he departed and hid himself from them" (12:36b). Other characters likewise
"hide" themselves: Nicodemus comes secretly to Jesus at night to avoid detection
(3:2; 19:39; de Jonge ); others attracted to Jesus disguised their affiliation (12:42;
19:38). Moreover, when Judas asks "Why is it that you will manifest yourself to
us and not to the world?" (14:22), his remark implies that Jesus is revealing
something to them, but hiding it from others. Besides examples of Jesus or
649

others hiding themselves (kryptein), the author implies that God also hidesthings
from the crowds (kalyptein, 12:38) and blinds them (12:40; book on Isa 6:9).
1.1.2 Lying. It does not bother us that Jesus accuses others of lying (8:44, 55),
but what of Jesus' own lies. Although Giblin ( ) has tried to soften the impact of
the pattern in 7:1-9, Jesus appears to lie to his unbelieving brothers: "I am not
going to this feast" (7:8). Having said this, "He also went up. . .not publicly, but
in private" (7:10). Lying in the Bible should not startle us after the pioneering
work of John Pilch (Listening). Those who read the Johannine gospel and letters
were quite familiar with accusations of lying (1 John 2:21, 27; 4:1).
1.1.3 Evasive Speech. When the parents of the man born blind are interrogated,
they acknowledge that they "know" some things and "do not know" others (9:21).
The author interprets their speech as purposeful evasion: "His parents said this
because they feared the Jews" (9:22).
1.1.4 Deception. Jesus' enemies are convinced that he is a deceiver who
intentionally leads the people astray. While some hang on Jesus words, others are
convinced that "he is leading the people stray" (planai, 7:12). When the soldiers
sent out to apprehend him return with praise of his words, the Pharisees cite this
as another example of deception: "Are you led astray, you also?" (peplansthe,
7:47).
1.2 "In the Know/NOT in the Know." Throughout the Fourth Gospel, we are
endlessly told about people who do not know important information about Jesus,
beginning with the Baptizer (1:31, 33). There appears to be no particular stigma
attached to people at the beginning of stories who are "not in the know," provided
that by the story's end they are "in the know." But we frequently find people
divided into polarities in terms of "knowing" and "not knowing, a pattern which
provides the readers with a criterion for judging these narrative characters. For
example, some "know" that Jesus is a sinner, whereas others "do not know this"
(9:24-25; see 2:9). Others claim to "know" where Jesus comes from, but they are
proved to be "not in the know" (7:27-28). After examining the numerous
instances of this semantic pattern, we find that it tends to function in three ways:
(1) insiders, who are "in the know," are separated from outsiders, who are "not in
the know"; (2) some claim to be "in the know," but their knowledge is erroneous,
thus proving them to be outsiders; (3) the information most highly valued is
accurate knowledge of whence Jesus comes and whither he goes (Neyrey Jn 3;
other).
People regularly ask questions of Jesus. Those who question presumably are
"not in the know." Yet not all questions are answered, so that some remain "not in
650

the know" (3:5-10; Neyrey III), while others get straight answers (1:19-23; 9:2-3;
13:23-26).
1.3 How Does One Get to Know? Put most simply, in the Fourth Gospel one
needs to be told or led to the truth. Just as all "power" is given from above
(19:11), so too is "knowledge." The narrative patterns describing how one gets to
know are both numerous and intricate.
1.1 Statement/Misunderstanding/Clarification (Maybe). Readers of the Fourth
Gospel are quickly introducted to the extremely repetitive pattern in the gospel of
"statement-misunderstanding-clarification" (Leroy; Neyrey Ideol).
STATEME
NT

MISUNDERSTAN
DING

CLARIFICAT
ION

3:3

3:4

3:5

3:5-8

3:9

3:10-12

4:7

4:9

4:10

4:10

4:11

4:12

4:32

4:33

4:34-38

6:35-40

6:41-42

6:43-48

6:51

6:52

6:53-58

8:21

8:22

8:23-30

8:31-21

8:33

8:34-37

8:38

8:39a

8:39b-40

8:41a

8:41b

8:42-47

8:51

8:52-53

8:54-55

8:56

8:57

8:58

11:23

11:24

11:25-26

12:27

12:29

12:30

13:27

13:29

13:31-35

14:4

14:5

14:6

14:7

14:8

14:9-11

16:25-28

16:29-30

16:31-32

651

Jesus states something, which invariably is misunderstood, after which

he clarifies his misunderstood remark. Sometimes the pattern indicates
progressive revelation of secrets and so results in the person once "not in the
know" receiving a christophany (4:26) or special information (11:13-15 & 2526).
But
the
converse
also
occurs:
some
who misunderstand Jesus'statement never come "into the know" or never have
their questions answered, and so are confirmed as outsiders who are "not in the
know" (3:3-10; 6:41-48; 8:21-30). Thus Jesus'clarifications may be either
revelations or veils, but in all cases they are vintage "information control."
1.2 Revealers. Although God remains directly "unknown" by all but Jesus, for
"no one has ever seen God" (1:18; 5:37; 6:46), nevertheless God reveals secrets
to select people, such as John the Baptizer (1:31 and 33) and Jesus (1:18; 3:3234). They in turn communicate this knowledge to select disciples.
Jesus is the revealer par excellence. He gives special "christophanies" of himself
to select people: the Samaritan woman (4:25-26), the man born blind (9:35-36),
Mary Magdalene (20:16-17), his "brethren" (20:19-21), Thomas (20:26-29), the
disciples fishing (21:4-7, 12), and Peter (21:15-19). Jesus, moreover, reveals the
secret meaning of events to the inner circle (9:2-3), identifies his traitor to his
most intimate associate (13:23-26), tells only his disciples about "his way" (14:46; Segovia article) and about God (14:7-11). To Mary Magdalene Jesus reveals
the ultimate secret which is to be shared only with the inner circle, "my
brethren," (20:17). Finally, we note that Jesus makes a number of prophecies, but
only to select disciples (13:38; 18:8-9); they may not be understood at first (2:19)
but eventually come to light (2:21-22; 12:12-16).
1.3 Gossip Network. Knowledge int he Fourth Gospel is always mediated to
others and thus controlled. Some come to know because they are "taught by God"
(6:45); others are enlightened by the "spirit of truth" (14:26; 16:13-14). Still
others have Jesus as revealer and catechist. Yet the Fourth Gospel contains a
curious pattern, which in sociological jargon may be labelled the "gossip
network" (Neyrey Wrong). In a media-less world, the ordinary means of
information dissemination is oral communication (see 18:34). But we should not
imagine that every one tells all they know to everybody. Distinctive patterns of
communication can be discovered, such that only certain persons tell select
others some of what they know.
The beginning and ending of the Fourth Gospel illustrate the "gossip network" or
the controlled flow of information. At the beginning, one disciple tells another
about Jesus (1:35-51; Neyrey Revolt); the person informed is either a kin to or a
village neighbor of the informer. The information is not told to all in the
652

marketplace. At the end of the story, Mary Magdalene takes a specific word to
select people, "Go to 'my brethren' and say to them..." (20:17); later these
"brethren" tell Thomas about Jesus (20:24). Within these framing events, the
Samaritan woman tells only her villagers about Jesus (4:28-30); Martha and
Mary tell Jesus about Lazarus (11:3); Martha tells Mary that Jesus summons her
(11;28); the Greeks who wish to see Jesus first tell Philip, who then tells Andrew,
who then leads them to Jesus (12:21-22). Mary Magdalene tells the disciples of
the empty tomb (20:2) and the Beloved Disciple tells Peter that the figure on the
shore is "the Lord" (21:7). Thus, whatever else we make of this pattern,
information about Jesus or from him is always channeled to others through a
select and restricted network.
1.4 Asides and Footnotes. If characters in the gospel reveal information to
others, the readers (or hearers) are treated by the author to special information not
known to the narrative characters. Besides the translation of certain Semitic terms
into Greek (1:38, 41, 42; 4:25; 5:2; 9:7; 19:13, 17; 20:16), we are given
"footnotes" and "asides" (O'Rourke). As Tenny has shown, some of these inform
the reader of (1) times and places (6:4; 7:2; 9:14; 10:22-23; 11:17), (2) customs
(4:9; 19:40), (3) recollections of the disciples (2:22; 12:16), (4) explanations of
actions or situations (2:9; 4:2; 7:5, 39; 11:51; 12:6; 19:36-37; 21:19), (5)
identification of persons (6:71; 7:50; 11:2; 18:10, 14, 40; 19:38-39), and (6)
indications of what Jesus knows (2:24-25; 6:6; 13:1, 3). The narrator, who
ostensibly shares all of the above secrets, also gives special information about
himself to this select audience (1:14b; 19:35; 21:24-25); on one occasion he
corrects a popular error (21:22-23). Thus secrets are shared only with special
people; information is carefully controlled.
1.5 Forensic Examination of Testimony. The predominant literary-rhetorical
form in this gospel is indubitably the forensic trial, both in its Jewish and Roman
forms. Trials of Jesus or his disciples occur in chs 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 18-19
(Neyrey Revolt/Honor). Two key elements of the trial are the judge's cognitio or
examination of the accused and the interrogation of witnesses (see also 1:19-27;
Harvey). In both, people are seeking information (i.e., the testimony of
witnesses) or evaluating proofs (i.e., the probative value of "signs" or "works").
As I have shown, on occasion the tables are turned and Jesus becomes the judge
instead of the accused (Neyrey: John 8); he sifts through the testimony of wouldbe disciples to expose their lies (8:31ff, 44, 55). Nevertheless on the narrative
level, the typical mechanism for getting information seems to be the forensic trial
in all its permutations.
1.4 Why Are Some "NOT in the Know"? Why aren't some or most "in the
know"? Jesus and the author offer us a variety of reasons, which, while offensive
653

to politically correct ears, are not strange in a sectarian environment. We are told
that some prefer the darkness to the light (3:19-20). Moreover, although Jesus
came into the world as its light (1: ; Peterson 72-75), he also affirms that he came
so "that those who do not see may see and that those who see may become blind"
(9:39). Thus some will not or cannot see (see 12:39-40); some, in fact, "are
blinded" (Evans). In fact, no one can "know" Jesus "unless it is granted him by
the Father" (6:56), which disturbingly suggests that many of those "not in the
know" are not thus called and so have "knowledge" withheld from them (6:45).
Some, alas, are born of flesh and cannot know spirit things (3:6); if they cannot
even understand the "earthly" things Jesus says, how can they understand
"heavenly" things (3:12). They are "from below" and are "of this world," not
"from above" and "not of this world (8:24); they are, then, aliens to "the world of
knowledge."
1.5 Irony. Paul Duke recently published an excellent study of irony in the Fourth
Gospel, from which we glean the following important points for this study. At the
root of the word "irony" is the term eirn, a person who slyly pretended to be less
than he really was. As Duke remarks, "The eirn wore a mask of goodwill which
concealed enmity. He was a grinning fox, a scoundrel not to be trusted" (Duke 8).
Quintilian echoes the tradition by identifying Socrates as the archetypal eirn:
"He was called eirn because he assumed the character of an ignorant man, and
affected to be the admirer of other men's wisdom" (Inst. Orat. IX.ii.46). Thus in
one stream of the material, an "ironic" figure is a deceiver. Information is being
controlled.
When we turn to "dramatic irony," the staple of Greek tragedy, the issue of
ignorance and knowledge takes center stage. Dramatic Irony involves a situation
in a play or narrative in which the audience shares with the author knowledge of
which a character is ignorant: the character acts in a way grossly inappropriate to
the actual circumstances or expects the opposite of what fate holds in store, or
says something that anticipates the actual outcome, but not at all in the way he
means it (Duke 12).
Thus all irony (1) is a double-layered or two-storied phenomenon, (2) which
presents some kind of opposition between the two levels, and (3) which contains
an element of unawareness or ignorance (Duke 13).
The third element most pertains to our examination of secrecy in the Fourth
Gospel, for it articulates the phenomenon we are examining, namely, some
people are "in the know" (author and readers), while most of the narrative
characters are "not in the know." Duke's classification of ironic remarks in the
Fourth Gospel includes:
654

1. False Claims to Knowledge (6:42; 7:27, 41-42; 9:29)

2. False Assumptions (4:12; 7:15; 8:53, 57)
Accusations
- demon possession (7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20)
- other (8:41; 9:16, 24; 18:30)
3. Suggestions of belief (7:26, 47-48, 52; 9:27)
5. Unconscious prophecy and testmony (2:10; 7:3-4, 35-36; 8:22; 11:48, 49-50;
12:19).
Through the use of irony, the author controls information. The author knows
more than the characters in the narrative; he relaxes his control to let the readers
join in his special knowledge, whereas the "ignorant" narrative characters always
have information withheld from them. Thus irony directly serves the process of
information control.
1.6 The Phenomenon of Ambiguity. Besides informing the readers about who
knows what, the Fourth Gospel also reminds us that a fundamental ambiguity
permeates the world of Jesus and his disciples. Jesus performs several remarkable
healings; but since they occur on the Sabbath (5:9-11; 9:14),
they apparently violate the sabbath laws, despite Jesus' rationalization for his
behavior (7:21-23). In the face of this ambiguity, Jesus demands that his critics
not "judge according to appearances" (7:24; see 8:15).
Jesus remains ambiguous to the crowds. On many occasions we are told that they
were divided over him, some acclaiming him and others denouncing him (7:1213, 27 and 31, 40-41; 9:16-17, 28-34; 10:19-21; 11:35; 12:29). He is not,
however, ambiguous to some, who think that they have unmasked his deception
(7:32, 47-48).
Many people in the Fourth Gospel "think they know" (doke) something. The
disciples, who are insiders, "think" they know what Jesus means when he said
"Lazarus is asleep" (11:11-13); some "think" they know why Judas leaves the
supper (13:29); Mary Magdalene "thinks" that she sees a gardener beside the
tomb (20:15). In each case these people are mistaken by appearances. They might
take Jesus' words too literally and miss the secret inner meaning; it seems
traditional that disciples not recognize the risen Jesus, even though they look
655

right at him. How important, then, is the report that one special disciple sees
through appearances and recognizes Jesus (21:7). On the other hand, Jesus
criticizes the way outsiders "think": they search the scriptures and "think" they
are finding life (5:39); they "think" that Moses will always be their advocate
(5:45); they "think" that by killing Jesus' disciples they will honor God (16:2).
Appearances, then, are deceiving; one cannot tell a book by its cover or persons
by the clothes they wear.
In a world of ambiguity and appearances, we are urged to expect deception and
deceivers. This alerts us to the importance of strategies for unmasking deceivers
and unveiling deception. Enter spies! Begin sifting information! Interrogate
witnesses!
1.7 Who Knows Everything? In a world where information is controlled,
players (at least readers/hearers) need clues about who knows what? Since
information/knowledge is the coin of the realm, players want to attach
themselves to those "in the know." Jesus, of course, stands out as the most
knowledgeable person in the narrative.
No commentator can claim to explain the Fourth Gospel without some remarks
on Jesus, the logos who reveals. Since this material is presumably well known, it
need not be repeated here, except to give salience to certain aspects of Jesus
"teacher" and "revealer."
To begin with, we note the rich and varied terminology used to describe Jesus'
imparting of information to others:
anaggel: 4:25 (16:15)
gnriz: 15:15; 17:26
deiknymi: 10:32; 14:8-9; 20:20
emphain: 14:21-22
exgeomai: 1:18
smain: 12:33; 18:32; 21:19
phanero: 2:11; 74; 9:3; 17:6; 21:1, 14
Moreover, Jesus controls who gets what information. To his disciples he
manifests his glory; to special insiders he predicts their future; to his inner circle
656

he reveals God's name; to his beloved intimate he imparts a secret; and to a close
follower he shows his hands and side. He may "tell" things to the world and to
outsiders (eipon), but important information is always controlled. Only select
people receive special information and knowledge.
Yet the Fourth Gospel insists that Jesus is both the most knowledgeable character
in the narrative and also a revealer. Although no one has seen God (1:18; 5:37;
6:46), Jesus has. The world has not known God, but "I have known you" (17:25).
We are told that God has showed Jesus all that God does (5:19-20); God has
taught him (8:28). One of the key things that Jesus makes known is God's
"name," "I AM" (Neyrey, Ideol). But he controls who knows the "name"; not all,
but only the inner circle of his disciples know it or appreciate it (17:6, 12, 26).
One thing is certain: Jesus "knows all things" (16:30). He claims to be uniquely
knowledgeable because he comes "from above" (3:31-32) and is "not of this
world" (8:24). Hence he knows spiritual things, not fleshly one and he is privy to
heavenly things, not earthly ones. He knows, moreover, that he "came from God
and was going to God" (13:3); he knows "whence he came and whither he goes,"
the most important knowledge in the gospel. Furthermore, he knows the identity
of his betrayer (6:70-71; 13:18-19, 21 and 26-27). By his prophecies, he
demonstrates that he even knows the future.
This same Jesus, moreover, gives information to others, albeit in a controlled
mode. He has "made God known" (1:18b). To his disciples he has "given the
words which you gave me" (17:8, 14). People regularly ask him to "show us"
something, perhaps "the Father" (14:8-9) or a legitimating sign (2:18). Indeed he
does "show" many things: "works" to outsiders (10:32) or "his hands and his
feet" to insiders (20:20). Yet information is always controlled.
Not every one in fact accepts his testimony or agrees with his interpretation of
events and so becomes knowledgeable. As we saw above, the explanation may lie
in the metaphysics of the knower (from below, of the flesh, etc.) or in the realm
of information control (not taught by God, taught by confusing parables,
informed by double-meaning terms, prophecies not understood at first, etc.).
Jesus possesses a very potent form of knowledge: he can read hearts. He knows
that there is "no deceit" (dolos) in Nathanael (1:47) and that Peter "loves him"
(21:15-17). Yet because he can read hearts, he can detect secrets, deception,
lying, plotting and the like. Early in the gospel the narrator tells us that Jesus has
this power and information; the significant positioning of the remark socializes
readers to its importance. Jesus did not trust himself with people, "because he
657

knew all men. . .he himself knew what was in man" (2:24-25). Thus when he tells
people with whom he is disputing:
I know that you do not have the love of God in you (5:42).
You seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves (6:26).
Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe (6:64).
You do not know him [God] (7:28).
You know neither me nor my Father (8:19).
My words find no place in you (8:37).
Why do you not understand? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
You are of your father the devil (8:43-44).

By reading their hearts, Jesus knows who are insiders or outsiders, or who feigns
interest or belief in him, or who is simply evil. In the sociology of witchcraft
accusation (Douglas/Neyrey, Paul), this type of special knowledge is expected in
a cosmos of ambiguity, secrecy and deception (John 8 and Neyrey Biblica).
We are informed by the narrator that Jesus knew all along who the "dropouts"
were who eventually left his company (6:64-65). Since he knows the hearts of
all, he was not surprised when "many of his disciples drew back and no longer
went about with him" (6:66). As we noted above, Jesus knew all along who his
betrayer was. This "foreknowledge," moreover, is passed on only to certain
people and plays an important social role. In a world where power, control and
honor constitute the pivotal cultural values, it matters greatly that the author
presents Jesus as a figure in control of events. He already knows the assaults
upon his person, but he has "power to lay down my life and power to take it
back" (10:17-18). He knows both the "dropouts" and his traitor, another
demonstration of control. Furthermore, the audience of the gospel is given this
controlled information as well, so that it too may be "in the know" and not be
shamed or shocked by events (13:19; 14:27-31; 15:11; 16:1-4, 32-33). One
disciple at least learns from Jesus the traitor's identity (13:25-26); it remains
unclear whether he passed on this information to Peter (13:24). Thus
"foreknowledge" of "dropout" and traitors may offset the espionage against Jesus
and his disciples. Knowledge of traitors, moreover, makes certain people in the
group very, very powerful.
Thus we see that Jesus is presented in the narrative as the figure who knows all
things. This contrasts him with all other characters, who either cannot know or in
658

fact do not know. Jesus is, moreover, a revealer. His dissemination of knowledge
and information, however, is carefully controlled; only a few of the narrative
characters come to share in his knowledge, whereas the author allows the insider
audience to be fully informed. But that only illustrates the critical point:
information is always controlled.
2.0 The Sociology of Secrecy
The history of secrecy in antiquity has been described in Dvornik's The Origins
of Intelligence Services (1974). It examines the phenomenon of secrecy in the
earliest human records from the ancient near east, Egypt, Assyria-BabylonPersia, Greece, Rome and Byzantium. Indeed scholarly interest in "secrecy" has
tended to focus on governmental secrecy and intelligence services, with a
corresponding development in the genre of spying and espionage fiction. The
leaking of secrets in governmental centers has become an art, especially since the
publication of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War. Alongside this can
be found a library of literature on "privacy" (McClellan; Young), a topic of
particular interest in the USA.
Systematic analysis of "secrecy" is generally traced to Georg Simmel's
publication of "The Secret and the Secret Society" (1907; 1950). Recently
Simmel's work has been given new attention by sociologists who examine the
phenomenon in cross-cultural perspective (Hazelrigg 326-30; Tefft; Frizby ).
Some biblical scholars have begun to tap into this theory for purposes of biblical
interpretation, notably John J. Pilch (1992; 1994). In surveying the literature on
"secrecy," we are attempting to construct a model of the "secrecy process," which
will be cross-cultural and so applicable to the Fourth Gospel.
2.1 Secrecy Defined. Tefft defines secrecy as "the mandatory or voluntary, but
calculated, concealment of information, activities, or relationships" (1980: 320).
Tefft's collaborators in his pioneering study agree that secrecy is a formal,
conscious and deliberate concealment of information.
Secrets, moreover, are "a social resource (or adaptive strategy) used by
individuals, groups, and organizations to attain certain ends" (Tefft 1980: 35). As
a strategy, secrecy may be employed aggressively against rivals or defensively
against attackers (Tefft 1980: 36). Secrecy enables certain types of associations to
avoid political persecution or destruction; it allows other groups to maintain an
exclusive monopoly on esoteric knowledge. As an adaptive device, then, secrecy
allows individuals and groups to attain certain ends, such as control of one's
environment and the prediction of others' actions (Tefft 1980: 321).
659

2.2 The Secrecy Process. Tefft, who takes a broad view of the phenomenon of
secrecy, describes it as an adaptive device containing five interrelated processes:
security (control of information), entrusted disclosure, espionage, evaluation of
spying, and post-hoc security measures.
Tefft notes that all peoples engage in some form of secrecy or information control
(1980:39). Kees Boole makes the same claim: "Not only is there no religion
without secrecy, but there is no human existence without it" (1987:1). Families
do not want their squabbles, embarrassments, intimacies, private interactions or
finances discussed outside their houses; likewise with groups, organizations and
governments. They all practice some form of information control, whether they
base it on the right to privacy, the nature of interpersonal relations or the politics
of business and administration. All engage in some form of "security," that is,
information control, and hence secrecy.
Within families, groups, organizations or governments, certain people are privy
to what is withheld from others. In fact, who knows what may serve as an index
of status or ranking within a group. But not everybody knows all things. Thus
secrets are entrusted to some, not others. The others may or may not know that
there are secrets withheld from them. Hence, we find within governments the use
of degrees of classified information, labels such as "for your eyes only," and the
like. Nevertheless, there tends to be an inner circle which is "in the know."
This immediately raises the issue of some sort of "security system" in terms of
who can or should be entrusted with secrets. It is a known fact that group
members who develop bonds of mutual loyalty pose less security risk than those
of low morale. Nevertheless, groups tend to develop security systems to secure
their secrets, simply because not all group members can be counted on to have
highly developed bonds of mutual loyalty. Such systems can include a number of
steps in securing its secrets, such as: (a) required loyalty tests for old and new
members, (b) total obedience to the group at the expense of other ties, (c) gradual
revelation of secrets to members, and (d) imposition of strict norms of silence
(Simmel ).
Secrets invite snooping, espionage and disclosure. This may in part be due to fear
that secrets may be used to harm others (i.e., a planned coup) or to shut others out
from certain [unknown] benefits (i.e., technological formulae; discoveries). Thus
it is deemed a vital self interest to know what others are up to. There may also be
a reaction of shame to learn that one is excluded from the honor of being part of
the inner circle. Whatever the varied reasons, outsiders tend invariably to engage
in some form of espionage to learn the secrets of others.
660

By "espionage" we simply mean the "acquisition of information held secret by

another group or individual" (Tefft 1980:333). Spying, whether done by persons
or technological means, will entail a body of people who watch, scrutinize, lie in
wait, trap, trick, etc. others so as to learn their secrets. They may investigate
records, interrogate associates, plant informers and spies, or simply set up some
form of intelligence service.
If espionage succeeds in gaining access to controlled information, an evaluation
process must take place. Is the new information of any value? is it a cover? a
false lead? "Leaks" of information may be intentional to distract those engage in
espionage from more vital secrets or to lull them into thinking that they have
cracked the secret.
If individuals, groups, organizations or governments learn that their secrecy has
been breached, they are likely to engage in a post-hoc program to identify the
spy, plug the leak, bury the secret deeper, etc. New loyalty tests (even polygraph
tests) may be demanded. But the "secrecy process" is hardly over, for with the
renewed interest in keeping secrets, those who control information invite a new
round of espionage and evaluation, which may result, if successful, in new posthoc programs to shore up security. And so the cycle repeats itself again and again
and again.
2.3 The Functions of Secrecy.
If secrecy is an adaptive strategy or a means to attain certain ends in the course of
social interaction (Tefft 35), then we might inquire about the various functions it
can play. First, let us distinguish manifest and latent secrecy (Tefft 46).
2.3.1 Manifest and Latent Secrecy. Manifest secrecy describes the formal and
overt function of certain societies or groups to hide ceremonies, rites,
information, and the like from the curious and perhaps dangerous eyes of others.
In contrast, latent secrecy may be practiced by groups as the additional and
unintended consequences of certain structural arrangements, such as covering up
unintended actions.
2.3.2 Extra-group and Intra-group Secrecy. Our attention focuses primarily on
the specific functions of manifest secrecy. And here we distinguish the functions
of extra-groupsecrecy from intra-group secrecy (Brandt 125-27). Extragroup secrecy may be practiced for aggressive or defensive purposes (Tefft
36). Aggressive secrecy, which Tefft judges is best understood under the rubric of
"conflict theory" (Tefft 49-63), describes actions and strategy used by alienative
secret groups to organize political rebellion or provide secret leadership for
661

revolutionary organizations. Groups subject to coercion by more powerful groups

deal with their antagonists by trying to equalize power by hiding information or
resources. Alternately, groups often employ defensive secrecy strategy to protect
themselves. Secret societies such as the KKK, which are in close accord with the
values of the dominant society, employ secrecy to disguise illegal activities.
Alienative groups, however, which are embattled minorities within a larger
hostile society, use secrecy to escape persecution or destruction (Tefft 324;
Brandt 131). One sociologist suggests that "the more intense the conflict the
greater efforts to conceal information from antagonists" (Tefft 51). Thus extragroup secrecy is employed in an atmosphere of fear or distrust (Erickson and
Flynn 252-54).
Intra-group secrecy may be employed for a variety of purposes (Tefft 51-53). It
may prove significant for group formation, in that some groups form for the overt
purpose of engaging in covert actions, such as secret societies. Likewise, secrecy
both sets up group boundaries and, when defended, maintains them. Those "in
the know" distinguish themselves from those "not in the know"; and the very
process of guarding this distinction contributes to group cohesiveness. This is
often called the "superiority syndrome." Internal secrecy within groups, whereby
only select members know certain information, serves to control access to rank,
status and political power. "Elders" or "experts" regularly maintain their special
position within groups by monopolizing esoteric information even from other
insiders, thus buttressing their own power and status within the group (Brandt
130-34). Groups may employ internal secrecy or information control among
members simply as an efficient defensive mechanism to protect the group; for the
fewer people who share vital information, the safer the secret. Finally
bureaucracies are notorious for employing internal espionage against insiders to
garner information about shifting loyalties (Smith 1970: ; in tefft 330).
2.4 Who Knows What? When?
2.4.1 Who Knows? Elizabeth Brandt's study of secrecy in the Taos Pueblo offers
suggestive clues to the function of secrecy within a hierarchical group (125-34).
As most people have observed, information is restricted even within close-knit
groups; not all people know everything. If we attempt to plot out status and role
within a group, who knows something can often serve as an index of public
standing. Those "not in the know," even within the group, may be spouses
brought in by exogamous marriages, and so untrustworthy, or families and tribes
who only recently associated with the group. They represent persons of low
status, who are not integrated into the social networks within a village. We can
contrast them with the few elites in the group, who are privy to the group's
secrets, and who stand atop the status hierarchy in the group and control it in
662

virtue of their monopoly of esoteric information. It often happens that only those
with complete information enjoy full political power within the group. Between
these two extremes we can observe a diversity of individuals in terms of the
kinds of knowledge they possess (Brandt 133; Hazelrigg 1969:324).
2.4.2 What Is Known? If persons can be ranked in terms of what they know,
then we should inquire more closely about what is known and what can be
known? Brandt's study of the kinds of knowledge available in the Taos Pueblo
surfaces five that may be group specific to the Pueblo: "(1) mystical; (2)
theological; (3) liturgical; (4) dogma or catechism; and (5) participatory" (127).
Mystical knowledge refers to the private, ineffable and non-verbal
communication (i.e., the vision quest); it always remains secret. "Theological"
knowledge is a kind of "deep knowledge that penetrates below the surface," thus
providing mythical frameworks of interpretation or rationales for perception and
action; novelist Tony Hillerman has gained special access to this through
informers. "Liturgical" knowledge refers to the correct manner of conducting
ceremonies and rituals, i.e., dances and chants, or simply about "behavior" within
the group. "Dogma" refers to a superficial form of knowledge about the group; it
involves a rote form of learning and represents the official "received" views of
the group (128). "Participatory" knowledge represents for Brandt a miscellaneous
category for the various pieces of information that low level performers and
spectators have (e.g., liturgical participation in a language foreign to those
attending). Certain people know more than others, because information is
controlled so that certain people know more than others. Those most "in the
know" with knowledge of the core myths and rituals rank highest. Those with
specialized knowledge of this or that item belong in the middle, while others who
know little or understand superficially are ranked lowest. This may be easily
verified by inquiring into the degrees of membership in various secret societies,
such as the Masons or the KKK (Gist 1938:354; 1940:55).
2.4.3 When Is It Known? In focus here are issues of recruitment, initiation, and
advancement within groups. It is a well known fact that special knowledge is
reserved for novices during initiation rituals (Burkert 260-64; Brandt 137-38;
Laguerre 151-52). Even among novices, there are grades of initiation and
corresponding new knowledge, as in the case of the cult of Mithra (Ulansey 6-8,
19) and the Greek Mystery Religions (Burkert 276-78). Disciplina arcani
Ancients clearly understood that the life cycle of humans consisted of stages (see
Philo, Cher. 114) with various knowledges and behaviors appropriate to each
stage (Philo, L.A.III.159). Furthermore, ancient education itself consisted of
graded mastery of knowledged. Thus, people are ranked and classified in terms
of their stage of life and its appropriate knowledge (see 1 Cor 3:1-2).
663

Thus, when we investigate a group or sift through information about them in

documents, we may gain vital clues as to the roles and statuses of its members by
attempting to answer the questions: who know what and when?

3.0 John's Gospel and the Sociology of Secrecy

In the beginning of this study, we enumerated a number of patterns which
regularly appear in the Fourth Gospel concerning: (a) lying, deception and
evasion, (b) hiding, either oneself or information, (c) secret and public
transmission of information, (d) misunderstandings, ambiguity and doublemeaning words, (e) people "in the know/not in the know," and reasons for why
people know/do not know what they know, (f) irony, and (g) Jesus's perfect
knowledge: knowledge of his foreknowledge and knowledge of human hearts, all
of which are secrets to all other people. This is prima facie evidence of a
systematic pattern of "information control" or secrecy. We briefly sketched the
sociology of secrecy, namely, the model of how secrecy works and what
comprises it. It remains for us to examine the Fourth Gospel more closely and in
detail from that formal perspective: the sociology of secrecy/information control.
3.1 Secrecy Process and the Fourth Gospel. In the sociology of secrecy, five
stages of a cyclical process were outlined (secrecy, espionage, counter-espionage,
evaluation of spying, post-factum damage control).
3.1 Secrecy: Controlling Information. We trust that the data presented in the
first part of this study amply indicates that "information control" or secrecy
constitutes a major formal theme in the Fourth Gospel.
3.2 Entrusted Disclosure. We take it as a given that information is regularly
controlled in the Fourth Gospel. Certain select persons are let into the secret and
are entrusted with the disclosure of the controlled information. For example, the
premier witness to Jesus, John the Baptizer, twice admits that "I did not know
him" (1:31, 33); but he was ultimately entrusted by God with very special
information about Jesus: "He who sent me . . . said to me, 'He on whom you see
the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit'"
(1:33).
Although the servants at the wedding at Cana know the secret of where the
water-turned-into-wine comes from (2:9), the disciples received "the
manifestation of his glory" (2:11). More significantly, the Samaritan woman is
664

gradually entrusted with secrets about Jesus. She begins the story as a character
who was told "If only you knew . . . who it is who said to you 'Give me to drink,'
you would have asked him. . ." (4:10). As she is entrusted with more secrets,
she does ask "Give me this water" (4:15) and she receives remarkable
information (4:20-24), even a Christophany of Jesus as the Messiah (4:26). The
man born blind likewise receives a special epiphany by Jesus as well as an
answer to his question about "Who is he?" (9:36). Martha, who along with Mary
and Lazarus are "beloved disciples," receives very special information about
Jesus as "the Resurrection and the Life" (11:25).
Select disciples enjoy Jesus' special, private disclosure of secrets in chs 13-17,
the Last Discourse (Kurz etc.). A catalogue of the secrets entrusted includes: (1)
the meaning of the footwashing (13:12-17), (2) knowledge of the traitor (13:2426), (3) information about where Jesus is going (14:1-7), (4) identification of his
replacement (Martyn), who will disclose still more controlled information
(14:26), (5) forecasts of future hard times (15:18-19; 16:1-4, 31-33), (6)
explanation of some of Jesus' statements which seem ambiguous (16:16-22), and
(7) a time when "figures," or information control, will no longer be used (16:2530).
Information is refused certain people during Jesus' arrest and trials. Annas is told
nothing (18:21), nor is Pilate (18:33-34; 19:9-10). After all, they are not insiders
of being entrusted with privileged information. Yet the disclosure of secrets
continues after Jesus' resurrection. Mary Magdalene receives both a Christophany
at the empty tomb and a remarkable secret, which she is commanded to entrust to
Jesus' "brethren": "Go to my brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to my
Father and your Father, to my God and your God'" (20:17). Finally Peter is given
special information about the death he would die so as to glorify God (21:18-19).
Even a misunderstanding about the status of the Beloved Disciple is clarified for
them (21:21-23).
Thus we note a regular pattern in the Forth Gospel whereby select disciples of
Jesus or witnesses to him are entrusted with special information. They know
secrets about his identity which not only are unknown to others, but even
withheld from them. Curiously, up until his restoration in ch 21, Simon Peter
never receives any of these entrusted secrets, unlike his portrayal in the Synoptic
tradition (Neyrey 1993:2Pet 1:16ff).
3.3 Espionage: Discovering Secrets. If secrecy is employed, it invariably
provokes espionage to unveil what is covered over. Since it seems clear that
"information control" and secrecy are a regular part of the narrative of the Fourth
665

Gospel, we turn to the process of espionage, namely, how people try to discover
secrets.
As we begin this part of the investigation, we pause to add to the semantic world
field presented above linguistic data dealing with the phenomenon of espionage
in the New Testament.
Spy, Spying
- kataskopos/kataskopiaz (Heb 11:31; Gal 2:4)
- egkathimi (Luke 20:20)
- pareisaktos (Gal 2:4)
- katopteu/katopts
- skpiazomai/skopos/diaskopiazomai
2. Trap, Catch
- agreu (Mark 12:13)
Cleverness, Craftiness
- panourgos/panourgia
- dolos
3. Report, Betray, Act as Traitor
- paradidos/paradidmi
In addition, there are many terms for (a) questioning (eromai, exereein, exetaz,
anakrin, erta/dierta, pynthanomai), (2) investigating (exetaz, anazte,
anakrin,
skope/diaskope,
ereuna/diexereuna,
akribo/diakribo,
mikrologeomai), and (3) inquire (exeta, zte, eromai, munthanomai, erta).
We know of curious people (philopeuths/philopeustos, lichnos, periergos) and
busybodies (allotriepiskopos, 1 Peter 4:15) and gossips (phlyaros, 1 Tim 5:13).
Furthermore, the ordinary semantic forms of asking questions to get information
should be included, whether this is done informally or by a judicial body or by
spies.
666

In his Gallic Wars, Julius Caesar identifies a host of figures who function in his
extensive intelligence network. He employs "scouts" (exploratores), who
faithfully conduct recognizance of the enemy army. Information about the plans
and movements of the adversary is regularly reported to him by unnamed sources
(rebus cognitis), presumably spies, informants or sympathizers. In regard to
espionage in the Fourth Gospel, we do not find specific terms for "scouts,"
"informers," "spying" or "entrapment" as we do in Luke 20:20 and Gal 2:4 (but
see Mark 3:2 and Luke 6:7). Nevertheless, Jesus is the object of intense scrutiny
and investigation, the object of which is to discover his secrets. People regularly
"hear about" Jesus, either because of the friendly spread of his reputation (4:46;
12:9, 12)) or through hostile reports about him carried by informers and agents of
his enemies (4:1; 11:46-47). His movements, then, are carefully monitored.
In their search for information about Jesus, various people ask him questions
directly or ask questions about him from others. As Bruce Malina has argued,
questions in an honor-shame society are often challenging (NTW ); questions,
then, while they seek answers and information, are far from being neutral in
intent. It is simply an interesting fact that in the Fourth Gospel the term for
asking questions (erta) occurs three time more frequently than the combined
instances of it in the Synoptics, an indication that "asking questions" in this
gospel is a significant feature.
Yet in addition to the obvious verb erta, the Fourth Gospel contains an
elaborate series of questions asked in some form of the interrogative ts, (dia)
t and ps. For purposes of analysis, let us systematically examine these
questions.
Who are you (ts)? On three occasions, a formal inquiry by designated public
officials is held concerning Jesus. In the first instance, John the Baptizer is
thoroughly investigated by deputized agents of the Jerusalem elite concerning his
own identity and his presumed relationship to Jesus (1:19-22). Later the man
cured of his paralysis is queried about Jesus (5:12-13), as are the parents of the
man born blind (9:21). Jesus himself is asked specific questions about his
identity: "Who are you?" (8:25) and "Whom do you make yourself to be?" (8:53).
Twice people ask him "Who is this Son of man?" -- once positively (9:35) and
once negatively (12:34). Finally in the gospel's last narrative, no one asks him
"Who are you?" (21:12), for they are all now in the know. To round out the
picture, we note how the Beloved Disciple seeks secret information from Jesus
about the traitor: "Who is it?" (13:24-25), the possession of which knowledge
becomes a mark of distinction later (21:20). Lastly, Jesus himself asks questions
of those approaching him: "Whom do you seek?" -- both of the mob who came to
arrest him (18:4, 7) and more positively of Mary Magdalene at the tomb (20:15).
667

What is this? What are you doing? Some people are asked "what they have to say
about so-and-so," either the Baptizer about himself (1:22) or the man born blind
about Jesus (9:17). Indeed, this information is garnered in a formal inquiry. Other
"what?" questions are asked, which are on the order of "What do you seek"
(4:27), "What business is this of yours?" (2:4; 21:22-23), a phrase which
distances that person from Jesus' secret plans and purposes. Others challenge
Jesus' legitimation and demand "What sign do you give? (2:18; 6:30). Still others
ask "What are we to do?" in regard to Jesus, but not in a friendly manner (6:28;
11:47). Facts about Jesus are requested, either how he healed (9:26) or what
crime he allegedly committed (18:29, 35). Finally, we learn of inquiry into his
words, "What does he mean?" -- by foe (7:36) and friend (16:17-18).
Why? What motive? Investigations often include inquiry into the reasons why
something is done. For example, if John the Baptizer is not the Christ or a
prophet, "Why do you baptize?" (1:25). Those sent to arrest Jesus are asked when
they return emptyhanded "Why did you not bring him?" (7:45). And the man
born blind sarcastically asks the Pharisees who keep inquiring about Jesus "Why
do you want to hear it again? Do you too want to become his disciples?" (9:27).
Furthermore, people directly ask Jesus "why?" questions: "Why cannot I follow
you now?" (13:37) and "Why is it that you will manifest yourself to us and not to
the world" (14:22). Moreover, Jesus himself asks friends and foes why they do
what they do: "Why do you seek to kill me?" (7:19); "Why don't you
understand?" (8:43); "Why don't you believe?" (8:46); "Why do you strike me?"
(18:23); "Why are you weeping?" (20:15). See also 4:27 and 12:5.
Where? A disciple asks Jesus a pregnant question: "Where do you remain?"
(1:38). This disciple "came and saw" (1:39), "remained" with Jesus and
presumably learned much about him, but it was highly controlled information in
a highly controlled context.
Whence? Whither? One of the recurring ironies of the Fourth Gospel is the claim
by some to know "whence" Jesus came. If people know all there is to know about
a neighbor, there can be no secrecy or threat about them (see Luke 13:25). But
claims to know "whence" Jesus comes are false, because Jesus' secret remains
just that, a secret (6:41-42; 7:27-28). Nor do people know "whither" he is going
when he goes away, perhaps to the Dispersion (7:35) or suicide (8:21-22). The
select disciples, at least, acknowledge that they do not know where he is going
(14:5; 16:5). One figure only in the gospel knows the secret: "I know whence I
have come and whither I am going, but you do not know whence I come or
whither I am going" (8:14). Jesus, of course, knows that he came down from
heaven and is returning there (3:13; 6:62; 13:1), information which he gradually
shares with others (20:17).
668

How can this be? How can you say. . .? Other questions are asked which are
introduced by the adverb "how" (ps), which have to do with how much of Jesus'
secret is understood. Seven times, people who have listened to Jesus react in
incomprehension to his words:
3:4 "How can a man be born when he is old?"
3:9 "How can this be?"
6:42 "How does he say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"
6:52 "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
8:33 "How is it that you say, 'You shall be made free'?"
12:34 "How can you say that the Son of man must be lifted up?"
Clearly people who ask questions of this sort are not privy to the secret meanings
of Jesus' words.
On one occasion, we are told of intense scrutiny by the Pharisees concerning the
manner in which Jesus healed the blind man (9:10, 15, 19, 21, 26). The crowds
likewise question how Jesus came by his learning, since he is unlettered (7:15).
Jesus himself contributes to this pattern by commenting four times on the lack of
understanding in his hearers:
3:12 "How can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"
5:44 "How can you believe, who receive glory from one another and do not seek
the glory that comes from the only God?"
5:47 "If you do not believe his [Moses'] writings, how will you believe my
words?"
14:9 "How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?"
Not all who ask questions that begin with "How...?" are incorrigibly ignorant.
The man born blind asks the appropriate question: "How can a man who is a
sinner do such signs?" (9:16). And Thomas knows that he does not know when
he says: "We do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?"
(14:5).

669

The author of the Fourth Gospel has cast the espionage process in the literary
form of forensic inquiry. After all, legal and forensic investigations exist
precisely to ferret out secrets, gather testimony, conduct investigations, and the
like. On two of these occasions, a formal inquiry is held by relevant officials
concerning Jesus' behavior. The person whom Jesus cured is interrogated in
considerable ostensibly because Jesus healed on the sabbath (5:10-13, 15; 9:1317, 24-34). In other contexts, witnesses such as the Baptizer are formally and
thoroughly interrogated concerning Jesus (1:19-34; see 5:35); A. E. Harvey
commented on the explicit forensic character of the Baptizer as a martys, that is,
a forensic witness ( ). When on trial himself, Jesus tells his scrutinizers: "Ask
those who have heard me, they know what I said to them" (18:21).
Jesus himself is regularly engaged in controversy which our author has cast in the
form of a forensic trial (chs 5, 7, 8, 10, 18, 19). On each of these occasions his
words as well as his actions are investigated. Implied or secret meanings of his
words are sought, whether he commented "My Father is working still, and I am
working" (5:16) or "You seek me and you will not find me" (7:34) or "I am the
light of the world" (8:12). On occasion he is formally asked a question, which in
the Synoptics is asked of him at his official trial before the Sanhedrin: "If you are
the Christ, tell us plainly" (10:24; see Matt 26:63; Mark 14:61).
We conclude that consistently throughout the Fourth Gospel, Jesus is the object
of espionage. His opponents systematically inquire about him, either by
interrogating witnesses, associates, or Jesus himself.
3.4 Evaluation of Espionage. It is one thing to engage in espionage to uncover
controlled information, and quite another thing to process what is discovered.
Information might be leaked on purpose, either to satisfy the curious at a low
level of inquiry or to mislead the investigators entirely. Disinformation always
remains a possibility, and so the espionage agents must sift their finding carefully
and interrogators must examine testimony with great care.
One way of examining how examiners examine their investigation might be to
track down in the Forth Gospel how questions are answered. If agents are send to
garner information, do they in fact get anything? Those sent to John the Baptizer
receive clear and full answers to their questions; after all, John's sole role is to
"bear testimony" to Jesus (1:19-34), a testimony which the narrator claims was
acceptable to them (5:35). Other interrogators receive misleading remarks, as in
the case of the parents of the man born blind. For defensive reasons, they do not
want to have anything to do with Jesus, and so disclaim all knowledge of him
(9:18-23). On occasion, Jesus himself answers questions in a manner which
simply confounds the questioner or ignores the question entirely. In response to
670

Nicodemus' question about being "born anothen," Jesus talks about "birth
through water" and about "wind" (3:5-8 and see 9-12). Those who investigate
what Jesus meant by "Where I am going you cannot come" (7:34) at one time
think he means "to the Dispersion" (7:35) or suicide (8:22). Jesus gives them no
answer to their question, and they are left to themselves to discover his meaning.
Other questioners are summarily dismissed: "I told you, and you do not believe"
(10:25). On occasion, Jesus' answer is entirely missed by his interrogators. For
example, when Jesus' legitimation for his temple actions is demanded ("What
sign do you show us..." 2:18), he responds, "[You] destroy this temple and in
three days I will raise it" (2:19). The questioners totally ignore the first part,
which exposes their own secrets ("You destroy this temple"), and fail to grasp the
meaning of the second part ("...and in three days I will raise it up"). The
information controlled then by Jesus will be shared with insiders later and is
given immediately to the reader. Thus select few insiders know Jesus' answer,
while opponents and outsiders entirely miss his meaning.
Nevertheless, the investigators are repeatedly warned by Jesus that they will
invariably misunderstand anything he says. As we noted above, they are fleshly
people of this earth, and so they cannot understand spirit things of heaven (3:6,
12). They judge by appearances (7:24; 8:15); they take things literally. Some
investigators, moreover, start out "blind" for they prejudge that because Jesus
healed on the Sabbath, he must be a sinner (9:16). This colors all testimony that
they receive and leaves them incapable of understanding correctly (9:40-41).
They begin their investigation convinced that "he is leading the people astray"
(7:12) and no amount of testimony will dissuade them (7:47). In another vein,
since only Jesus' sheep hear his voice, Pilate cannot understand Jesus' testimony
because he is not an insider (18:37-38; see 10:26-27).
We would introduce at this point the Johannine pattern of "seeking" and
"finding," since this too has to do with trying to discover secrets. In the Q source,
Jesus states:
Ask,
and
it
will
be
given
to
you;
seek,
and
you
will
find;
knock,
and
it
will
be
opened
to
you.
For
everyone
who
asks
receives,
and
who
seeks
finds,
and to him who knocks it will be opened (Matt 7:7-8//Luke 11:910).
In their current gospel contexts, this "asking and seeking" seems to refer to
petitionary prayer particularly for resources such as good ("ask for bread . . . ask
671

for a fish"). But we should not peremptorily reject asking for information,
wisdom, and knowledge.
The Fourth Gospel regularly reports that people are "seeking" something or
someone. Two disciples of the Baptizer "seek" to know where Jesus remains
(1:39); and they learn the answer. The disciples would like to know what Jesus
was seeking from the Samaritan woman (4:27), but do not ask and so they do not
find out. Some people seek Jesus, not because they desire his signs or words, but
because they ate their fill of his bread (6:24, 26). Although "seeking" Jesus might
be an act of discipleship and belief, there are people who "seek to kill" him (7:1,
19-20, 25; 8:21, 37, 40; 11:8) or arrest him (18:4, 7-8). In contrast, Mary
Magdalene is "seeking" him for quite other reasons (20:15). All who "seek"
Jesus, then, are engaged in some form of information discovery, which may be
friendly or hostile. If hostile, it is part of an espionage pattern.
Yet at one level of the Jesus tradition, those who "seek" are promised that they
will "find." This term likewise becomes an important Johannine indicator. The
disciples of the Baptizer find the place where Jesus stays, and much more. In turn
they "find" relatives and neighbors (1:41, 43, 45) as they share this new
information. On two occasions, Jesus "finds" others, the crippled man (5:14) and
the man born blind (9:35); but his "finding" results in quite different sharing of
information. The crippled man, who was "not in the know" (5:13), does know
Jesus and even talks about him to others (5:15), but hardly in a way which
indicates that he has learned a secret or become his disciple. He knows only
Jesus' name, not his identity or mission or significance. When, however, the man
born blind is "found," he too learns about Jesus and becomes a recipient of very
special information about "the Son of man" (9:35-38). He already appears to be
quite "in the know" about Jesus, which information is augmented in his encounter
with Jesus. Moreover, he has already spoken out boldly on Jesus' behalf, and so
the reader takes him as an insider, even an ideal model of discipleship. The
crippled man indeed found Jesus, but stands apart from any secrets or
information shared, whereas the man born blind receives both an epiphany of
Jesus and a catechesis on "the Son of man."
Pilate presents another view of those who "find" out something. Three times he
tells the crowds that "I find no cause against this man" (18:38; 19:4, 6). While he
may have "found" Jesus innocent of the charges against him, Pilate has hardly
"found" out the truth about Jesus; after all, he cannot hear Jesus' voice, because
he is not one of his sheep (see 18:37-38). Still others "find" Jesus after he seems
to have disappeared (6:25). Thus "finding" is not assured to all who "seek": some
never find out, others find out very little, while others find out very much.
Information, then, remains tightly controlled, especially against espionage agents.
672

By these patterns, the author of the Fourth Gospel labors to indicate just who are
the espionage agents spying on Jesus. Those who receive answers to their
questions or who begin to see and know beyond appearances or who seek and
find are insiders and so share the controlled information. But those who receive
no answer to their questions, or who receive rather double-meaning responses or
who judge by appearances or who seek in a hostile manner are clearly outsiders.
Because of their wicked or inferior nature, they cannot understand heavenly and
spiritual things.
The espionage process, moreover, utterly fails. The secrets are never discovered.
Even if the investigative agents hear Jesus speak, they invariably misunderstand
him. The information which is being controlled, then, is never at risk, except for
the traitor. But then Jesus knew he was a traitor from the beginning (6:64, 70-71;
13:18, 21, 27).
3.5 Post-Factum Security Process
3.2 Secrecy and Differentiation of Characters. In the model of secrecy, we
noted that information is controlled in terms both of outsiders and insiders. In the
Fourth Gospel, we quickly observe a recurring pattern which separates the two
groups, namely, insiders who are "in the know" distinguished from outsiders
"not in the know."
3.2.1 Outsiders: "Not in the Know." Our narrator employs a number of patterns
to help us recognize outsiders who are "not in the know." A number of times
Jesus forthrightly tells members of his audience that they are "not in the know,"
even though Jesus is speaking to them:
1."You do not know" (3:10; 7:28; 8:14, 19, 43, 55)
2. "You do not hear/listen to my voice" (8:37, 47; 10:27; 18:37)
"You do not believe" (8:45; 10:25)
3. "You do not belong" (10:26).
On occasion, the author supplies that information (8:27; 10:6; 12:37;
Sometimes people claim to know something, which claim is challenged by Jesus:
"So you 'know' me, and you 'know where I come from'? But I have not come of
my own accord; he who sent me is true, and him you do 'not know" (7:28; see
8:52). Furthermore, some of those who ask Jesus questions never get them
673

answered, and so they remain "not in the know"? Nicodemus, for example, asks a
question of Jesus (3:4), which Jesus answers in such as way as to reduce
Nicodemus to ignorance: "How can this be" (3:9). Jesus answers this second
question with a question, which clearly declares that Nicodemus is "not in the
know": You, a teacher of Israel, and you do not understand this?. . .if I told you
earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly
things?" (3:10, 12). Other unanswered questions are: 7:35-36; 8:19, 22, 25, 53;
10:23. The interrogators of the man born blind ask questions and receive the
same answer, but refuse to accept it, thus positioning themselves as the figures
whom Jesus labels the truly blind (9:39-41). In the pattern of
"statement/misunderstanding/clarification," some people receive a final word
from Jesus, but it does not serve to clarify anything or enlighten them, but rather
confirm them in their "misunderstanding" (chs 3; 6:42/43-51, 52/53-58; 9).
In a number of ways either Jesus or the narrator indicate why these outsiders are
"not in the know." Some of Jesus' hearers are earthly people who can only know
"earthly things" (epigeia), but never "heavenly things" (epourania, 3:12). When
they question Jesus about the meaning of his words, he declares that they cannot
know his meanings because they are "from below" and "of this world," whereas
he is "from above" and "not of this world" (8:24). They "judge by appearances"
(kat' opsin, 7:24) or "judge according to the flesh" (kata tn sarka, 8:15). (Since
only Jesus' "sheep hear his voice," those who do not hear is voice are not his
sheep (10:4-5, 26-27; 18:37). If "all shall be taught by God" (6:45a) and "Every
one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me" (6:45b), then those
who do not understand Jesus are presumably "not taught by God" and have
"not heard and learned from God." Some people, then, do not know because they
cannot know; others do not know, because they love darkness rather than light
(3:19; see 3:2; 12:42; 19:38-39); still others do not know because they are kept in
the dark.
3.2.2 Insiders: "Not in the Know." On occasion, the narrator tells us about
characters who are "not in the know" who are also in some sense insiders. The
mother of Jesus at the Cana wedding does not seem to know about Jesus' "hour"
(2:4). She may be functioning as a Johannine stereotype of blood relatives who
appear to be insiders, but are not -- at least, not yet. Some commentators consider
Nicodemus to be an insider of some sort. After all, he comes to Jesus, even if at
night; he claims to know something: "We know you are a teacher come from
God"; he speaks on Jesus' behalf (7:51); and he buries Jesus lavishly with spices
(19:39). Yet for all that, he does not know much (3:4, 9, 12); he comes at night;
and he thinks that Jesus is utterly and permanently dead. He too may be a typical
Johannine stereotype of a quasi-insider, one only very partially "in the know."
674

Peter seems to be the character most ambiguously presented by the narrator. In

the Synoptics, he is chosen first, blessed with divine inspiration, and proclaimer
of Jesus' Messianic identity. Not so in the Fourth Gospel: he is called second, he
never sayings anything inspired or inspiring; in fact, Jesus tells him outright that
"What I am doing you do not know now, but afterwards you will understand"
(13:7). Peter does not know the identity of the traitor, and so asks a disciple truly
"in the know" for this information (13:24); but the narrative does not indicate that
he was in fact told the secret. When Jesus tells Judas "What you are going to do,
do quickly," Peter appears to be like the others: "No one at the table knew why he
[Jesus] said this to him [Judas]" (13:28). They have erroneous interpretations of
Jesus' remarks to Judas (13:27-29).
3.2.3 Insiders: Degrees of Being "In the Know." The narrator makes a point of
telling us that various insiders know different things. I suggest that this also
serves to rank the persons in Jesus' circle.
(1) Certain persons are labelled as insiders by the very fact that they "come and
see" when invited. Whether Andrew and associate (1:39), Nathanael (1:46) or the
men of Samaria (4:29), they come to Jesus and know (1:41, 49; 4:42). We truly
consider them insiders, and even credit Nathanael with a high status than the
traditional apostles by virtue of his struggle to "come and see" and Jesus' special
conversation with him.
(2) As important as these events are for indicating knowledgeable insiders, they
are surpassed in importance by the "statement-misunderstanding-clarification"
that the Samaritan woman and Martha experience. When the Samaritan woman
begins her conversation with Jesus, she is told "If only you knew..." (4:10); Jesus,
who knows hearts, indicates that she is "not in the know." But she progresses
from asking questions (4:9, 12) to perceiving acutely (4:19), to learning
important information (4:20-24), and finally to receiving a formal revelation
(4:25-26; Neyrey 1994:). In addition to here coming "into the know" when Jesus'
"told her everything she ever did" (4:29, 39), she becomes a conduit of
information for others. Clearly, she is one of the Johannine heroines, even a foil
for the obtuse Nicodemus; she becomes a person very much "in the know."
Comparably, Martha experiences an enlightenment. Unlike the Samaritan woman
who began her conversation with Jesus "not in the know," Martha begins by
knowing two things: "I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give
you" (11:22) and "I know that he [Lazarus] will rise again at the resurrection of
the dead" (11:24). Yet just as Jesus led the Samaritan woman through "statement"
and "misunderstanding" and "clarification," so he leads Martha to a marvelous
revelation:
675

Statement: "Your brother will rise again" (11:23)

Misunderstanding:" I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day"
(11:24)
Clarification: "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, even
though he die, yet shall he live" (11:25). And once "in the know," she too leads
others to Jesus, namely her sister Mary (11:28-29). Thus Martha begins knowing
something, but ends knowing very important information about Jesus; she also
serves as a conduit of special information. Because she begins the story as a
"beloved disciple" (11:5) and receives so important a revelation (11:25-27), she
stand a notch higher than the Samaritan woman. Even insiders, then, can be
differentiated in terms of what they know.
(3) The man born blind presents another Johannine hero, and especially one who
goes from blindness to sight to insight. Blind from birth (9:2) and at first " not in
the know" (9:12, 25), he is transformed into a sighted person (9:7) who gains
great insight. He comes to know that Jesus is a prophet (9:17); and with others he
proclaims, "We know that God does not listen to sinners" (9:31); finally, he
knows what others should know: "If this man were not from God, he could do
nothing" (9:33). His transformation, moreover, continues when Jesus finds him
and reveals himself to him (9:35-38). From knowing nothing, he has progressed
to knowing about Jesus and then to acknowledging him. Jesus canonizes him
with the remark: "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see
may see" (9:39). The blind man, precisely because he serves as the narrative foil
to the obtuse and unknowing Pharisees (9:39-41), is a type of Johannine
character, a hero who makes a bold public confession as well as a person
supremely "in the know."
In my estimation, he is portrayed as being more of an insider than the Samaritan
woman because of the following. He speaks on behalf of Jesus before hostile
crowds and says what he knows. Not only does he contrast with his Pharisaic
investigators, he is juxtaposed as well with his parents, who both do not know
and are afraid to speak what they know. "We know that this is our son, and that
he was born blind; but how he now sees we do not know, nor do we know who
opened his eyes" (9:20-21). The author labels his parents cowards when he
comments: "His parents said this because they feared the Jews" (9:22) who
threatened excommunication to anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Christ. He
speaks boldly on behalf of Jesus, saying what he knows, even when it causes his
expulsion from the synagogue (9:34). Finally, he receives a Christophany, the
central focus of which is revelation of the "Son of man" (9:35), knowledge which
Jesus alone imparts (3:13; 8:28; 12:34) and which represents a more esoteric
676

understanding of Jesus than "Messiah." On the basis of what he comes to know,

then, the man born blind represents a still inner level of sophistication in the
circle of the Johannine disciples. In terms of social ranking within the Johannine
group, he should probably be placed alongside Martha because of the quality of
his "knowledge" about Jesus.
When all the information about the inner circle of disciples is gathered, we find a
correlation between the standing of a disciple within the group and what he
knows. For example, in the inaugural appearance of Jesus in 1:35-51 the narrator
tells of a series of people who come "into the know," Andrew, Peter, Philip and
Nathanael. Let us list what each knows:
Andrew: Where do you stay? (1:38-39)
We have found the Messiah (1:41)
Philip: We found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote
(1:45)
Nathanael: Rabbi, you are the Son of God. You are the King of Israel.
Curiously, Peter never says anything about Jesus, so we do not know what he
knows at this point. Brown (196?) and others have noted that the knowledge
encoded in the Christological titles grows to the climactic response of Nathanael.
Nathanael, moreover, is canonized by Jesus as an "Israelite in whom there is no
deceit" (1:47); the narrator sees him as a heroic figure who went against his
pervious knowledge and study of Scripture to "come and see" for himself. He has
the best lines, the juicier part in the drama, and the climactic place in the process.
On the narrative level, then, Nathanael is "more in the know" than the others and
so we judge him to enjoy a higher status among the group than the others. This
inaugural narrative, then, programs the reader to expect certain things: (1) there is
growth in knowledge about Jesus, which can be mapped by progress in the titles
ascribed to him by his disciples; (2) some disciples simply know more; disciples
"in the know" give their knowledge to others; and (4) disciples "in the know"
enjoy more status and prestige in the group than those "not in the know" or those
with lesser knowledge.
(4) If Nicodemus is to be considered an insider at all, his position among the
disciples must be relatively low. He came at night; he has "earthly" knowledge
about Jesus; he remains on the level of a question asker, not a revelation receiver;
he never shares whatever he knows with anyone. Nicodemus, then, may be a
disciple, but one of very limited knowledge and very low status.
677

(5) Peter provides an interesting test of this hypothesis. In the synoptic gospels,
certain details serve to indicate his "knowledge" and his high status: (1) Peter is
called first and given a new name; (2) he is privy to special revelations of Jesus,
raisings from the dead, transformations on high mountains, special information
about tax paying, secrets about the temple and the coming of the Son of man; (3)
he is honored as the recipient of directly heavenly revelation about Jesus'
identity; and (4) he speaks on behalf of the group.
The Fourth Gospel portrays Peter in quite a different light. He is called second,
and not by Jesus himself; his brother Andrew is "first in time" and "first in
knowledge" (1:40-41). Thus from the beginning, Peter does not enjoy very high
social status within the circle of disciples. When we compare Peter's remarks to
Jesus at the crisis with the "dropouts" (Matsunaga ) with the confession at
Caesarea Philippi, Peter knows something, but it is not the climactic insight
described by the Synoptics, nor is it said to be revealed from heaven.
Mark 8:28-29 John 6:
"Who do you say that I am?" "Do you also wish to go away?"
"You are the Christ." "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed and
come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

Yet Peter's remarks in the Fourth Gospel sound quite nondescript as important
information about Jesus or public confession of his identity. Although he speaks
for all the disciples, the reader does not automatically credit Peter with special
status because of the lackluster and low-density knowledge he has. Nathanael he
is not!
The Johannine portrait of Peter becomes clearer in the Farewell Address. Four
times the reader is told that Peter is "not in the know":
13:7 (concerning the footwashing): "What I am doing you do not know now, but
afterwards you will know"
13:24 (concerning the traitor): "Simon Peter beckoned to him and said: 'Tell us
who it is of whom he speaks."
13:36 (concerning Jesus' departure): "Lord, where are you going?"
13:37 (concerning Peter's following): "Lord, why cannot I follow you now?"
Yes, he will know later; he will follow later (13:7, 36); but at this narrative point,
he is simply "not in the know." In the Synoptics this would not be so damaging a
678

portrayal, but in the Fourth Gospel he is contrasted with a figure who is

marvelously "in the know," the Beloved Disciple. And so Peter's lack of
information puts him lower on the status ladder than the Beloved Disciples.
The comparison and contrast of Peter and the Beloved Disciple continues in the
Fourth Gospel (Neyrey ). At the gate of the high priest's palace, the Beloved
Disciple is cast in the role of the "shepherd," while Peter is the "sheep." The BD
is "known" to the gatekeeper and has her open the gate to let one of the sheep in.
Furthermore, on the morning of the resurrection, the two are again paired and
compared. The Beloved Disciple not only runs faster and arrives at the tomb first
(20:4-5), but he not only "saw" what Peter saw, he "saw and believed" (20:8),
remarks which keep positioning him above Peter in status. Finally, when the
disciples are last described together, no body, and certainly not Peter, recognizes
Jesus on the shore, except the Beloved Disciple. He shares what he knows with
Peter: "That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, 'It is the Lord'" (21:7). Only
at the very ending of what appears to be a final redaction of the gospel do we find
Peter ever coming "into the know," and even there the narrator does not explicitly
say that Peter understood Jesus. After Jesus ascribed to Peter the role and status
of "shepherd" for the group (21:15-17), Jesus reveals to Peter his future: "...when
you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry
you where you do not wish to go" (21:18).
We must, however, examine carefully what is said and not said about Peter here.
If shepherd, then Peter should "lay down his life for the sheep," the hallmark of
"good shepherds" (10:11, 15). But that aspect of shepherd is absent here from
Jesus' remarks. The good shepherd, while a victim of predators, takes an active,
bold and public role on behalf of the sheep. Peter is only predicted as suffering a
death. Moreover, the narrator does not say whether Peter understood Jesus'
remark, just as he did not indicate whether Peter received his requested
information about the traitor (13:24). The remark is cryptic; like many of Jesus
statements, it is controlled information which is not immediately understandable.
We the readers are "in the know" simply because the narrator shares with us the
secret: "This he said to show by what death he would glorify God" (21:19). Thus
there remains considerable ambiguity about Peter, even at the point that the
narrative seems to clarify his precise status in the group. Can we ever confidently
say that Peter is "in the know"? Is he ever "in the know" about important
Christological matters?
(6) Thus in every instance that the Beloved Disciple appears, he is closer to Jesus
physically; he has direct access to very important information; and he comes to
insight first among the disciples. He is, moreover, labelled "the disciple whom
679

Jesus loved." He, but not Peter, enjoys very high status, and the index of that
status is the information he knows (and shares).
(7) One other disciple deserves consideration in this mapping of the status of
insiders. The portrayal of Mary Magdalene on the morning of the resurrection
indicates a person who is transformed from a person painfully "not in the know"
to someone who is both well informed about great secrets and informs others.
She begins the narrative "not in the know":
20:2 "...we do not know where they have laid him"
20:13 "I do not know where they have laid him"
20:14 She did not know that it was Jesus
20:15 Supposing him to be the gardener..."Tell me where you have laid him"
Pained in her lack of information about Jesus and painfully ignorant of who
speaks to her ("supposing him to be the gardener"), Mary is transformed
immediately into a disciple supremely "in the know." Jesus calls her name, which
serves as a revelation to her which pulls back the veil of unknowing: "Mary. .
.Rabbi" (20:16). But this knowledge serves as a prelude to the great revelation of
one of the most important secrets in the gospel: "Go to my brethren and say to
them 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God'"
(20:17). As like other disciples "in the know," she serves as a conduit of key
Christological information to others, who are also insiders (20:18).
In my scheme of things, Mary enjoys very high status within the Johannine
group. She is the first in time to see the Risen Lord; she is transformed into a
person who is supremely "in the know" with knowledge of the most important
secrets about Jesus ("whither he goes"); and she serves as an authorized conduit
of this information to others. Neither Andrew, Peter, Nathanael nor the man born
blind are so portrayed. Her knowledge, then, indicates a special status within the
group.
In summary, I offer the following diagram which attempts to rank and locate the
status of the various disciples of Jesus in terms of two features: their own
knowledge of Jesus and the spread of this knowledge to others.
DISCIPLE

KNOWLEDGE

STATUS

Nicodemus

knowledge: Jesus is a teacher ambiguous insider; very low status: (1)

come from God
comes at night; (2) earthly knowledge; (3)

680

never leads others to Jesus

Andrew,
Philip,
Nathanael
and
other traditional
disciples

knowledge: Jesus is Messiah...

the one of whom Moses & the
prophets wrote...Son of God
and King of Israel

genuine insiders; moderate status because

the Christological information is "low
Christology"; conduits of information to
others

Peter

knowledge: Jesus is the Holy genuine insider; but of ambiguous status;

One of God
very limited knowledge about Jesus; never
serves as conduit of information to others

Samaritan
Woman

knowledge: Jesus is greater

than our father Jacob...a
prophet...the Messiah; receives
a Christophany

Man Born Blind

knowledge:
Jesus
is
a very high status as insider: transformed
prophet...cannot
be
a from "blind" to "in the know"; receives a
sinner...must be authorized by Christophany; bold confession of Jesus in
God...Son of man
public; conduit of information about Jesus
to others, even if others refuse it

Martha

knowledge: Jesus is the

Resurrection and the Life...the
Christ, the Son of God, he who
is coming into the world

Mary Magdalene

knowledge: Rabbi...risen and still higher status: called by name;

ascending Lord
transformed from "not in the know" to "in
the know"; special Christophany with very
esoteric knowledge; conduit of information
to others

Beloved Disciple

knowledge: identity of the highest status in the group: most beloved

traitor; believes at the tomb; by Jesus and physically closest to him;
recognizes Jesus on the shore
always maximally "in the know"; conduit
of information to others

significant insider; transformed from

"not in the know" to very much "in the
know";
possesses
very
important
knowledge, especially a Christophany;
serves as conduit of information to others

still higher status: beloved disciple; led

from solid knowledge to still higher
knowledge; special Christophany; conduit
of information to others

This chart clarifies certain things about the characterization of the disciples. First,
not all know the same thing; some know more than others; and some even know
the most esoteric of information, viz., "where" Jesus is going. Second, some
receive special Christophanies: Jesus "finds" them apart from others, thus a tte-tte ensues in which he reveals special secrets to them, often in the form of "I
am ..." announcements. Some enjoy a second source of status in virtue of their
public confession of Jesus. Finally, genuine insiders all seem to serve as conduits
of information to others, although some have more important information to
convey than others.
(8) Yet

681

Disciples (14-16)

*1, s-m-c: Sam (4) and Martha (11)

*2. blind man sees (9)
* come and see: came and saw (1:35ff; 4:27ff; 11: )
3. questions answered (9:2)
5. instruction of the disciples (14-16)
3. Peter comes to know; even revelation 21:18-19
7. Mary Magdalene (20) not in the know to greatly in the know
8. BD

3.3 Secrecy and Scrutiny of Jesus' Words

2.0 Secrecy: the Semantic Word Field. Increasingly New Testament students
are turning for information on key terms, not just to concordances or the Kittel
TDNT, but to works which present semantic word fields (Danker; Nida and
Loew; Darton). Such an approach reminds us that a single linguistic term may be
repeated in a document, but may also return in many synonyms; it may also be
related to or imply other terms or forms (all commands expect obedience; all
questions expect answers). Moreover, because language must be understood in
terms of cultural systems (Malina), individual terms may imply a "system"
operating in the culture (i.e., sorcery accusation system; patronage system, and
the like). The following is an attempt to build a semantic word field for "secrecy."
Not all of the terms cited are found in the Fourth Gospel, but notice of them
serves to complete our view of secrecy and sensitizes us to the extent of the
secrecy system.

682

Hide, Hidden
- kalypt, kalymma
- krypt-kryptos
- lanthan
2. Reveal, Show, Open
- apokalypt-apokalypsis - phanero-phaneros
- deiknymi, endeiknymi - dlo
- phain - epiphain, epiphania
- anaggel - gnriz
- smain - chrematiz
- anoig - anaptyss
Private and Public
- lathra and en krypti/parrsia
3. True and False
- alths and althinos/pseudos and plastos
5. Lying, Liar, Lies
- pseudomi, pseduos, pseuts
- pseudo- apostolos, martys, prophtes, christus
3. Secrets
- mysterion, ainigma, paroimia, ta krypta
7. Deceiving, Deceiver, Deceit
- plana, plans - deleaz
683

- dolo, dolos - paralogizomai

- hypokrits, hypokrisis - apata
- methodeia - panourgia
- gos - kybeia
8. Appearances, Appear, Seem
- doke - kata sarka
- prophasis - prospoieomai
9. Silence
-siag
10. Interpret, Count (as), Reckon (as)
- exgeomai - logizomai
dealing with the phenomenon of espionage in the New Testament.
1. Spy, Spying
- kataskopos/kataskopiaz (Heb 11:31; Gal 2:4)
- egkathimi (Luke 20:20)
- pareisaktos (Gal 2:4)
- katopteu/katopts
- skpiazomai/skopos/diaskopiazomai
2. Trap, Catch
- agreu (Mark 12:13)
3. Cleverness, Craftiness
684

- panourgos/panourgia
- dolos
4. Report, Betray, Act as Traitor
- paradidos/paradidmi
In addition, there are many terms for (a) questioning (eromai, exereein, exetaz,
anakrin, erta/dierta, pynthanomai), (2) investigating (exetaz, anazte,
anakrin,
skope/diaskope,
ereuna/diexereuna,
akribo/diakribo,
mikrologeomai), and (3) inquire (exeta, zte, eromai, munthanomai, erta).
We know of curious people (philopeuths/philopeustos, lichnos, periergos) and
busybodies (allotriepiskopos, 1 Peter 4:15) and gossips (phlyaros, 1 Tim 5:13).
Furthermore, the ordinary semantic forms of asking questions to get information
should be included, whether this is done informally or by a judicial body or by
spies.

Disciples (14-16)

*1, s-m-c: Sam (4) and Martha (11)

*2. blind man sees (9)
*3. come and see: came and saw (1:35ff; 4:27ff; 11: )
4. questions answered (9:2)
5. instruction of the disciples (14-16)
6. Peter comes to know; even revelation 21:18-19
7. Mary Magdalene (20) not in the know to greatly in the know
8. BD

685

6.3 Secrecy and Scrutiny of Jesus' Words

"Despising the Shame of

Honor
and
in
Johannine Passion Narrative

the

Cross":
Shame
the

Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J.

ABSTRACT
The passion narrative in John 18-19 is profitably viewed in terms
of the values of honor and shame. A model of this anthropological
concept is presented, which stresses the form of the typical honor
challenge (claim, challenge, riposte, and public verdict). This model
then serves as a template for reading John 18-19 to surface the
phenomena of honor and shame in that narrative and to interpret
the endless confrontations described there in their appropriate
cultural perspective. Thus from the narrator's point of view, Jesus
maintains his honor and even gains more in his death; he is in no
way shamed by the events.

I. INTRODUCTION
New Testament authors reflect the general perception of crucifixion in the
Greco-Roman world as "shame" (Heb 12:2). Various classical authors give
us a sense of the typical process of crucifixion, which at every step entailed
progressive humiliation of the victim and loss of honor (Hengel: 22-32):
A. Crucifixion was considered the appropriate punishment for slaves
(Cicero, In Verrem 2.5.168), bandits (Jos. War 2.253), prisoners of war
686

(Jos. War 5.451) and revolutionaries (Jos. Ant. 17.295; see Hengel 1977:4663).
B. Public trials ("misera est ignominia iudicorum publicorum," Cicero, Pro
Rabinio 9-17) served as status degradation rituals, which labelled the
accused as a shameful person.
C. Flogging and torture, especially the blinding of eyes and the shedding of
blood, generally accompanied the sentence (Jos. War 5.449-51 & 3.321; Livy
22.13.19; 28.37.3; Seneca, On Anger 3.6; Philo, Flac. 72; Diod. Sic. 33.15.1;
Plato, Gorgias 473bc & Republic 2.362e). Since, according to m. Mak. 3.12,
scourging was done both to the front and back of the body, the victims were
nude; often they befouled themselves with urine or excrement (3.14).
D. The condemned
(Plutarch, Delay 554B).

were

forced

to

carry

the

cross

beam

E. The victim's property, normally clothing, was confiscated; hence they

were further shamed by being denuded (see Diod. Sic. 33.15.1).
F. The victim lost power and thus honor through pinioning of hands and
arms, esp. the mutilation of being nailing to the cross (Philo, Post. 61; Somn.
2.213).
G. Executions served as crude forms of public entertainment, where the
crowds ridiculed and mocked the victims (Philo, Sp. Leg. 3.160), who were
affixed to crosses in odd and whimsical manner, including impalement
(Seneca: Consol. ad Marciam 20.3; Josephus, War 5.451).
H. Death by crucifixion was often slow and protracted. The powerless victim
suffered bodily distortions, loss of bodily control, and enlargement of the
penis (Steinberg 1983:82-108). Ultimately they were deprived of life and thus
the possibility of gaining satisfaction or vengeance.
I. In many cases, victims were denied honorable burial; corpses were left on
display and devoured by carrion birds and scavenger animals
(Pliny, H.N. 36.107-108).
Victims would thus experience themselves as progressively humiliated and
stripped entirely of public respect or honor.

687

The issue, however, lies not in the brutal pain endured. For among the
warrior elite, at least, the endurance of pain and suffering were marks
of andreia or manly courage (e.g. Hercules' labors; Paul's hardship
catalogues: e.g. 2 Cor 6:3-10; 11:23-33). Silence by the victim during torture
was a mark of honor (see Isa 53:7; Cicero, In Verrem 2.5.162;
Josephus, War 6.304). Mockery, loss of respect, and humiliation were the
bitter parts; the loss of honor, the worst fate. Although the gospels record in
varying degrees the physical torture of Jesus, they focus on the various
attempts to dishonor him by spitting on him (Mark 14:65//Matt 26:67; see
Mark 10:33-34), striking him in the face and head (Mark 14:65//Matt 26:67),
ridiculing him (empaiz: Mark 15:20, 31; Matt 27:29, 31, 41), heaping
insults upon him (oneidiz: Mark 15:32, 34; Matt 27:44), and treating him
as though he were nothing (exouthenein, Luke 23:11; see Acts 4:11).
This study of the Johannine passion narrative views it precisely through the
lenses of honor and shame. We suggest that despite all the shameful
treatment of Jesus, he is portrayed, not only as maintaining his honor, but
even gaining glory and prestige (Malina and Neyrey 1988:95-131). Far from
being a status degradation ritual, his passion is seen as a status elevation
ritual. This hypothesis entails a larger consideration, namely, the importance
of honor and shame as pivotal values of the Mediterranean world (Malina
1981:25). We presume that the original audience would have perceived
Jesus' passion in these terms.
Modern readers, however, are not cognizant of these pivotal cultural values.
We understand neither the grammar of honor nor appreciate the social
dynamics in which they play so important a part. If we would interpret the
narrative of Jesus' death from the appropriate cultural point of view, we
must attempt to see things through the lenses of ancient Mediterranean
culture, which were those of honor and shame. In the cultural world of the
New Testament, Jesus' death by crucifixion was acknowledged as a most
shameful experience. Paul merely expressed what others perceived when he
labelled the crucified Christ as a scandalon to Jews and mria to Greeks (1
Cor 1:23). The author of Hebrews explicitly calls the cross "shame"
(aischyns, 12:2).
The gospels acknowledge that prophets are denied honor in their own
villages (atimos, Mark 6:4//Matt 13:57). They tell of messengers sent to a
vineyard, who are wounded in the head and treated shamefully (timasan,
Mark 12:4). But the early Christians counted this type of public shame as
honor: ". . . rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor
(atimasthnai) for the name" (Acts 5:41). Honor and shame, then, are
688

integral parts not only of the language patterns which describe the fate of
Jesus and his disciples, but a basic element in the way the Christian
storyteller perceives and deals with suffering, rejection and death.
II. A BRIEF GRAMMAR OF HONOR AND SHAME
Greeks, Romans and Judeans all considered honor and shame as pivotal
values in their cultures (Adkins, 1960; Malina, 1981; Gilmore, 1987). From
Homer to Herodotus and from Pindar to Paul (Nagy: 222-242; Friedrich:
290), men lived and died in quest of honor, reputation, fame, approval and
respect. Lexical definitions offer a wide range of overlapping meanings for
honor/tim: (1) the price or value of something, (2) respect paid to someone,
(3) honorary office, (4) dignity or status, (5) honors or awards given someone
(Schneider: 169-71). Paul Friedrich offers a social grammar of honor based
on Greek epic poetry: "The structure of Iliadic honor can be stated in part
as a larger network that includes propositions about honor and nine honorlinked values: power, wealth, magnanimity, personal loyalty, 'precedence,'
sense of shame, fame or 'reputation,' courage, and excellence" (290).
A detailed grammar of honor can be found in Malina 1981: 25-50 and
Malina and Neyrey 1991a:25-65. But a summary of it may aid readers
unfamiliar with the topic. Honor comes to someone either by ascription by
another (birth, adoption, appointment) or by one's own achievement.
Achieved honor derives from benefaction (Luke 7:5; Diod. Sic., 6.1.2),
military prowess, success at athletic games, and the like. In the warrior
culture of Greece and Rome, honor accrues to prowess in battle (see David
and Goliath) or endurance in labors (Heracles; see 2 Tim 4:7-8). Yet most
commonly honor is acquired in the face-to-face game of challenge and
riposte which makes up much of the daily life of individuals in villages and
cities.
Honor resides in one's name, always an inherited name. Sons enjoy the
honor of their father's name and membership in his clan. Hence, they are
regularly identified as "the son of so-and-so" (e.g. 1 Sam 9:1-2; Ezra 7:1-6).
Yet individuals might be called by honorific names such as "Rabbi" (Matt
23:7) or "Prophet" (John 9:17) or "Christ" (John 7:26). These labels, which
are claims to precedence and honor, are likely to be bitterly contested.
Honor resides in certain public roles, statuses and offices. Fathers enjoy
great honor in their households, which is sanctioned in the Ten
Commandments. Most notably, honor was attached to offices such as king
and high priest, as well as governor, proconsul and other civic or imperial
689

offices. In the great tradition of the aristocrats, the hierarchical ranking of

honor was clearly known (Garnsey: 221-71). But in the little tradition of
peasants and artisans, such ranking was a matter of considerable debate and
controversy, which we can observe in the squabbles over the seating at
dinner tables (Luke 14:7-11).
Honor has "a strong material orientation" (Schneider: 170). That is, honor
is expressed and measured by one's possessions which must needs be on
display. Wealth in general denotes honor, not simply the possession of
wealth, but its consumption and display: e.g. banquets, fine clothes,
weapons, houses, etc. Hence it is not surprising to hear Josephus describing
as "honor" the benefactions Vespasian bestowed on him: "raiment and
other precious gifts" (War 3.408). Similarly he describes the honors given
Daniel: "(The king) gave him purple to wear and put a chain of linked gold
about his neck" (Ant. 10.240). Finally Josephus records Haman's suggestion
to the Persian king on how to honor a friend: "If you wish to cover with
glory the man whom you say you love, let him ride on horseback wearing the
same dress as yourself, with a necklace of gold, and let one of your close
friends precede him and proclaim throughout the whole city that this is the
honour shown to him whom the king honours" (Ant. 11.254).
Anthropologists describe the physical body as a microcosm of the social
body (Douglas: 115). The values and rules pertinent to the macrocosm are
replicated in the way the physical body is perceived and treated. Let us
examine how the body replicates honor. 1. The head and face are particular
loci of personal honor and respect. A head is honored when crowned or
anointed. Servants and courtiers honor a monarch by avoiding looking them
in the face, that is, by the deep oriental bow. Comparably, to slap someone
on the mouth, spit in their face, box their ears or strike their heads shames
this member and so gives "affront" (Matt 26:67; Luke 22:63-64; Mark
15:17-20). 2. Clothing covers the dishonorable or shameful parts of the body
(1 Cor 12:23-24), namely the genitals and the buttocks (Neyrey:??).
Clothing, moreover, symbolizes honor: "Men are the glory of God and their
clothes are the glory of men" (Derek Eretz Zuta). Elites signal their status by
their clothing and adornment (Luke 7:25; see m. Yoma 7.5). Purple clothing
was a particular mark of honor, worn by kings (Judg 8:26), priests (Exod
28:4-6; 39:1, 28-29; 1 Macc 10:20; 11:58), and nobles at court (Ezek 23:6;
Esth 8:6; Dan 5:7; see Reinhold: 7-21, 48-61). Uniforms signal rank or office.
Philo provides a striking example of the way clothing replicates honor in his
description of Pharaoh's investiture of Joseph with symbols of status: ". .
.royal seat, sacred robe, golden necklace, setting him on his second chariot,
bade him go the round of the city with a crier walking in front who
690

proclaimed the appointment" (Jos. 120). The costuming of Jesus in a purple

robe and a crown of thorns mocks him with the normal trappings of honor.
Being stripped of clothing, moreover, eliminates all marks of honor and
status; it also indicates a loss of power to cover and defend one's "shameful
parts." 3. Bodily postures express honor. Masters sit at table, while servants
stand and wait upon them (Luke 17:7-8; see 13:29). Twenty-four elders
stand around the throne where God is seated; they fall down before him in
worship (Rev 4:10). Proskyneindescribes a posture whereby someone bends
low to kiss another, either on the hand or the foot; thus it comes to mean
bowing before or showing respect for someone (Josephus, Ant. 11.209).
Yet in the perception of the ancients, honor, like all other goods, existed in
quite limited supply (Foster: 304-5). There was only so much gold, so much
strength, so much honor available. When someone achieved honor, it was
thought to be at the expense of others. Philo, for example, condemns
polytheism, because in honoring others as deities, the honor due to the true
God is diminished: "God's honour is set at naught by those who deify
mortals" (Ebr. 110; see Josephus, Ant. 4.32; War 1.559). When John's
disciples lament to their master that Jesus is gaining more disciples and
honor, they understand that Jesus' gain must be John's loss. John confirms
this, "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30). Thus claims to
honor by someone will tend to be perceived as threats to the honor of others,
and thus needs to be challenged, not acknowledged. In fact, two gospels state
that it was out of envy that Jesus' enemies have handed him over (Mark
15:10//Matt 27:18; see John 11:47-48).
Philotimia or love of honor was a powerful driving force in antiquity. We are
particularly interested in how this was played out in the rather ordinary
circumstances of life. Honor must be both claimed and acknowledged. After
all, it is the respect one has in the eyes of others. But honor claims are
vulnerable to challenge, not acknowledgement. Challenges must be met with
an appropriate riposte or honor is lost. All such claims, challenges, and
ripostes take place in the public domain, and their verdict of success or
failure determines the outcome of these games of challenge and riposte
(Malina 1981:30-33; Malina and Neyrey 1991a:36-38, 49-51). Claim,
challenge, riposte and verdict, then, constitute the formal elements in the
endless contests for honor and respect.
Thus far we have discussed "honor," but we must be equally aware of
"shame." Contempt, loss of face, defeat, and ridicule all describe shame, the
loss of honor. The grammar of honor presented above can be reversed to
describe "shame." Shame can be ascribed or achieved. In terms
691

of ascribed shame, a magistrate may declare one guilty and so worthy of

public flogging (2 Cor 11:23-25); a king may mock and treat one with
contempt (Luke 23:11). God may declare one a "Fool!" (Luke 12:20). Thus
elites and those in power may declare one honorless and worthy of
contempt: ". . . exclude, revile, and cast out your name as evil" (Luke 6:22).
Yet shame may be achieved by one's folly or by cowardice and failure to
respond to a challenge. One may refuse to participate in the honor-gaining
games characteristic of males, and thus bring contempt on oneself.
The bodily grammar for honor works also for shame. If the honorable parts
of the body, the head and face, are struck, spat upon, slapped, blindfolded or
otherwise maltreated, shame ensues. If the right arm, symbol of male power
and strength, is bound, tied or nailed, the resulting powerlessness denotes
shame. If one is publicly stripped naked, flogged, paraded before the crowds,
and led through the streets, one is shamed. Shame results when one's blood
is intentionally spilled, but especially when one is killed by another.
III. IRONY: TURNING SHAME INTO HONOR
Since there are two parties competing in the passion narrative, there are two
perceptions of what is occurring. The enemies of Jesus bind, slap, spit upon,
blindfold, flog, strip, and kill Jesus; their actions are all calculated to
"mock" and "revile" him. In their eyes they have shamed Jesus. But the
gospel, while it records these actions and gestures of shame, tells quite a
different story. In the evangelist's eyes, Jesus' shame and humiliation is truly
the account of his glory: "Ought not the Christ suffer and so enter into his
glory" (Luke 24:26; see Acts 14:22; Heb 2:10). Indeed, in the Fourth Gospel,
his death is regularly described as glory and glorification (John 7:39; 12:28;
17:5; see 21:19). Or, to paraphrase Paul, foolishness, weakness and shame in
human eyes are wisdom, strength and honor in God's eyes (1 Cor 1:20, 25).
Thus the story of Jesus' shame is ironically understood by his disciples as his
"lifting up," his exaltation, his enthronement, in short, his honor. The issue
might be rephrased: Who gets to judge whether the crucifixion is honor or
shame? If the public verdict rests with the Judeans, then Jesus is shamed.
But if God gives a riposte or if Jesus demonstrates power by his death, then
the community of believers renders Jesus a verdict of honor.
This ironic perspective is part and parcel of the principle that Jesus
constantly narrates, that last is first, least is greatest, dead is alive, shame is
honor (Duke 1985:95-116, 126-38). Hence, two perspectives need to be
distinguished as we read the account of Jesus' crucifixion: in the eyes of
outsiders and enemies, his crucifixion is unqualified shame! But in the eyes
692

of his disciples, it is ironic honor! Let us now take these abstract notions of
honor (and shame) and use them as an exciting and illuminating lens for
perceiving the passion narrative of Jesus, the honorable one.
IV. HONOR AND SHAME IN JOHN 18-19
A. Arrest (18:1-11). Although capture and arrest normally denote dishonor,
this narrative presents a scene of honor both displayed and maintained.
First of all, honor means power and control (de la Potterie 1989: 29). In this
regard, when the cohort approaches Jesus, he steps forward to take charge
of the events. By claiming that "Jesus knew all that was to befall him"
(18:4), the narrator signals Jesus' control of the situation (see 19:28).
Moreover, he questions the powerful forces gathered against him: "Whom
do you seek?" In the cultural scenario of honor and shame, the questioner
generally acts in the challenging or commanding position (see Mark 11:2733).
At his remark, "I am he," the soldiers "drew back and fell to the ground"
(18:6), leaving Jesus standing. Honor is thus signalled by bodily posture.
Commentators regularly note that Jesus' "I AM" can be read as the divine
name which he is granted to use (Neyrey 1988:213-20). Falling to the ground
characterizes human reactions in the presence of the glory of God (Ezek
1:28; 44:4) or at least an honor-bestowing posture in the presence of a
superior person (Dan 2:46; Rev 1:17). At a minimum, Jesus enjoys such a
prominent and honorable status that armies fall at his feet. Even if Dodd is
correct that the narrator is drawing on psalms describing how one's foes
stumble and fall when attacking (Dodd: 76-77), nevertheless some
vindication or riposte to a challenge is evident. If this language describes
Jesus' heavenly status, then he enjoys the same honor as God, an honor
which God commands (5:23). To use God's name, "I AM," might be
considered as an act of power; and honor is always attached to power.
The narrator repeats the sequence of events in 18:7-8, which doubles the
impression of Jesus' strength and honor. His control of the situation extends
even to his command about the safe departure of his disciples: "Let these
others go" (18:8). Weak people do not tell a cohort of Roman soldiers what
to do. This proves, moreover, that his word of honor is trustworthy: "This
was to fulfil the word which he had spoken, 'I did not lose a single one of
those you gave me'" (18:9). Thus the narrator presents Jesus firmly in
control: knowing all that will happen, asking questions, controlling events,
giving commands, and receiving profound respect from his would-be
assailants. He is without doubt the most honorable person in the situation.
693

Jesus' commanding posture reminds the reader of the Noble Shepherd

discourse, where he disavowed that he was a victim and claimed power even
over death: "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own
accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again"
(10:18). Since power is one of the public indices of honor, Jesus' ability to
protect his sheep as well as his power to lay down his life indicate that he
suffers no shame whatever here. Nothing happens against his will, so he is in
no way diminished.
Yet others in the narrative see the scene differently. Simon Peter draws his
sword and strikes at one of the arresting crowd, which we must interpret as
his riposte to the perceived challenge to Jesus' honor. In other
circumstances, his action would be labelled an honorable act, namely, the
defense of one's leader against an honor challenge. Jesus himself states this:
"If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, that I not be
handed over to the Jews" (18:36). Normally failure to respond to a challenge
is shameful, but here Jesus explains that it is precisely out of honor that he
refuses to resist, that is, out of respect for the will of his Father: "Shall I not
drink the cup which the Father has given me?" (18:11). Peter's riposte, then,
is unnecessary; for, as obedient son, Jesus' honor is not threatened. Indeed, it
belongs to the virtue of andreia or courage to endure what must be endured
(Seeley: 117-41). And courage of this sort is an honorable thing.
B. Jewish Investigation (18:12-14, 19-24). Outsiders see only that Jesus has
lost power: "The cohort seized Jesus and bound him" (18:12). His captors
take him to the private chambers of Annas, a very powerful enemy, who
questions Jesus. Recall that questions are generally challenges. When
questioned, Jesus delivers a bold response: "I have spoken openly to the
world; I have always taught in the synagogues and in the temple, where all
Jews come together" (18:20). Jesus claims that he has acted as an honorable
man, always appearing in the appropriate male space, the public arena, and
speaking boldly and clearly. His parrhsia (bold speech) denotes courageous
and honorable public behavior (see 1 Thess 2:2). In contrast, this gospel
declares as shameful people who are afraid to speak openly about the Christ
(9:22-23; 12:42; see Phil 1:20).
The narrative interprets Jesus' bold speech as a riposte to Annas'
challenging questions. Jesus commands his interrogator, "Ask those who
have heard me. They know what I said" (18:21). This occasions a severe
counter-challenge from one of the officers standing by, who "struck Jesus
with his hand" (v. 22; see 19:3). The gesture was surely a slap in the face,
thus giving an "affront" to Jesus. It is similar to the blows given Jesus
694

according to the synoptic accounts (Matt 26:67; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63-64;
see Matt 5:39). But Jesus is not silenced or humbled as was Paul, when
struck by Annas' servant (Acts 23:4-5). He gives an appropriate riposte, "If I
have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly,
why do you strike me?" (18:23). Thus he withstands the insult and continues
to speak boldly, even having the last word.
C. Roman Trial (18:28-19:16). The very fact of being put on trial can itself
be an honor challenge, simply because the accused experience their claims to
honor (name, worth, reputation) to be publicly challenged. We modern
people at times have idealized trials as occasions not only to clear one's
name, but to put the system itself on trial, that is, to challenge the challenger.
Our judicial process, moreover, functions on the presumption of innocence.
Not so the ancients, where guilt was presumed. It was inherently shameful to
be seized and publicly charged with wrongdoing, "This man...is an evildoer"
(18:30).
The trial episode (18:28-19:16) can be described as an extended game of
charge and refutation or challenge and riposte. This occurs on several levels.
First, those who deliver Jesus engage in their own challenge-riposte game
with Pilate. Pilate claims the honor of procurator and magistrate as he
questions them ("What accusation?" 18:29). They challenge him by
asserting their own power ("If this man were not an evildoer...," v. 30),
which leads to Pilate's riposte ("Take him yourselves....," v. 31). For the
moment Pilate wins, as they are forced to admit their own powerlessness and
Pilate's power: "It is not lawful for us..." (v. 31). This challenge-riposte game
between Pilate and the Judeans will continue in 18:39-40 and 19:6, 12-16.
But the main contest focusses on the formal process of Jesus before Pilate,
which is itself an elaborate game of challenge and riposte.
Commentators note the alternation of scenes in the trial from outside to
inside, and even the chiastic shape of the narrative. Raymond Brown (859)
provides the following arrangement (for minor variations, Giblin, 1986:223).
1. Outside (xviii 28-32) 7. Outside (xix 12-16a)
Jews demand death Jews obtain death
2. Inside (xviii 33-38a) 6. Inside (xix 9-11)
Pilate questions Jesus Pilate talks with Jesus

695

about kingship about power

3. Outside (xviii 38b-40) 5. Outside (xix 4-8)
Pilate finds Jesus not guilty; Pilate finds Jesus not guilty;
choice of Barabbas "Behold the man"
4. Inside (xix 1-3)
Soldiers scourge Jesus
Commentators, moreover, are wont to contrast these scenes as "public"
(outside) and "private" (inside). Yet the designation "private/inside" is
misleading here, for we should not imagine Pilate and Jesus having a tete-atete. And even if the narrative action occurs "within" the Roman compound,
it is still a "public" place occupied by Roman soldiers, and not the "private"
world of the household (cf. 12:1-8; 13:3-5). Dodd's remark that there are two
stages, "a front stage and a back" (96), seems more accurate. It helps to
articulate that all events here are "public" and so honor is always at risk.
Yet the narrative distinction between "going within" and "going out" serves
to distinguish the various scenes and different audiences. The "outside"
public scenes are the honor contests between Pilate and the Judeans. The socalled "inside" scenes, which comprise the cognitio of the trial between
judge and the accused, are also public in that they occur in the public forum
of the Roman courtyard or praetorium, whether this be the fortress Antonia
(Josephus, Ant. 15.292) or the new palace of Herod (Benoit 1952:545-49).
The "outside" crowds are informed of the results of the "inside" contest,
which affects their challenge-riposte game with Pilate. The honor-shame
dynamic, then, occurs on both "stages," but between different sets of
contestants.
Trials under Roman jurisdiction have a formal structure which is helpful to
note (Sherwin-White: 12-20; Neyrey, 1987:509-11):
Formal Elements of a Roman Trial lst 2nd
1. arrest.......................... 18:1-11 ------2. charges......................... 18:28-32 19:7
3. judge's cognitio................ 18:33-38a 19:8-11
696

4. verdict......................... 18:38b 19:12

5. judicial warning................ 19:1-6 -------6. sentence........................ ------- 19:13-16
This structure indicates that Jesus' trial went through two cycles of forensic
process. It helps, moreover, to clarify the roles of Pilate, Jesus and the
crowds, especially in terms of the four formal elements of an honor contest.
The crowds, who function as the witnesses or accusers in the forensic
process, challenge Jesus' claims. Pilate, the judge, examines these challenges
and determines whether Jesus' claims are honorable or not. Jesus, who is on
trial, is challenged precisely as to his honorable status.
Yet forensic process is only one formal way of describing the action in the
narrative. Each of the two confrontations ("inside": Jesus vs Pilate;
"outside": Pilate vs crowds) is similarly structured in terms of the social
dynamics of honor challenges (claim/challenge/riposte/public verdict). Even
as we spell out the forensic process which formally structures the narrative
as a whole, we must attend to the specific differences in the challenge/riposte
dynamics of the "inside" and "outside" scenes of the story, for which the
following diagram might prove useful.
Inside Forum: Outside Forum:
The Trial of Jesus before Pilate The Struggle between Pilate and the Crowd
claim: Jesus' status claim: Pilate's authority
challenger: Pilate challenger: the crowds
riposte: Jesus ' defense of riposte: Pilate solicits the crowd's disloyalty
being a king to God and loyalty to Caesar
public verdict: innocent public verdict: Pilate's title over the cross

Charges (18:29-33). This gospel mentions that Roman soldiers participated

in the seizure of Jesus (18:3); their presence indicates that Jesus was in some
sense arrested. The charges against him which Pilate investigates are
697

formal challenges to his claims to honor and status: "Are you the King of the
Jews?" (18:33; see also 19:7, 14, 19). From the beginning, Jesus has been
acclaimed as a most honorable person, and so enjoys a singular portion
of ascribed honor. On the basis of God's own prompting, John the Baptizer
acclaimed him "Son of God" (1:34). Disciples acknowledge him as "the
Messiah" (1:41) and "Son of God and King of Israel" (1:49). Even a leader
of the Judeans accepts him as "a teacher come from God" (3:2). According
to the story, various people acclaim him "savior of the world" (4:42),
"prophet" (6:14; 9:17), "king" (6:15; 12:13-15), and "Christ" (7:26). In the
game of honor and shame, all of this constitutes the claim of honor, the
public identity and reputation of Jesus, which is now challenged in this trial.
Cognitio (18:33-38). The judge's cognitio of Jesus in his judicial quarters
serves
as
the
forum
where
Jesus'
honor
claims
are
both challenged and defended. On the level of rhetoric, Pilate asks questions
which challenge Jesus, whose riposte is initially the clever strategy of
answering a question with a question (see Mark 11:28-33; 12:14-16). Pilate
challenges with a question: "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus parries
with his own question: "Do you say this of your own accord ...?" Pilate asks
more questions: "Am I a Jew?". . . "What have you done?". . ."So you are a
king then?". . . "What is truth?" On the narrative level, then, Pilate is
perceived as asserting his own honor claims as the embodiment of Roman
authority by his rhetorical posture as the figure whose duty it is to ask
questions and so challenge others. This initial exchange sparkles with honor
challenges. Pilate asks a question, presumably concerning the charge against
Jesus. By questioning Pilate, Jesus might be said to be giving a riposte: "Do
you say this of your own accord..." (v. 34). Pilate's response is not only scorn
("Am I a Jew?"), but a mockery of Jesus. How shameful, he points out, that
"Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over" (v. 35). Thus,
judge and accused, besides going through the formalities of a forensic
process, spar and take the measure of each other -- very un-forensic
behavior.
This sparring game quickly fades, for the narrator wishes to portray Jesus
giving a solemn riposte to the challenges to his identity and authority. Pilate
challenges Jesus' "kingship," a very noble and honorable status, which he
vigorously defends. Twice he proclaims, "My kingship is not of this world"
(18:36, 37). If his kingship is not of this world, it must belong to another
world (8:23), that is, God's world, which is eternal, unchanging, and truly
honorable. Although this "world" was once a worthy recipient of divine
favor (3:16; 4:42; 10:36; 12:47), it quickly proved hostile to Jesus. He
became an alien here in this world and met only challenge and opposition
698

(1:9-10; Meeks, 1972:67-70). The world's hostility, then, constitutes an

ongoing challenge to Jesus' honor. But the assertion that his kingdom is not
of this world implies that he belongs to a better kingdom, which must
triumph over the hostility experienced here. Although challenged on earth,
Jesus belongs to a kingdom where he is honored as he should be (5:23; 17:5,
24; see 8:23).
This gospel speaks of a ruler of this world, who will be Jesus' chief
challenger. But even this powerful figure "has no power over me" (14:30);
he will be cast out (12:31) and judged (16:11). Thus Jesus boasted to his
disciples, "I have overcome the world" (16:30). This powerful challenger
appears at times to be Satan (Schnackenburg:2.391). But as the passion
narrative progresses, even the Roman emperor will qualify as a rival of God
(19:12, 15). Yet if Jesus' kingship were of this world, his followers would do
the honorable thing and "fight, that I not be handed over to the Jews"
(18:36, e.g. Peter). The vindicator of his kingship, then, must be a most
powerful person also "not of this world," namely God. He will give the
riposte for King Jesus (12:28; 17:1). But the claim that Jesus is a king stands
defended: "You say that I am a king; for this I was born, and for this I have
come into the world" (18:37). Jesus makes another claim that pertains to his
kingship, "Every one who is of the truth hears my voice" (v. 37). This
directly echoes the remarks about the shepherd in 10:3-4, 26-27 (Meeks
1967:66-67). If "shepherd" is a metaphor for king (i.e. David, the Royal
Shepherd), then Jesus reaffirms his honor as king. Good and honorable
people, he says, acknowledge this honor claim by "hearing my voice."
Whether scornful or cynical (Brown: 869), Pilate's retort, "What is truth?,"
indicates that he rejects this claim.
Verdict (18:38b). The source of Jesus' honor, while not made explicit here,
will shortly be made clear to the court (19:8-11). Yet the reader knows that
Jesus enjoys maximum ascribed honor from the most honorable person in
the universe, namely, God (see 5:36-38; 12:27-28). All that Jesus is, has and
does comes from God (5:19-29). The reader knows that he comes from God
and is returning to God (13:1-3; 17:1-5), where he will be glorified with the
glory he had before the creation of the world. At this point in the trial, Jesus
has given an adequate riposte to the challenge to his honor; he is a king and
defends that claim. On the narrative level, Pilate's forensic verdict of
innocence tells the reader, at least, that Jesus' claims are publicly judged to
be honorable: "I find no crime in him" (18:38). Honor defended is honor
maintained. Yet the public verdict in this honor contest remains unclear, for
the crowds to not accept this.
699

In acknowledging a custom, Pilate offers to those who have just challenged

Jesus' honor the release of this same "King of the Jews" (18:39). This should
be interpreted as Pilate's personalchallenge to the crowd (Rensberger: 9294). Their challenge to Jesus had just been rejected (v. 38), and now Pilate
taunts them by inviting them to accept Jesus in the fullness of his honor
claim, "Will you have me release to you the 'King of the Jews'?" (v. 39).
Pilate asks Jesus' challengers publicly to accept a riposte to their challenge,
and so to admit defeat in this game. His question, then, continues the honorshame contest between himself and the crowd (see 18:29-31). Yet, the crowds
give a counter-challenge to Jesus' honor claim and Pilate's gambit: "Not this
man!" The shame of being disowned by one's own occurs again (v. 35);
Jesus' enemies prefer the release of Barabbas, a thief or social bandit, to him
(18:40). The contest between Pilate and the crowd continues as a stalemate.
Judicial Warning (19:1-5). Pilate gives Jesus a "judicial warning," such as
Paul received when five times lashed and three times beaten with rods (2
Cor 11:24-25; see Acts 5:41). Judicial warnings were intended to inflict pain
but especially to humiliate and disgrace troublemakers. In essence, Jesus is
beaten and mocked. Even if the technical terms "mock" and "mockery" do
not occur here (cf., empaiz Matt 27:29; Mark 15:20; Meeks 1967:69), native
readers whose world is structured around honor and shame know what is
going on. In the honor culture of ancient warriors, stoic endurance of
physical pain denotes courage and honor (andreia). But to be mocked is by
far more painful than the physical beating because it produces the most
dreaded of all experiences, shame.
As regards his body, Jesus is shamed by being stripped naked, bound and
beaten in the public forum of the Roman soldiers. His head, the most
honorable member of his body is mocked with a "plaited crown of thorns."
His body is dressed in purple, the royal color. Many of the soldiers "struck
him with their hands," surely on the face or head, and sarcastically
acclaimed his honor, "Hail, King of the Jews" (19:3). Each of these ritual
gestures has been shown to be a characteristic element in the honoring of
Persian and Roman rulers. Alfldi study lists the following elements of a
coronation: proskynsis/bending the knee (11-16, 45-70); acclamation,
especially as dominus (38-45, 209-10); crown (17-18, 128-129, 263-67);
clothing (143-56, 175-84, 268-70); scepter (156-57, 228-35); throne (140-41,
159-61). Thus a mock coronation ritual occurs (Blank: 62; Meeks 1967:6972), whose primary function is to shame Jesus, the alleged King of the
Judeans.

700

But if the actors in the drama are portrayed as shaming Jesus, it does not
follow that readers of this gospel must concur. On the contrary, insiders have
been repeatedly schooled in irony to see Jesus' death is his "lifting up" to
heaven (3:14; 8:23; 12:32) or his "glorification" (12:23; 13:31-32; 17:1, 5).
The grain of wheat dies and falls into the ground, but thereby lives and
bears fruit. In short, the gospel inculcates an ironic point of view that death
and shame mean glory and honor. The mock coronation of Jesus, which in
the eyes of outsiders means shame, truly betokens honor to insiders. In
terms of Jesus' honor, it truly is a status elevation ritual. Although ironically
invested with imperial honors, Jesus nonetheless is acclaimed as honorable,
especially in his shame (Duke: 132-33). Rensberger describes this scene as
Pilate's humiliation of the Judeans by the sarcastic presentation of a
Roman's interpretation of Jewish messianic hopes (93-94).
New Charges/New Cognitio (19:7, 9-11). Pilate then brings forth this Jesus
who has been mocked and dishonored. I do not know when modern readers
started thinking that such a presentation was supposed to inspire sympathy
for Jesus, because in the culture of the Levant such a scene would provoke
laughter and derision. Crowds regularly gathered at public executions to
participate in the mockery (see Matt 27:38, 39, 41). The crowds react here in
predictably cultural ways by continuing their dishonoring of Jesus: "Crucify
him! crucify him!" (19:6). Rejection by one's ethnosand delivery to the
Romans would be shame enough (18:35, 40); now his own people call for his
shameful death.
With Pilate's verdict of Jesus' innocence, the trial should be over ("I find no
crime in him," 19:5, 6). But a new charge is made, which constitutes a
new challenge to Jesus' honor: "By our law he ought to die, for he made
himself the Son of God" (19:7). The crowds consider this "claim" to be so
serious a charge as to warrant the death sentence. And so a new trial ensues
to deal with the new charge.
Let us view this new charge from the perspective of honor and shame. In
antiquity people were constantly "making themselves" something, that is,
claiming a new and higher status or role (Acts 5:36). Hence the public
accusation that Jesus makes himself something functions as a challenge to a
perceived empty claim, a common phenomenon in antiquity
(kenodoxos and alazn ; see Acts 8:9; 12:22-23; Josephus, War 2.55, 60; Ant.
17.272, 278). This sort of challenge to Jesus occurred regularly throughout
the narrative (1) ". . . making himself equal to God" (5:18); (2) "Who do
you make yourself to be?" (8:53); (3) "You, a mortal, make yourself God"
(10:33); (4) "He made himself the Son of God" (19:7); (5) "every one
701

who makes himself a king . . ." (19:12). In the course of this narrative, the
author has consistently dealt with this charge by dividing the
charge/challenge: (1) it is denied that Jesus "makes himself" anything, but
(2) it is defended that he is such-and-such (Neyrey 1988:20-23). For example,
Jesus claims in 5:19-29 that he is "equal to God." This is no empty claim, for
he insists that God has granted him both creative and eschatological powers
and the honor attached to them. The Father (1) shows him all that God is
doing (5:20), (2) has given all judgment to the Son (5:22), (3) has granted the
Son also to have life in himself (5:26), and (4) has given him authority to
execute judgment (5:27; Neyrey 1988:20-25). Thus, Jesus does not "make
himself" anything, for that would be a vainglorious claim and thus false
honor. But he truly is "equal to God," "King," and "Son of God," because
these honors, roles and statuses are ascribed to him by the most honorable
person in the cosmos, namely, God (see the ascribed honor of being "made
king" in 6:15).
It is not, moreover, accidental in the gospel traditions that Jesus himself
rarely claims to be prophet, king, son of God, etc. These tend to be ascribed
to him either by God (13:31; 17:5, 24; see Mark 1:11; 9:7) or by others: (Son
of God, 1:34, 49; Christ, 1:41; 10:24; King, 1:49; 6:15; 12:13; Savior, 4:42;
and Prophet, 4:19; 6:14). Thus the tradition steadfastly maintains that Jesus
is an honorable person in two respects: he does not seek honor by making
vain claims to such-and-such a status, but he is regularly ascribed great
honor by others. The reader, then, has been schooled how to interpret this
new charge against Jesus, rejecting any sense of a vainglorious claim and
affirming the truth of the honor ascribed to Jesus.
The new forensic charge requires a new cognitio by the judge (19:8-11).
Pilate asks the appropriate question in terms of honor and shame: "Where
are you from (pothen)?" (19:8). True honor is ascribed honor; and ascribed
honor is a function of one's father and clan or one's place of origin (Malina
and Neyrey 1991a:32-34, 39-40; 1991b:85-87). Concerning place of origin,
honor was earlier denied Jesus because he is from Nazareth, from which no
good comes (1:46; see Titus 1:12). In contrast, Paul claims honor by coming
from Tarsus, "no mean city" (Acts 21:39), and Jerusalemites claim honor
from being born there (Ps 87:5-6). Concerning father and clan, it is an
universal phenomenon in the Bible that when characters are introduced or
described, they are always identified as the "son of so-and-so" or the
"daughter of so-and-so." For, an individual's honor is bound with that of his
or her father. The rules in the progymnasmata for writing an encomium all
stress that writers begin their praise of someone by noting that person's
family and place of origin (Lee: 188-206). All of the extant texts of
702

the progymnasmata on writing an encomium start with praise for eugeneia,

which consists in noting (1) origin (genos), (2) race (ethos), (3) country
(patris), (4) ancestors (progonoi), and (5) parents (pateres). Hence Pilate
tests Jesus' honor with the appropriate question, pothen ei su, which may
refer either to his "place of origin" (8:23) or his parents (6:41-42). But the
question directly touches Jesus' honor.
Jesus now remains silent (19:9). He neither defends himself nor offers a
riposte to the challenge. Silence in the face of accusation is very difficult to
assess; but in an honor and shame context it would probably be read as a
shameful thing (see Neh 6:8). To fail to give a riposte to a challenge is to
accept defeat and so loss of honor.
Yet readers have already been socialized in just this aspect of Jesus' honor,
and so the riposte has been given in advance. Knowledge of whence Jesus
comes (pothen) and whither he goes (pou) has been a major issue throughout
the narrative. Outsiders either do not know (3:8; 8:14; 9:29) or falsely think
they know (6:41-42; 7:27-28). Many times Jesus proclaims the correct
answer, namely, that he comes down from heaven (6:38) or that he descends
from heaven and ascends back there (3:13; 6:62). Insiders like the blind man
accurately deduced the true "whence" of Jesus because of his power to heal
(9:30). And finally the reader is told that Jesus comes from God and returns
to heaven (13:1-2). Thus readers can answer Pilate's question; they know
"whence he is," namely, a person whose parent is none other than God and
whose "country of origin" is none less than heaven. His exalted honor, then,
is secure in their eyes.
The narrative suggests that Jesus' silence in fact challenges Pilate's power,
who then responds with new questions: "Will you not speak to me? Do you
not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?"
(19:10). "Power" (exousia), an expression of honor, is at stake. Although
Jesus gives no riposte to this new challenge concerning his origin, he does in
turn offer a counter-challenge to Pilate's claim of power: "You would have
no power over me unless it were given you from above" (19:11). Hence
Pilate's power is a relative thing, for the truly powerful figure is not Caesar,
from whom Pilate enjoys ascribed honor, but God, from whom all power
flows (John 10:29). Emperors, kings and governors all owe their power and
honor to God (Rom 13:1; 1 Tim 2:2; 1 Pet 2:13-17). This narrative,
moreover, asserts that it is God's will and purpose that Jesus undergo this
trial (John 12:27). God commanded that he "lay down his life and take it
again" (10:17-18). Inasmuch as sons are commanded to "Honor their
father" (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16; Mark 10:19), the presentation of Jesus as
703

the obedient one (Heb 5:8; see Mark 14:36//Matt 2639//Luke 22:42) marks
his actions here as honoring his Father and thus warranting the honor of an
obedient son.
In fact, Jesus ironically states that even Pilate is behaving honorably because
he acts in accord with the power given him from above. The dishonorable
people are those "who have delivered me over to you" (19:11); they are the
sinners. Thus in the confrontation between him and Pilate, Jesus remains
successful; he suffers no loss of honor. In fact, he seems to have gained an
ally of sorts in Pilate, his judge, "who sought to release him." Final Verdict
and Sentence (19:12-16). In the next scene, the grand public tableau of the
trial, the two sets of contestants play another episode of challenge and
riposte. In terms of the Pilate-vs-Jesus contest, Pilate's move "to release
him" functions as a definitive riposte to the various challenges made by the
crowds to Jesus' claims to honor. Pilate thrice declares Jesus innocent, and
so Jesus cannot be shown to be "making himself" anything. But in terms of
the Pilate-vs-crowd contest, the latter issues one final challenge, not so much
to Jesus' claims, but to the Pilate's riposte takes the form of a solemn
judicial verdict and sentence. But the scene as narrated contains a
fundamental ambiguity. The text states that "he (Pilate) brought Jesus out
and sat down at the judgment seat" (19:13). Controversy surrounds the verb
"sat down" (ekathisen), which may be read transitively (i.e.
Pilate sat Jesus down on the judgment seat) or intransitively (i.e. Pilate
himself sat down on the seat). Grammatical studies support both readings.
Those who argue that Jesus was seated point to the irony of the powerless
Jesus assuming the role of judge, a role, however, ascribed to him by God
according to John 5:22, 27; 12:31. This reading would follow the gospel
axiom that last is first, weakest is greatest, the judged one is the judge, etc.
Indeed it would be an extraordinary piece of irony for the dishonored Jesus
to assume this position of great honor (see Luke 24:26).
But the literal reading of the passage portrays Pilate's riposte to the
crowd's challenge to him. As judge and magistrate in charge of these affairs,
including the exercise of the jus gladii, Pilate now assumes all of the
trappings of his office. Honor is replicated in bodily posture as Pilate seats
himself on his official seat, the bema, while the other participants stand
(19:13). Exercising his authority, he issues a proclamation to the crowds:
"Behold your king!" Rhetorically, this remark is a command ("Behold!")
and an insult ("your king," see 18:39). It ostensibly upholds the original
claims of Jesus by dismissing the challenges of the crowd. Thus the judge has
rendered a third verdict of innocence (18:38; 19:4, 12), which functions as a
704

riposte to the crowd's challenges to Jesus' honor. But the claim that Jesus is
a king is no more acceptable to the crowds now than it was earlier.
Finally the two strands of the honor contests coincide. The
crowds challenge Pilate's verdict, even as they shame Jesus: "Away with him
. . . crucify him" (19:15a). Pilate had previously noted the shame of being
disowned by one's own ethnos (18:35), which shameful action is now
repeated. Ostensibly Pilate has lost the game, and his honor has been
diminished. But he makes one last move, a final riposte to the power of the
crowd.
Inasmuch as "king" has been the contested claim throughout the trial, Pilate
demands of the crowd a formal judgment in the case: "Shall I crucify your
'king'?" (19:15b). Questions, of course, are challenging, and the response to
this question brings maximum shame on Jesus' antagonists: "We have no
king but Caesar" (19:15c). Their remark is an act of supreme dishonor to
their heavenly Patron and Sovereign. At the conclusion of the Greater Hallel
we find the following prayer:
From everlasting to everlasting thou art God;
Beside thee we have no king, redeemer, or savior;
No liberator, deliverer, provider;
None who takes pity in every time of distress or trouble.
We have no king but thee (Meeks 1967: 77).
It is the crowd who proves to be the "friend of Caesar," thus shaming God
and God's anointed king. Rensberger notes that Pilate has once more
humiliated his opponents by having them publicly deny their claims to a
political messiah (96). Yet no reader would fail to note that God too is now
mocked and must vindicate his divine honor. The advantage seems to lie
with the crowd who bends Pilate to its will and succeeds in dishonoring
Jesus ("Crucify him!").
A judicial sentence is pronounced, but one which is fraught with irony. The
official judge, Pilate, apparently yields in this game of push and shove; his
sentence is hardly honorable or just. Jesus' accusers, who earlier claimed
that they had no legitimate authority to put a man to death (18:31), finally
succeed in a plot that began in 5:18 and was solemnized at a rump trial in
705

11:50-53. Their success in having Jesus killed would be a mark of honor for
them in the eyes of observers. But readers of the narrative know that this
"sentence" is fully within the control of Jesus (12:32-33; 10:17-18) and the
will of God. The sentence of a shameful death, then, is but an apparent loss
of honor.
D. Title (19:19-22). The game of push and shove continues over the public
title attached to Jesus' cross. Pilate's inscription, "Jesus of Nazareth, King of
the Jews," may be read as a final ironic riposte by the narrator in defense of
Jesus' honorable status, comparable to Caiaphas' ironic "prophecy" about
Jesus' death (11:51). It is also Pilate's act of authority in defense of his own
embattled status. The title, which may be construed as another honor claim,
is once again challenged by the Jerusalem elite, who urge a more shameful
version: "'This man said, I am King of the Jews.'" Again, they charge that
Jesus vaingloriously assumes honors not rightfully his (19:7, 12). This time
Pilate wins: "What I have written, I have written" (19:22). He has the last
word.
E. Crucifixion (19:17-37). The normal sequence of events which accompany
crucifixion was listed at the beginning of this study. In view of that, the
shameful elements narrated in the crucifixion of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel
are the crucifixion itself, with Jesus' position as the middle figure in a
triptych of criminals, themselves shameful persons (19:18). The mocking
title over the cross publicly challenges Jesus' claim to honor and status. He is
apparently stripped naked, for his clothing is confiscated by his executioners
(19:23-24). The synoptics all record various persons "mocking" him (Mark
15:27-32; Matt 27:38-43; Luke 23:35-36), which is absent from the Fourth
Gospel's account. Yet the very scene is a public humiliation (John 19:20);
spectators would give public witness to the shame of Jesus' death (see
Philo, Spec. Leg. 3.160). Thus to them he dies a brutal death, apparently a
victim whose life was taken from him in violent fashion. His blood is spilled,
without hope of vengeance or satisfaction. This is what outsiders see and
count as shameful.
The narrator, however, instructs insiders to perceive this scene in terms of
honor. First, Jesus does the honorable thing by his mother. She is
presumably a widow, and now her only son is dying. In that culture, she has
no male (husband or son) to defend her; she will suffer a tragic loss of honor
with this death. But Jesus defends her honor by adopting as "brother" the
Beloved Disciple, and by ensuring that his new kinsman will defend his
mother's honor by "taking her into his own house" (19:27; see Acts 1:14).
706

Playing the role of a victim is shameful, especially when one's life is taken
away. The eye of the imagination sees this in Jesus' death, but the ear hears
differently in the narrative. Jesus is presented as the figure in control of
events. He knows that all is now completed (v. 28) and he chooses to die, "It
is finished" (v. 30). Death is noble or honorable when voluntary. Because the
narrative has prepared us for this scene, we are not reading these honorable
ideas into the text. Back in the exposition of the role of the Noble Shepherd
in John 10, Jesus explicitly described the honorable character of his death.
First, he knows it, and so manifests control over his life: "I lay down my
life" (10:17); "I lay it down of my own accord" (10:18). Second, he is no
victim; no one shames him by taking his life: "No one takes it from me"
(10:18); no one shames him by having power over him: "I have power to lay
it down and I have power to take it again" (10:18b). Just as he manifested
control and power at his arrest, so he is presented here as doing the same
thing. Honor is thus maintained.
Finally his body is mutilated, a shameful act (recall the treatment of Hector's
body by Achilles; see 1 Sam 31:9-10; 2 Sam 4:12; Jos. Ant. 20.99). The
soldiers intend to break his legs and thus hasten death. Yet Jesus is spared
this humiliation because he has already died. Moreover, the text puts an
honorable interpretation on this by comparing Jesus' body to the paschal
lamb, none of whose bones were broken (Exod 12:46; John 19:36). He dies,
then, "unblemished." Nevertheless his chest is pierced, the wanton
mutilation of a corpse. Yet as Josephine Ford has shown, the piercing of
Jesus' side yields both blood and water, which in rabbinic lore constitutes a
kosher object (1969:337-38). And so the narrator rescues Jesus' honor by
indicating that this mutilation was controlled by God's prophecy through
Zech 12:10.
F. Jesus' Burial (19:38-42). Under other circumstances, the bodies of the
crucified might be left to rot on the cross and become food for scavengers
(see Rev 19:17-18). This final shame precludes reverential burial by kin,
which is both a mark of honor and a religious duty. Yet in our narrative,
purity concerns demand some rapid disposal of the corpses; and so the body
of Jesus is buried.
This gospel narrates that Jesus' body received quite an honorable burial,
despite the shame of his death. Joseph and Nicodemus bring a prodigious
quantity of spices, "a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds,"
enough spices for a royal burial (see 2 Chron 16:14 and Jos. Ant. 17.199).
They perform the honorable burial ritual, "binding the body in linen cloths
with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews" (19:40). A new tomb is at
707

hand, where they honorably lay Jesus. Despite the shame of crucifixion,
some honor is maintained by this burial.
V. CONCLUSIONS And FINAL OBSERVATIONS
Does a modern reader know anything new by reading with this lens? Does
appreciation of honor and shame demand a reinterpretation of older
scholarly opinions on various passages? What difference does it make to
read John 18-19 in this light? All valid questions, which may not have simple
answers.
A. Honor and Shame: A Native's Point of View. Honor and shame are not
foreign categories imposed by a modern reader upon an alien, ancient
culture, but values rooted in the very cultural world of Jesus and his
disciples, whether Roman, Greek or Judean. In studying honor and shame,
we have learned what these ancient people value, how they strive either to
gain honor or maintain their reputation, and how honor is replicated in the
presentation and treatment of the physical body. When we appreciate the
typical form of a challenge/riposte encounter, we gain greater clarity into the
common social dynamics of the male half of the gender-divided world of the
first century in all its agonistic flavor. Appreciation of the ancient psychology
of honor and shame offers an authentic cultural and historical sensitivity to
the social dynamics of ancient persons. In looking through this lens, we see
what the natives see.
B. Honor and Shame: Pivotal Values. Anthropologists claim that honor and
shame constitute the pivotal values of the cultural world of the eastern
Mediterranean, which includes Jesus and his disciples. When we examine a
pivotal value of a given culture, we learn about its place in the larger system
of behaviors, institutions, and structures in the social fabric of that world.
By "value," we mean:
The word "value" describes some general quality or direction of life that
human beings are expected to embody in their behavior. A value is a general,
normative orientation of action in a social system. It is an emotionally
anchored commitment to pursue and support certain directions or types of
actions (Pilch-Malina xiii).
But a pivotal value in a culture implies a larger system within that culture. It
colors the way roles and statuses are understood within institutions; it
directs behaviors in certain ways; it forms the unspoken context or horizon
behind vast areas of social interaction, which is known by the natives, if by
708

no one else. When we appreciate the importance of "honor" vis--vis the

ancient world, we are thereby capable of recognizing the systematic contours
of the social dynamics of that period and of understanding its pervasive
importance in the lives of the ancient author and his characters.
C. Honor and Shame: Structural Implications. Pivotal values do not exist in
splendid isolation from the cultural systems in which they are embedded.
Knowledge of the value of honor and shame invites readers into the larger
cultural system in which we take note of the following replications and
incarnations of this value. Scholars agree that the ancient Mediterranean
was a gender-divided world, with specific places, tasks, tools and behaviors
for males and females. Reading John 18-19 in the light of honor and shame
makes salient the male half of that world: a public world where males
constantly behave in ways which seek to gain or maintain honor. It is a
world of swords and sharp speech, power and posturing, in short, a
pervasively agonistic world. Since it is an entirely public world, each gesture,
all clothing, every word communicates a claim to status and honor. In short,
formal reflection about honor and shame spells out for the initiated what is
implicit in the cultural world of the ancient documents, even as it introduces
readers new to cultural issues to the basic and pervasive social dynamics of
antiquity.
D. Honor and Shame: What is Common, Not What is Different.
Anthropology focuses on what is common to a specific culture and what is
shared by most of its members; it operates at a higher level of abstraction
than historical studies which ferret out specific local and temporal
differences. Thus it deals in generalities, common patterns, stereotypes, and
the like. Whereas historical studies regularly concern themselves with what
is "new" or "different" in certain circumstances, cultural studies ask what is
typically going on. Thus cultural studies may not scratch the historian's itch
for novelty. Historical critics might justifiably ask how the Johannine use of
honor and shame values differs from that expressed in Cicero, Plutarch, Dio
Chrysostom or Josephus -- a valid request, but on which deserves a study of
its own.
Moreover, it may appear to some that honor and shame as expressed in the
challenge/riposte form is a social dynamic so prevalent as to become a catchall generalization. Mediterranean anthropologists go so far as to claim that
every social interaction outside the home or kinship circle is likely to be a
contest for honor acquisition or its maintenance. "Challenges" are expressed
by positive actions, such as compliments, gifts, petitions, etc., as well as by
negative ones, such as questions, verbal attacks, physical affronts, etc.
709

(Malina 1981:30-33). One might ask whether Jesus ever appears in a public
situation without some sort of challenge arising? Even forensic processes
such as Jesus' trial are structured around honor; uses of power are never
simply "power," but exercises in honor. Honor may be a minor factor in
western social transactions, but it is the major value in Mediterranean ones
and major values should surface with great regularity and be replicated in
many areas.
E. Honor and Shame: A Reader's Responsibility. Knowledge of honor and
shame, moreover, equips a person to be a more informed and culturally
attuned reader. Nuances of social interaction and their meanings are made
clearer. But the issue is not quantity of new insight, but rather quality. The
value of using this model lies in its ability to ensure readers that they are
seeing with the eyes of a native and so they become insiders in a cultural
world quite different from their own. Learning about honor and shame and
reading with this lens makes us better readers, namely, readers who listen as
closely and accurately as possible to ancient speakers and writers. This duty
of readers is all the more valid when modern, western readers attempt to
understand communication from another culture. Thus readers who seek to
avoid ethnocentrism must strive to appreciate the pivotal values of the world
of writers removed from them in time and space. Honor and shame is just
such a pivotal value and full appreciation of it ensures that contemporary
readers are in tune with the characteristic modes of perceiving and acting
embodied in ancient, foreign documents. The ubiquitous and perhaps
generalized description of social interactions in term of challenge/riposte
simply is a fact of that ancient world. Readers are surely better off knowing
the incidence of this dynamic and its importance. Thus it is hardly an
oversimplification to view every scene of Jesus' passion in the light of the
ongoing game of push and shove.
F. Honor and Shame: From Hunch to Knowledge. Scholarship is rich in
imaginative hunches. But hunches are not arguments, nor probabilities, nor
sure foundations for further research. The formal knowledge of honor and
shame articulated here serves to promote scholarly hunches into the realm
of provable arguments; impressions yield to probability. Thus the quality of
scholarly interpretation improves immeasurably.
Finally, this brief study cannot do certain things. Although it presented a
concise grammar of honor, historically oriented readers would desire a fuller
exposition of this value in the Hellenistic and Jewish worlds of antiquity.
This study simply cannot satisfy that legitimate interest in the space allowed.
Nor can it show in any detail just how a cultural reading using honor and
710

shame would nuance older scholarly interpretations, some of which display

remarkably intuitive hunches and others of which are totally ignorant of this
value. Again, space does not allow. Rather it is the strength of all the articles
in this study to fill in the gaps that escape the size and scope of individual
articles.

WORKS CONSULTED
Adkins,
Arthur
W.
H.
1960 Merit and Responsibility: A Study in Greek Values. Oxford: Oxford
University
Press.
Alfldi,
Andreas
1970 Die monarchische Reprsentation im rmischen Kaiserreiche.
Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Bammel,
1952
Benoit,
1952

"Philos
"Prtoire,

Ernst
Kaisaros," TZ 77:205-10.

tou
Lithostroton

et

Pierre
Gabbatha," RB 59:513-50.

Blank,
Josef
1959 "Die Verhandlung vor Pilatus Jo 18:28-19:16 im Lichte johanneischer
Theologie," BZ 3:
60-81.
Brown,
Raymond
E.
1970 The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI. AnB 29A. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.
Brunt,
P.
A.
1965 "'Amicitia' in the Late Roman Republic," Proceedings of the
Cambridge
Philological
Society 191:
1-20.
Culpepper,
R.
Alan
1988 "The Death of Jesus: An Exegesis of John 19:28-37," Faith and
Mission 5:
64-70.
711

Daube,
David
1973 The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. New York: Arno Press.
de
Jonge,
Marinus
1977 Jesus, Stranger from Heaven and Son of God. SBLSBS 11. Missoula,
MT:
Scholars
Press.
Derrett,
J.
Duncan
M.
1989 "Christ, King and Witness (Jn. 18, 37)," Bibliotheca Orientalis 31: 18998.
1990 "Peter's Sword and Biblical Methodology," Bibliotheca Orientalis 32:
180-92.
Dodd,
Charles
H.
1963 Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge
University
Press.
Douglas,
Mary
T.
1966 Purity and Danger. An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and
Taboo.
London:
Routledge
and
Kegan
Paul.
Duke,
1985 Irony

in

the

Fourth

Paul
Gospel. Atlanta:

John

Knox

D.
Press.

Ehrman,
Bart
D.
1983 "Jesus' Trial before Pilate: John 18:28 - 19:16,"BTB 13: 124-31.
Flusser,
David
1984 "What Was the Original Meaning of Ecce Homo?" Immanuel 19: 3040.
Ford,
Josephine
M.
1969 "''Mingled Blood' from the Side of Christ (John xix.34)," NTS 15:33738.
1991 "Crucifixion, Epitome of Shame or Honour in the Ancient World?"
Unpublished paper delivered in March 1991 to the Context Group, Portland,
OR.
Forthcoming
in
her Redemption
as
Friendship.
1992 "Let Her Take Up Her Cross and Follow Me. The 'Crucifixion' of
712

Women in Antiquity." Unpublished paper delivered to the Mid-West SBL

convention in 1991. Forthcoming in herRedemption as Friendship.
Foster,
George
1967 "The Image of Limited Good." Pp. 300-323 in J. Potter, M. Diaz, and
G. Foster (eds.), Peasant Society: A Reader. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
Friedrich,
Paul
1977 "Sanity and the Myth of Honor: The Problem of Achilles," The
Journal
of
Psychological
Anthropology 5:
281-305.
Garnsey,
Peter
1970 Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. Oxford:
Clarendon
Press.
Giblin,
1984

"Confrontations

in

Charles
John

18,1-27," Bib 65:

H.
219-32.

1986 "John's Narration of the Hearing before Pilate (John 18,2819,16a)," Bib 67:
221-39.
Gilmore,
David,
ed.
1987 Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean. Special
Publication of the American Anthropological Association 22. Washington,
D.C:
American
Anthropological
Association.
Haas,
N.
1970 "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from the Giv
'at
ha-Mivtar," IEJ 20:
38-59.
Hengel,
1977 Crucifixion. London: SCM.

Martin

Hewitt, Joseph W.
1932 "The Use of Nails in Crucifixion," HTR 25: 29-45
Hill, David
1987 "'My Kingdom is not of this world' (John 18.36). Conflict and
Christian Existence in the World According to the Fourth Gospel," IBS 9:
54-62
713

Lee, Thomas
1986 Studies in the Form of Sirach 44-50. SBLDS 75. Atlanta: Scholars Press
Malina, Bruce J.
1981 New Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta:
John Knox
Malina, Bruce J. and Jerome H. Neyrey
1988 Calling Jesus Names. The Social Value of Labels in Matthew. Sonoma,
CA: Polebridge
1991a "Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the
Mediterranean World."
Pp. 25-66 in Jerome H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models
for Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
1991b "First-Century Personality: Dyadic, Not
Individualistic." Pp. 67-96 in Jerome H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of
Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Meeks, Wayne A.
1967 The Prophet-King. Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology.
NovTSup 14. Leiden: E.J. Brill
1972 "The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism," JBL 91: 44-72
Moxnes, Halvor
1988a "Honour and Righteousness in Romans," JSNT 32: 61-77
1988b "Honor, Shame and the Outside World in Paul's Letter
to the Romans." Pp 207-18 in Jacob Neusner (ed.), The Social World of
Formative Christianity and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress
Nagy, Gregory

714

1979 The Best of the Achaeans. Baltimore. The Johns Hopkins University
Press
Neyrey, Jerome H.
1987 "Jesus the Judge: Forensic Process in John 8,21-59," Bib 68: 509-42
1988 An Ideology of Revolt. John's Christology in Social-Science
Perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress Press
1993 "Clothing" and "Nudity." Pp. 20-25 and 119-25 in John J. Pilch and
Bruce J. Malina, eds., Biblical Social Values and Their Meaning. A
Handbook. Peabody, MA. Hendrickson
Nicholson, Godfrey C.
1983 Death as Departure. The Johannine Descent-Ascent Schema. SBLDS
63; Chico, CA: Scholars Press
Pfitzner, Victor C.
1976 "The Coronation of the King -- Passion Narrative and Passion
Theology in the Gospel of St. John," LTJ 10: 1-12
Pilch, John J. and Bruce J. Malina, eds.
1993 Biblical Social Values and Their Meanings. A Handbook. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson
de la Potterie, Ignace
1982 "La mort du Christ d'apres Jean," Studia Missionalia 31: 19-36
1984 "Le symbolisme du sang et de l'eau en Jean 19, 34," Didaskalia 14:
201-30
1989 The Hour of Jesus. The Passion and Resurrection of Jesus According to
John. New York: Alba House
Reinhold, Meyer
1970 History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity. Bruxelles: Latomus
715

Rensburger, David
1988 Johannine Faith and Liberating Community. Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press
Schnackenburg, Rudolf
1982 The Gospel According to St. John. New York: Crossroad
Schneider, Johannes
1968 "Tim," TDNT 8.169-80
Seeley, David
1989 The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul's Concept of
Salvation. Sheffield: JSOT Press
Senior, Donald
1991 The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Collegeville, MN: The
Liturgical Press
Sherwin-White, A.N.
1963 Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford:
Clarendon
1965 "The Trial of Christ," in Historicity and Chronology in the New
Testament (Theological Collections 6; London: SPCK) 97-116
Steinberg, Leo
1983 The Sexuality of Jesus in Renaissance Art and in Modern Oblivion.
New York: Pantheon/October
Sylva, Dennis D.
1988 "Nicodemus and His Spices (Jn. 19.39)," NTS 34: 148-51
Weber, Hans-Ruedi

716

1979 The Cross. Tradition and Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B.

Eerdmans

The
Trials
(Forensic)
and
Tribulations (Honor Challenges) of Jesus:
John 7 in Social Science Perspective
Jerome

H.

Neyrey,

S.J.

University of Notre Dame

1.0

Topic,

Focus

and

Hypothesis

Even the most casual reading of the Fourth Gospel indicates that Jesus is
constantly engaged in tribulations, which the narrator most frequently
portrays as a formal trial or forensic proceeding against Jesus. This is clear
in 5:17-45, where Jesus is charged with crimes, for which he delivers a
defense and calls witnesses on his behalf. The gospel narrates how in 10:2239 he is again put on trial, charged with evil and obliged to defend himself of
the charges. The Pharisees, chief priests and the council try him in absentia
according to 11:45-53. Of course, one should include the final trial of Jesus
before Pilate in the Passion Narrative. In addition to this, an inquiry is held
with the man born blind, which in effect is another trial of Jesus; for, in
chapter 9 Jesus is charged with breaking the Sabbath; witnesses are called
concerning his action; a judgment is rendered about Jesus and his witness,
the man born blind. The sentence in this case is expulsion from the
synagogue. Yet the proceedings, while they focus on the man born blind, are
all about Jesus. The events narrated in John 7-8 fit into this larger pattern in
the Fourth Gospel of the trials (forensic) and tribulations (honor challenges)
of Jesus: he is charged, put on trial and judgments are rendered concerning
him. Needless to say, this gospel can be said to narrate the tribulations of
Jesus in terms of a forensic trial proceeding. It is in light of this large pattern
of forensic proceedings against Jesus throughout the gospel that we wish to
read in detail the narrative of his tribulations in John 7.
717

Many commentators have experienced great difficulties in "seeing a

coherent and logical progression" (Attridge 1980:161) through John 7. A
careful reading of the narrative in terms of the setting at the Feast of
Tabernacles and in light of typical forensic proceedings can go a long way
into solving some of the problems of coherence and logic. But it is especially
in terms of the way that the tribulations of Jesus are portrayed in the Fourth
Gospel that we can learn not only about John 7 but also the passages parallel
to this chapter in the rest of the gospel (see Harvey 1976).
It is now apparent that in the synoptic gospels, the endless conflict between
Jesus and his adversaries is portrayed in terms of the chreia, in particular
the "responsive chreia" (Mack and Robbins 1989). This type of narrative
showcases the wit and cleverness of a sage, hence "honor" and "praise" are
its formal aims. The chreia works by having some hostile question asked of
the sage or some criticism made of him and his practice, to which he
necessarily responds with cleverness, so as to vanquish his questioners and
critics. In the Fourth gospel, the ubiquitous chreia is replaced by formal
forensic proceedings against Jesus, which move beyond hostile questions and
criticism to legal charges, which if sustained, would end in Jesus' death. Yet,
both chreia and forensic proceedings both embody conflict between Jesus
and others. John simply favors the forensic form over the chreia to narrate
the tribulations of Jesus.
To understand and appreciate the tribulations of Jesus described in ch 7, we
need an appropriate set of analytical tools and an adequate set of lenses.
When we examine John 7 in terms of its narrative craft, we will benefit by
considering it according to the conventions of forensic proceedings in
ancient Judea, that is as the trial (forensic) of Jesus. It is a fact that the
Johannine narrative repeatedly presents Jesus on trial before Judeans, and
thus the forensic proceeding in John 7 should be examined in terms of this
formal, redactional literary presentation. Then, if we would fully appreciate
the cultural meaning of the tribulations of Jesus, we should interpret the
same disputing process in terms of the pivotal cultural value of the ancient
world, namely, the struggle to gain honor and to avoid shame. This level of
analysis invites us to examine the narrator and his characters in terms of a
world of cultural meanings given to their behavior, not just by
anthropologists, but by the ancient culture itself. "For Jesus testified that a
prophet has no honor in his own country" (4:44). Thus characters in the
gospel both grant and withhold "honor" from Jesus.
It is our hypothesis that the narrator chose to present Jesus continually in
situations of conflict to highlight how alien both Jesus and his disciples were
718

to their respective worlds. The narrative choice of forensic proceedings

follows a regular pattern in which Jesus-the-accused honorably turns the
tables on his accusers and conducts his own trial of them. Thus in response
to intense conflict, both Jesus and his disciples acquit themselves honorably,
at least on the narrative level. Finally, in view of the shame of the cross (Heb
12:2), the narrator fully appreciates the need to present Jesus in cultural
terms as a successful person, a winner, and an honorable man. Thus the
levels of analysis (forensic trials and tribulations of honor) are two
compatible and even necessary ways of reading John 7 to appreciate how
honorable Jesus is, so that people may join themselves to him and become
his loyal disciples (see 20:31).
2.0 The Unity of John 7: Form and Context
2.1 Tribulation Everywhere: Formal Unity
The narrative in John 7 begins with an abrupt statement: "After this, Jesus
went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews
sought to kill him" (7:1). Readers know that this refers back to the conflict
narrated in John 5. The remark in 7:1, then, simply describes the latest stage
of conflict in the narrative, for the narrator presumes that readers will recall
the cause of this hostility from the earlier trial of Jesus which occurred at
another feast in Jerusalem: "This is why the Jews sought all the more to kill
him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God his own
Father, making himself equal to God" (5:18). Although his adversaries put
Jesus on trial then, they did not resolve that conflict, which resurfaces on the
occasion of another pilgrimage feast in Jerusalem, namely Tabernacles. On
the link between John 5 and 7, see Brown 1966: 307; Martyn 1968:68-74 and
Von Wahlde 1981 and 1984.
Yet the narrative reintroduces the conflictual relationships between Jesus
and certain people in Jerusalem with the notice that "the Jews' feast of
Tabernacles was at hand" (7:2). Two distinct conflicts immediately appear:
first, the brothers of Jesus urge him to attend the feast "that your disciples
may see the works that you do" (7:3). If these "brothers" were true
disciples, we might take their advice seriously; but inasmuch as the
evangelist remarks that "even his brothers did not believe in him" (7:5), the
narrative audience perceives conflict between Jesus and them, which Jesus
expresses in terms of "hate." The brothers are evidently not in conflict with
"the world" as Jesus is: "The world cannot hate you, but it hates me" (7:7).
Hence, the brothers belong to "the world" which "hates" Jesus. The conflict
between the "brothers" is resolved by Jesus' command that they go to the
719

feast, but he will remain in Galilee, although "resolved" is much too strong a
term here. Second, Jesus indeed goes to Judea, where "the Jews sought to
kill him." Despite what he said to his "brothers," he ostensibly aims "to be
known openly." The result is that, while Jesus cannot be said to initiate the
tribulations in John 7, he courts conflict by positioning himself face-to-face
with his adversaries on a special occasion and in a highly public place:
"About the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught"
(7:14). Smouldering conflict explodes into a full-blown dispute; formal
forensic proceedings against Jesus begin; attempts are made to arrest and
silence him. Thus John 7 presents first a tribulation between Jesus and his
brothers, and then with the Jews in Jerusalem. Thus tribulation and conflict
aptly describe the whole set of relationships which Jesus has in John 7,
namely, with his "brothers," "the world," and "the Jews" of Jerusalem.
2.2 Narrative Unity: the Feast of Tabernacles
Yet in addition to the record of tribulations, 7:2-3 indicates that "the feast of
Tabernacles" was at hand, for which many would make pilgrimage to
Jerusalem. His brothers command him, "Leave here and go to Judea,"
obviously for the feast. To them, at least, Jesus refuses to participate in the
feast (7:3-9; Gibson 1980:206-8), and so misses the beginning of the
festivities, but eventually makes the pilgrimage up to Jerusalem, albeit in
secret (7:10). He makes his grand entrance in the Temple "about the middle
of the feast" (7:14), at which hostilities begin which are described in 7:11-36.
Finally, "on the last day of the feast, the great day" (7:37), Jesus makes a
bold public claim.
Inasmuch as the narrator locates the conflict described in ch 7 during the
Feast of Tabernacles, we should pay attention to the shape of that event vis-vis the narrative events described. Because Tabernacles was basically a
harvest feast, the rituals pertinent to that feast correspond to the basic
necessities of an agricultural community: a prayer for the winter rains
(water) and for the renewal of sunlight (light) (see Knig 1905:660-61;
Jacobs 1971:499-500). Apropos of these two foci, the Mishnah Sukkah tells
us about "the Water libation," in which a large golden flagon was filled at
the Siloam spring and brought to the temple for libations (4.9). The same
tractate tells of giant golden candlesticks which burned during the festival
(5.1), the wicks of which were made of discarded priestly garments (5.3).
These two foci of water and light seem to be alluded to in the narrative when
Jesus declares on the last day of the feast a promise of new water ("If any
one thirsts, let him come tome and drink," 7:37) and when he claimed to be
720

the prayed-for light ("I am the light of the world; who follows me...will have
the light of life," 8:12 (Ulfgard 1989: 117-18; Talbert 1992: 148-49).
The narrative, then, positions Jesus in the midst of a major feast and
presents him making claims to replace the benefactions prayed for at that
time (Neyrey 1979:436-37; 1988:131-37, 158-58). In one sense the Fourth
Gospel has presented Jesus repeatedly replacing the Temple, its feasts and its
cultic objects, which is, to say the least, a cause for significant grievance
among the Temple elite. Yet this replacement motif does not seem to function
as a formal irritant in John 7; the conflict is about old matters, namely,
healing on the Sabbath (5:10, 18 and 7:21-23). Nevertheless, the evangelist
indicates that Jesus is not above giving further provocation to his
adversaries, and in the most public fashion. To speak boldly and in public as
he does is the mark of an honorable male (see 18:20). He does nothing to
mitigate the conflict, first by showing up in the Temple and teaching, and
then by claiming to be the very things prayed for at the feast, namely, water
and light. We would have to say that Jesus acts very provocatively here,
which is part of the narrative strategy.
One immediate result of examining the Johannine narrative in terms of the
Feast of Tabernacles is the connection between the forensic proceedings
against Jesus in 8:12-20 with comparable actions in ch 7 (Neyrey 1987:51215). Just as the conflict in John 7 begins with Jesus' appearance at the
middle of the feast and reaches a climax with his claim to be the prayedfor water, so the trial in John 8 occurs in the context of Jesus' claim to be the
prayed-for light (8:12). The formal structure of chs 7 and 8 witness to
repetitive elements of a typical forensic process, where some Jerusalemites
formally charged Jesus (7:19-23), examined his testimony (7:16-18; 8:1318), judged him (7:24; 8:15), and tried to arrest him (7:32, 44, 45-47; 8:20).
This is prima facie evidence of a scene of a continuous conflict and forensic
proceedings which cluster around the two thematic elements of the Feast of
Tabernacles, water and light. For the purposes of this study, we focus only
on John 7.
3.0 A First Reading: Forensic Proceedings
3.1 John 7 and Johannine Forensic Imagery.
A series of narrative clues in John 7 ask considerate readers to connect it
with the forensic proceedings described in John 5. The accusation of
Sabbath violation (5:10, 16) continues to be the primary
forensic charge against Jesus (7:21-23). The "court" which tried and
721

sentenced him ("sought to kill Jesus," 5:18) still seeks to kill him (7:1, 19).
Now in six brief scenes in John 7 the adversaries of Jesus constantly render
both informal and formal judgments about Jesus, as the trial of Jesus
continues. As I hope to show, the narrator views these as formal parts of an
elaborate and extended trial, that is, forensic proceeding against Jesus. They
concern his "arrest" (7:32, 45), witnesses bearing testimony both for and
against him (7:12, 25-27, 40-43), and a rump trial of Jesus who is absent
(7:50-52). One scene in particular gives formal instructions to the judges,
urging them to judge correctly: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge
with right judgment" (7:24; see 8:15). Thus, a cursory reading of John 7
indicates a considerable unity to the chapter in terms of two narrative
features: first, the chronological framework created by the Feast of
Tabernacles, but especially the extensive forensic proceedings against Jesus.
Let us be clear about what constitutes a typical "trial" or forensic
proceeding in the narrative world of the Fourth Gospel. From the trial of
Jesus before Pilate, we learn a great deal about Roman judicial process
(Sherwin-White 1963 and Cadbury 1933: 295-337). The following diagram
indicates the formal elements in Jesus trials, as seen in the accounts of both
Luke and John (Sherwin-White 1963:24-27; Neyrey: 1985:80-82, 1987:510;
1995:XX):
Forensic

Luke 32:14-15

John 18:1-19:4

John 19:5-16

23:14a
23:14b
23:14c
23:14d
23:15b
23:15c

18:1-11
18:29-30
18:33-38
18:39
19:4
19:1-4

----19:7
19:8-11
19:12
19:13-16
-----

Elements
1. arrest
2. charges
3. judge's cognitio
4. verdict
5. sentence
6. judicial warning

This procedure is also evident in the trials of Paul before the Roman
governors, Felix and Festus (Neyrey 1985: 104-107). There the identity and
authority of the judge is evident from the beginning, who is the chief civil
and/or military magistrate. The bulk of the process consists in the cognitio of
the judge, that is, the face-to-face interrogation of the accused by the judge,
in which he evaluates the testimony of the defendant in response to the
charges alleged against him. In Acts, moreover, we have formal forensic
722

speeches, both those of Paul's accuser, Tertullus (24:2-8), and those of Paul,
the defendant (22:1-21; 24:10-21; 26:1-23), which are readily intelligible in
terms of classical forensic rhetoric (see Neyrey 1984: 210-224).
But Jesus and many of his early followers were engaged in forensic
proceedings with Jews as well as Romans. Jewish forensic process differed
from Roman in three principal areas (Falk 1972: 98-110; Harvey 1976; and
Derrett 1971: 178-191). (1) Legal authority: the "judges" may not
necessarily be civic magistrates with clearly defined authority but simply the
leading men or elders of city and village (McKenzie 1964: 100-105; Kohler
1956: 149-75). For example, although Jesus is tried before the Sanhedrin,
which consisted of the Chief Priests, Scribes and Elders, Susanna was tried
simply before the Elders of the city. (2) Matter for Judgment: as Harvey
points out, some trials might focus on establishment of facts, as in the case of
murder or theft, for which purpose eyewitnesses are indispensable. But
many forensic situations deal only with allegations or claims by witnesses
(see 1 Kgs 21:12-14), in which the brunt of the process consists of the
testimony of honorable witnesses and the scrutiny of these, as in the case of
Susanna and the elders. No new evidence is presented before the judging
elders, only (a) the discrediting of the accusing witnesses whose testimony is
shown to be contradictory, and so false and (b) the acceptance of testimony
from honorable witnesses (Harvey 1976: 20-21; Swarney 1993).
Considerable attention will be placed, then, on the social status of the
witnesses as proof of their reliability. (3) Witness and Character: testimony
from an honorable, educated, and prominent person simply commands more
credibility in forensic situations than that of a slave, a woman, or an
uneducated person (see Acts 4:13). Jewish forensic process, then, was much
less formally structured than Roman procedure. The judges might well be
the elders of the city or village, assembled in the city gate, who attend
primarily to the testimony of witnesses and their character. Obviously both
Roman and Jewish forensic procedures are similar in that "judges"
assemble to hear "charges" and investigate the truth of the "witnesses" in
the case. Finally, even the narrative of John 7 indicates that other customs
pertaining to trials seem to be in view, such as requiring a hearing for the
accused (see John 7:51; Acts 25:16; see Josephus, Wars 1.209 and Ant.
14.167).
All of this has a bearing on how we view the proceedings in John 7. First, the
narrator intends us to view a formal forensic process under way, which
includes (1) arrest (7:32, 44, 45), (2) charges(7:21-23 and 12, 47),
(3) testimony, either for the defense (7:15-24, 51) or for the prosecution (2527), all of which should issue in (4) a verdict and (5) a sentence (see 11:49723

53). Although many will give testimony in the various scenes of this extended
trial, we must ask whether any of it is subject to a cognitio, or scrutiny by
the judges. Furthermore, we must be careful to ascertain who the judges are
in any given sequence and who is on trial.
Yet we must immediately recognize that this forensic material in the Fourth
Gospel comes to us through a filter. This gospel distinguishes itself by
presenting two distinct readings of judgmental materials. On the one hand,
Jesus is himself given all power to judge (5:22, 27), and he acts as judge in
certain scenes (i.e., 8:21-58; see Neyrey 1987:515-19). But another stream
exists where the hearers of Jesus take the role of judges and judgment
occurs when they confront the light which has come into the world (3:19).
Their evaluation or judgment of Jesus ironically becomes the basis of a
judgment about them: as they judge, so they are judged . This second stream
of judgmental material seems to be especially operative in John 7. Who,
then, really is on trial, Jesus or his judges? For the narrative tells us that
judges are judged by the judgment they render (7:24; 8:15). Hence, the
narrative audience, who sees and hears the "trial of Jesus" by the crowds
and by the "Jews" also judges those judges.
Thus as we examine "judgment" in John 7, we must be aware of differing
levels of forensic proceedings, about which the Johannine narrative makes
clear reference elsewhere. (1) Jesus judges others: although on some
occasions Jesus proclaims that he does not judge (3:17; 8:15; 12:47), yet he
also claims authority from God to judge (5:22, 27; 8:26) and to conduct
trials (8:31-58). (2)Others judge Jesus: the narrative contains an escalating
series of trials and judgments about Jesus (5:16-18; 7:14-24; 8:12-19; 10:2238), which climax in the Sanhedrin's condemnation of Jesus in absentia
(11:45-53). These trials usually end either with attempts to "arrest" Jesus
(7:32, 45; 10:39) or plots to "put him to death" (5:18; 8:59; 11:53). (3) The
judge are themselves judged: according to the principle of "measure for
measure" (Matt 7:2), those who judge Jesus will likewise be judged
according to their just or unjust judgment. On the widespread citation of
"measure for measure" in both Jewish and Christian literature, see Rger
1969:174-76.
3.2 Who's on Trial? Who's Judging Whom? Let us examine the six scenes
which comprise the narrative of the events during Jesus' visit at the Feast of
Tabernacles. Since we are viewing an extended trial of Jesus by various
"courts," we should consider each scene formally in terms of the traditional
elements of a forensic proceeding, which was noted above.
724

3.2.1 The First Scene (7:10-13). The narrator seems to intend us to associate
the group which controls the action at the announcement of the Feast of
Tabernacles ("the Jews sought (eztoun) to kill Jesus," 7:1) with the group
who appears at the outset of the first trial scene: "The Jews sought (eztoun)
him at the feast, saying 'Where is he?'" (7:11). We note the double meaning
of the term "seek," which could mean friendly association with Jesus (1:3839), but in this context more likely means hostile assault on him (Richard
1985; Carson 1982). The repetition of "seeking" Jesus in 7:11 presents an
ominous hint that the subsequent events in Jerusalem could result in Jesus'
arrest and execution, as indeed they do (8:59; 10:39; 11:45-53). The
narrative informs us that a formal judgment has already been rendered by
"the Jews" who seek to kill him, which is sufficiently public that the crowd
knows of it: "For fear of 'the Jews' no one spoke openly of him'" (7:13).
Readers, then, initially identify these "Jews" as people evaluating Jesus, and
hence as his "judges."
There are other people on stage, namely, "the crowds" who are
"murmuring" about Jesus; the last "murmurers" in the narrative were the
"dropouts" who criticized every one of Jesus' claims in the Bread of Life
discourse in the scene immediately previous to this one (6:25-65; see
"murmuring" in 6:41, 43, 61). "Murmuring" in the Scriptures, moreover, is
a very critical and judgmental action. Not everyone in this "crowd,"
however, appears hostile to Jesus. For, in fact, the crowd's reaction is
"divided": some say "He is a good man," while others insist that "He leads
the people astray" (7:12; on "deception," see Martyn 1968:73-81). The
crowd, then, seems to function as witnesses in the trial, either testifying on
Jesus' behalf ("he is a good man") or on behalf of the prosecution ("he leads
the people astray"). The presence of this divided testimony indicates that
despite the previous judgment against Jesus, his trial is still very much in
progress and a final judgment has not yet been reached.
Judges are judging Jesus; witnesses are testifying for and against him. The
judgment that they render about him allows the audience of the Fourth
Gospel to stand in judgment of both judges and witnesses. Those who judge
Jesus innocent of sin would be said to judge justly. Those, however, who
agree with the testimony of Jesus' enemies and judge him a false and
deceiving prophet would be said to judge according to appearances or
hearsay, and so to judge unjustly. The judges, then, are judged by the
judgment they render.
3.2.2 Second Scene (7:14-24). As long as Jesus remains in private (v 10), no
one could arrest and prosecute him. But Jesus appears in public in the
725

Temple (v 14) and a trial immediately ensues (see 10:22). The fact that he
taught openly in the Temple serves as the grounds to re-opens the case
against him as a false prophet (v 12): "How is it that this man has learning,
when he has never studied" (v 15). From a forensic point of view, this
question serves as a charge against Jesus by calling into question his status
as a valid teacher. Already Jesus has been charged with "leading the people
astray" (7:12), which, in the biblical idiom, is equivalent to an accusation
that he is a false prophet, the sentence for which is death.
This charge reasons that Jesus cannot know the Law and so teach correctly,
for he has no formal education. On the importance of famous and noble
teachers in the rhetoric of antiquity, see Malina and Neyrey 1996: 27-28, 4143. In effect, he is to them a self-made imposter, who vainly claims special
status.
A first reading of 7:14-24 appears to be a trial of Jesus by others. In this
vein, the "Jews" are judging Jesus, charging him with the crime of being a
false prophet and leading the people astray. Hence we recognize Jesus'
remarks in 7:16-24 as a defense against their charges, with appropriate
testimony on behalf of the honorable person who sent Jesus to teach. In
regard to his defense, he testifies that he indeed has "schooling." In response
to the charge of false teaching, Jesus claims to have teaching from a learned
and powerful authority: "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me" (v
16). As proof of this, he continues: "If any man's will is to do his will, he will
know whether my teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my
own authority" (v 17). Thus he denies that he is a self-made imposter, for his
argument rests on the legal principle accepted even by this court: "Who
speaks on his own authority, seeks his own glory; but he who seeks the glory
of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood" (7:18; see also
8:12-13). According to the normal roles assumed at a trial, Jesus acts both as
the accused and as a witness on behalf of the one who sent him before the
"Jews" who play the role of judges.
What makes a trustworthy witness (see 8:13-14)? Why should anyone
believe Jesus in this trial? First of all, he does not seek glory for himself; he
does not "make himself" equal to God or "make himself" king. He is but the
agent of a most prominent person, even the God of Israel. His teaching is not
his own, that is, false prophecy, but the authentic word of God. In this
witness "there is no falsehood." Thus the first part of the charge that "he
leads people astray" is rebutted and proven to be false. Those who held and
continue to hold this judgment have judged wrongly. Such judges will be
judged for this false judgment.
726

A second reading of the scene is warranted by a number of narrative clues.

For example, Jesus makes very bold accusation of his own against his
interlocutors He accuses them of failing to keep the law of Moses: "Did not
Moses give you the law. And not one of you keeps it" (v 19). Presumably he
is speaking of circumcision on the Sabbath (see 7:22-23), but this may
cryptically refer to other aspects of Moses' law, such as just judgment (see
7:25; 8:15; Deut 19:15-21) or the prohibition against murder and lying. Why
murder and lying? In the continuation of this trial in John 8, Jesus will
formally accuse his hearers of both murder and lying. Those whom Jesus
addresses are shown to be not children of Abraham, who received heavenly
messengers, but rather offspring of the devil:
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the
truth. . .When he lies, he speaks according to his nature, for he is a liar and
the father of lies (8:44; see Neyrey 1987:525-28).
This has a direct bearing on how we should read the next exchange in 7:1920 between Jesus and his judges. He raises both of these
issues: murder and lying. First, he asks "Why do you seek to kill me?" (v
19), which accuses them of murder. Their defense is to lie: "Who is seeking
to kill you?" (v 20). Readers know that this is a lie because the evangelist's
inaugural remark at the beginning of this scene stated that people were in
fact trying to murder Jesus: " Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go
about in Judea because the Jews sought to kill him" (7:1). The crowds in
Jerusalem all know that murder is afoot: "Is not this the man whom they
seek to kill" (7:25). Murder and lying, therefore, truly characterize these
judges of Jesus, despite what they say. Thus, we suggest that when Jesus
begins his countercharge in 7:19, the true accusation which he makes is the
double charge of both murder and lying, which he will finally prove in 8:44
when he exposes certain people as offspring of the devil, who is both murder
and liar from the beginning. Admittedly, this is not apparent at first reading
of 7:19, but will become so only in time and through the intense scrutiny of
the remarks of others, which in forensic jargon is called the judge's cognitio.
Thus, in terms of roles, Jesus no longer acts as accused, but now begins to
judge his judges; they in turn change from judges to accused.
Most of us think that the meaning of the remarks in 7:19 has to do with
healing on the Sabbath, which was the formal charge against Jesus at the
previous trial on the occasion of the previous feast in Jerusalem (5:10-17).
And indeed such is the clear meaning of the continuation of the exchange in
7:21-23. "I did one deed, and you all marvel at it" (7:21) must refer back to
727

the healing on the Sabbath in 5:1-10. At the time, no formal defense was
made to the charge of Sabbath violation, but rather to the more important
accusation that Jesus "made himself equal to God" (5:18; see Neyrey
1988:18-28). Now Jesus offers one as he compares what he did on the
Sabbath with Moses' command to circumcise on the eighth day, even if it
falls on a Sabbath (7:22-23). He offers a defense using a standard argument
of qal wayhomer or a fortiori reasoning. If Jesus is guilty for healing on the
Sabbath, then they too are guilty for circumcising on the Sabbath. According
to Jesus, his judges judge hypocritically; for, they act on the Sabbath to
circumcise Judean males, and are not held guilty for it. If they harm a very
small bodily organ so as to make the body "whole" for membership in the
covenant group, how can they object to Jesus' making a man "whole" as
well?
But let us not be distracted by 7:22-23; it may seem like an appropriate
defense for violation of the Sabbath, but it actually provides the warrant for
the true accusation against these judges, namely, that they judge unjustly.
Their very accusation against Jesus as a sinner and Sabbath violator is a bad
judgment, which Jesus has now exposed. The truly important remark here is
Jesus' statement on the absolute need to judge justly and not by
appearances: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right
judgment" (7:24). According to this law, then, Jesus has taken over the role
of judge who judges the local judges. He has accused them of a very serious
crime, partial and unjust judgment, the sentence for which was death.
My reading of this second scene, then, would require in fact two readings.
On the surface, the Jews are judging Jesus, accusing him of crimes worthy of
death, for which he defends himself. But typical of this evangelist, there is a
cryptic second meaning to Jesus' remarks and behavior; for, he becomes the
accuser and judge and the judges are themselves judged. The charges
against Jesus (false prophet, Sabbath violator) pale in comparison to his
charges against them, which I take to be both murder and lying and partial
and unjust judgment. The reader who is attentive to the narrative clues
recognizes both the attempts at murder and the lie, but especially the
erroneous and false judgment of Jesus by his judges.
3.2.3 Third Scene (7:25-30). The dramatis personae shift from Temple elite
to "the people of Jerusalem." At first, it seems that they are simply one more
voice of the divided crowd in 7:12-13; but upon closer inspection, we
discover that they are allies of Jesus' judges. In 7:13 we were told that "for
fear of the Jews no one spoke openly (parrsiai elalei) of him," that is,
favorably about him. And they are openly speaking about him; for, in 7:25728

26 they comment, "Is not this the man whom they seek to kill? And here he
is, speaking openly (parrsiai lalei) and they say nothing to him!" But are
they speaking favorably or unfavorably about him? We will show that their
conversation about Jesus should not be viewed as favorable. While they may
not be formally part of the party of Jesus' judges, their negative evaluation
of Jesus identifies them as being in sympathy with those who judge Jesus.
But what forensic role do they play in the narrative? Are they "judges" as
well? Or perhaps witnesses for the prosecution? In any event, the narrator
would have us put them in the same camp as Jesus' judges.
Although they testify about Jesus, their testimony supports the prosecution,
not the defense. They are aware of the previous forensic proceeding against
Jesus: they know the judges ("the authorities"), the charges ("the [false]
Christ"), and the proposed verdict and sentence ("seek to kill him"). Their
remarks, moreover, are neither a confession about Jesus' identity nor
atestimony on his behalf. Rather they voice a question, "Can this be the
Christ?" which they immediately answer in such as way as to
bring testimony against Jesus: "We know where this man comes from. When
the Christ appears, no one will know where he comes from" (v 27). In effect,
they mount an argument that Jesus must be a false Christ. He cannot be the
real one because their lore indicates that no one will know where the true
Christ comes from (deJonge 1977a:85-92). Yet their testimony is subject to
scrutiny, as Jesus himself mounts a cognitio of their testimony. The person
who conducts a cognitio generally plays the role of judge, which signals the
reader that this scene entails a reversal of roles: although they seem to judge
Jesus, he in fact is judging them and will judge them on the basis of the
demand voiced in 7:24 that judges should judge rightly, and not according to
appearances.
The narrative plays with the telling phrase about "knowing" Jesus. Having
claimed to "know Jesus," they are shown not to know him authentically or
truly. Jesus remarks with heavy irony, "So you know me and you know
where I come from?" indicating that they "judge by appearances," when
they claim to know whence Jesus comes, either from Galilee (7:41, 52) or
from peasant parents in Nazareth (6:42; Nathanael made the same error in
judgment in 1:45-46). In any other context this would be important and
valuable knowledge about the character of a person (Malina and Neyrey
1996:23-26, 113-25). But here Jesus shows that it is both inadequate and
even erroneous knowledge. They are "judging according to appearances,"
bearing false testimony about Jesus --false, that is, from the perspective of
the narrator.
729

Genuine knowledge of Jesus, we are told, consists in acknowledging the one

who has authorized him and sent him: "I have not come on my own accord;
he who sent me is true, and him you do not know" (v 29). As Jesus did with
the accusation in 7:19, so he issues a countercharge to those who testify
against him here. They "do not know" God, and so they "do not know" the
one whom God sent. This is no mere lapse of information or fallible
ignorance, which special remedial education will repair. Not in the Fourth
Gospel! Not to know comprises a serious charge by Jesus and this gospel's
community (see 8:47, 55). Failure to know certain things in this gospel
merits a terrible sentence (see 8:24).
This segment of the forensic proceeding ends with an attempt to "arrest
him" (v 30). Actually, the technical term here is "seek" (eztoun), the same
verb used in 7:1, 19, 25, 34, 36, usually in the sense of "seek" to kill.
Linguistically, then, this "court" is linked with others in the narrative who
have judged that Jesus is a false prophet or false Christ. And the very fact
that this group of people seeks to "arrest" Jesus reveals them as allies of
Jesus' judges and thus Jesus' enemies. Their judgment agrees with other
false judgments of Jesus. In terms of forensic roles, then, the narrator has
turned the tables: the judges of Jesus are themselves judged and Jesus, the
judged one, becomes the judge. The crime now is the failure to act according
to the law enunciated by Jesus in 7:24, namely, "to judge rightly and not by
appearances." Claiming to know Jesus, they judge only according to
appearances, and so judge unjustly. Thus these witnesses for the prosecution
bring judgment upon themselves for that false judgment. As they judge
(falsely), they will be judged.
3.2.4 Fourth Scene (7:32-36). The process against Jesus quickens as the
Jerusalem elites respond to the crowd. Although "some of the people in
Jerusalem" bear testimony against Jesus (7:25-27), yet others "believed in
him" and said."When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this
man has done?" (7:31). In reaction to this testimony on Jesus' behalf they
"sent ;officers to arrest him" (7:32). Thus in terms of forensic roles, "the
chief priests and the Pharisees" serve as judges with power to arrest and
prosecute; and Jesus remains the accused defendant who continues to speak,
that is, to bear testimony. At least this is what appears to be going on.
Yet when Jesus speaks in 7:33-34, he is not defending himself against a
specific charge as he did in 7:14-23; nor is he conducting a cognitio of the
false testimony of hostile witnesses as he did in 7:25-29). His remarks now
serve as testimony on his behalf, and as proof of the evil of his accusers.
Hence, his role is more than accused defendant, as it metamorphoses into
730

that of accusing judge. Let us examine more closely the three parts of his
public declaration in 7:33-34.
(1) "I shall be with you a little longer, and then I go to him who sent me" (2)
"you will seek me
and you will not find me"; and (3) "where I am you cannot come." We
notice first of all the signature literary pattern occurring in which Jesus
makes a statement, which is generallymisunderstood, and which often leads
him to offer a clarification (see Leroy 1968:45-47, 53-67; Neyrey 1988:42-43,
234n11; 1994:83-84). Jesus speaks in 7:33-34, but is completely
misunderstood by his hearers in 7:35-36. In this instances, he offers no
clarification, which is a highly significant change in the pattern. This pattern
of statement-misunderstanding-clarification functions in two ways in the
Fourth Gospel: in most instances, it describes how outsiders become insiders
as they move from "not being in the know" about Jesus to insight,
knowledge and finally loyalty. Yet on occasion, it serves to clarify for the
readership that the person to whom Jesus speaks is and remains an outsider,
that is, someone who is impervious to Jesus' revelation and who cannot hear
his voice, because he or she is not one of the sheep (3:1-12; 10:24-27 and
18:37-38). Let us call this a judicial function: to remain in ignorance and to
be impervious to Jesus' word proves a fact, namely, that the person
addressed by Jesus is not one of his sheep and does not hear his voice and
does not believe in him -- all serious charges in this non-ecumenical gospel,
which charges warrant a terrible sentence. And the fact that Jesus does not
offer a clarification here is further evidence that he judges those
who misunderstand him to be hopelessly obtuse and irrevocably fixed in evil.
In addition to the form of the exchange, let us attend also to the content of
Jesus' remarks. Let us see just what is ignored by the hearers and what is
misunderstood; and let us ask why the audience says what it says. Inasmuch
as Jesus earlier accused them of both murder and lying, we should not
presume good faith and candor now.
Jesus' Statement (7:33-34) Their Misunderstanding (7:35-36)
1. I shall be with you a little longer,
and then I go to him who sent me; Where does this man intend to go that we
shall not find him? Does he intend to go to

731

the Dispersion among the Greeks and

teach the Greeks?
(2) you will seek me What does he mean by 'You will seek me
and you will not find me; and you will not find me'
(3) where I am and 'Where I am
you cannot come. you cannot come'?
We consider it highly significant that this "court" ignores Jesus' remarks
about "going to him to sent me" (7:33), just as others in this extended
forensic process likewise ignore all of Jesus' testimony about God who sent
him (7:16-18, 28). Since Jesus acts as God's agent, speaks what God has
authorized him to speak and performs the signs which God deputized him to
do, it is utterly shameful for his judges and critics to ignore this part of his
testimony (see 9:31-33). Moreover, by ignoring Jesus' testimony about God
who authorizes him, the hearers prove a very important thing, namely, that
they do not know God, which is a terrible evil. Jesus earlier laid down the
principle of judgment which is operative behind all of these remarks: "If
any man's will is to his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God
or whether I am speaking on my own authority" (7:17). Hence, only those
who know and are faithful to God will judge Jesus correctly; how terrible
then not to know God or the one whom God has sent. Part of Jesus' constant
accusation against these very judges has been that "you do not know him":
"He who sent me is true and him you do not know" (7:28)
"You know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know
my Father also" (8:19)
"The reason why you do not hear them [my words] is that you are not of
God" (8:47)
"You have not known him; I know him. If I said, I do not know him, I
should be a liar
like you" (8:55).

732

We find here relentless accusations by Jesus that his judges "do not know
God," who sent Jesus. And by the ignoring of Jesus' remark, "I go to him
who sent me" (7:33), readers are given dramatic proof of the studied refusal
to attend to this significant legal datum. The audience which ignores Jesus'
testimony refuses to know God. Out of their own mouths they are convicted.
Furthermore, Jesus' statement contains cryptic references to an important
theme in this gospel, namely, whence Jesus comes and whither he goes. We
saw in regard to 7:27 that outsiders regularly "judge by appearances" and
so constantly misunderstand whence Jesus comes (see also 7:41-42, 52).
Similarly, they fail to understand whither he goes. The narrator and his
informed audience know that Jesus comes from heaven and from God, his
true whence, and that he goes back to God and to heaven (1:1-18; 13:1-3;
17:5). Dolts like Nicodemus cannot understand whence wind comes and
whither it goes (3:8); if he cannot understand earthly things, he will never
grasp heavenly ones (3:12); likewise Jesus' critics and judges simply do not
know "whence are you?" (19:9) or think they know (6:41-42; 7:27, 41-42,
52). In 7:33-36, the audience does not even attend to whence Jesus comes
and utterly fails to understand whither he goes. Here they think that he will
leave Judea and go among the Dispersion (7:35), but in 8:22 they think that
he will commit suicide.
But let us examine more closely their misunderstanding of whither he goes.
They claim not to know what Jesus means by "you will seek me"; but is that
true? Granted that we are dealing with fictional characters, but has the
narrator given us sufficient clues to know whether they are telling the truth
when they ask "What does he mean by saying, 'You will seek me?'"?
Consider the following series of statements about people "seeking" Jesus:
"The Jews sought (eztoun) to kill him" (7:1)
"The Jews sought (eztoun) him at the feast" (7:11)
"Why do you seek (zteite) to kill me?" (7:19)
"Who seeks (ztei) to kill you?" (7:20)
"Is this the man whom they seek (ztousin) to kill?" (7:25)
"They sought (eztoun) to arrest him" (7:30)
"You will seek (ztsete) me and you will not find me" (7:34)
733

"What does he mean by 'You will seek (ztsete) me'?" (7:36)

"Seeking" Jesus, then, means either to "seek to arrest" him or to "seek to
kill" him; even seeking to arrest him serves as the prelude to killing him and
so comes to the same thing. "Seeking" in John 7 is tantamount to murder.
From the narrative point of view, then, this audience is either unbelievably
obtuse as to the public controversy over Jesus or it is lying when it says that
it does not know what Jesus means about "seeking" him. I favor the latter
interpretation for two reasons. In 7:20 the judges and critics of Jesus already
lied by asking "Who seeks to kill you?" when the narrator has clearly
informed his readers that they are in fact "seeking to kill him" (7:1); Jesus
know this and so asks the question, "Why do you seek to kill me?" (7:19).
Moreover, Jesus will shortly expose many of his audience as sons of the devil,
who is both liar and murderer from the beginning (8:44). Hence, we read the
crowd's question in 7:35-36 as a lie about murder; they are "seeking" Jesus
to arrest and kill him, but now they are lying about it.
But what did Jesus mean about "seeking and not finding"? In the other
gospels, those who seek find (Matt 7:7//Luke 11:9); seeking and finding have
to do with the kingdom of God. Like so many other double-meaning terms in
John, this admits of a wide range of meanings. On occasion it describes how
others find positive benefit by finding Jesus themselves or by finding others
whom they bring to Jesus (1:41, 43, 45) or finding pasture (10:9) or fish
(21:6). Jesus "found" the man healed of his disease who reports him to the
Jews (5:14) and "found" the man born blind who was excommunicated for
his testimony on Jesus' behalf (9:35); only in the latter case is this a positive
thing. In forensic circumstances, moreover, Pilate twice does not "find" any
cause to execute Jesus (18:38; 19:4). Still none of these meanings fits John 7.
Rather, what Jesus says is that ". . .you will not find me," which we take to
mean their impotence in arresting and killing him. The officers sent to arrest
him in 7:32 return empty handed in 7:45; and because his hour has not
come, those who try to arrest him in 8:20 cannot; and when the crowd takes
up stone to throw at him, Jesus hides (8:59); nor when they try to arrest him
in 10:39 can they succeed.
In summary, at first it seemed that Jesus was still acting the role of the
accused who testified once more in his defense. But the more we let ourselves
be educated by the evangelist, the clearer we learn to "judge justly" as Jesus
commanded. By this we perceive that roles are being reversed here: Jesus
begins to act as judge by accusing this audience of evil and proving it to be
sinful because (1) it does not know God, who sent Jesus and (2) it lies
publicly to cover up murderous intent. The ostensible judges do not judge
734

justly, but "judge by appearances" when they assesswhence Jesus comes

and whither he goes. And so the judges are judged.
2.2.5 Fifth Scene (7:37-44). Jesus bears new testimony in 7:37-39 that he is
the desired "water" for which pilgrims pray at the feast of Tabernacles.
Again people must judge his testimony, whether it is true or false, and again
the gospel records a divided judgment, "Some people said. . .Others said."
In the court of public opinion, some accept his testimony and render a
positive verdict about Jesus, "This is really the prophet. . .This is the Christ"
(7:40-41a), but others simply dismiss him (7:41b-42). In substance this
testimony repeats the earlier negative judgment of Jesus in 7:26-27.
John 7:26-27
John 7:41b-42
1. This is the Christ?
1. Is the Christ. . .
2. yet we know where this man 2. to come from Galilee?
comes from
3. When the Christ appears, no 3. Has not the Scripture said that the Christ is descended
one will know where he comes from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village
from.
where David was?

In each a claim is made to know whence Jesus comes (deJonge 1977a:9394).The narrator and audience now know how to evaluate these judgments.
In both cases, these people judge Jesus "according to the flesh," for they
clearly do not know "whence Jesus comes" (see 7:28). Thus we judge those
who falsely judge Jesus and condemn them. By wanting to "arrest him,"
moreover, they are allied with Jesus' judges and enemies (7:30, 32, 45) and
become equally guilty of attempted murder.
2.2.6 Sixth Scene (7:45-52). The forensic character of the whole narrative
becomes most apparent in 7:45-52. The arrest, which was engineered earlier
(7:32), fails; the guards sent to arrest him actually favor the accused and
bear favorable testimony on his behalf: "No man ever spoke like this man!"
(7:46). The judges, however, reject their testimony, "Are you led astray, you
also?" (7:47). In fact, this only confirms the original charge against Jesus,
namely, "He is leading the people astray" (7:12). Here is further proof for
the judges that Jesus is a false prophet and a danger to Israel.
The judges also dismiss the positive testimony from the crowd on behalf of
Jesus (7:12b, 40-41a); they are "accursed" (v 49). In the judges' cognitio,
therefore, the crowd's testimony, like that of the guards sent to arrest Jesus,
735

is not acceptable in this court. But another person stands and speaks,
someone with standing in the court. Nicodemus, "a ruler of the Jews" (3:1),
raises a point of law: "Does our law judge a man without first giving him a
hearing and learning what he does?" (7:51). How should the reader take
this? As further testimony on behalf of Jesus?
Commentators point out the ambiguity of Nicodemus in this context (Bassler
1989:639-40; deJonge 1977b:29-35):
(1) he is "one of them," that is, a member of the group judging Jesus;
(2) he says nothing favorable about Jesus; he does not acclaim him "a good
man," a "prophet" or the "Christ"; he merely asks a point of law;
(3) he is already characterized for the reader as the person "who had gone to
him before" (7:50); but he went "at night" (3:2; 19:39).
He cannot be said to be testifying on Jesus' behalf; he neither refutes the
charge that Jesus is a false prophet nor judges him justly (i.e., as a true
prophet). Thus he is not giving testimony on Jesus' behalf; he only raises a
point of law.
Yet he serves an important function in the forensic proceedings, for he calls
attention to the false judgment of the judges. Nicodemus is correct that a
true and just trial demands the face-to-face accusation of an alleged
malefactor and an formal investigation of the charges, something which in
11:45-53 is denied Jesus (see Pancaro 1972). By speaking up, Nicodemus
shows that this important factor of a just judgment is not being followed
here (Malina and Neyrey 1988: 124-26). As such, he functions as a witness
against the judges. Moreover, he occasions the further false judgment of the
judges who continue to judge "according to the flesh": "Search and you will
see that no prophet is to rise from Galilee" (7:52). The judges, then, have
passed judgment. But the narrative tells us clearly that they have judged
unjustly. And so these judges bring judgment upon themselves.
3.3 Summary and Conclusions. The narrator instructs us to read the entire
story of Jesus at the feast of Tabernacles in terms of an extended forensic
process (8:12-59 included). Sometimes the proceedings are informal, as when
"the people" or "the crowds" evaluate Jesus and testify for him or against
him (7:12, 40-43); at other times, a more formal process in envisioned (7:1424, 45-52). In terms of the formal elements of a forensic process, we can
identify the following:
736

(1) arrest, only attempted (7:30, 32, 44, 45-46);

(2) charges against Jesus: a false prophet who "leads the people astray"
(7:12, 41, 47), a sinner who violates the Sabbath (7:21-24);
(3) judges, the Pharisees and chief priests (7:32, 45-52) or "the Jews" (7:13,
15);
(4) testimony, either on Jesus' behalf (7:12b, 16-18, 21-24, 40-41, 46) or
against him (7:12c, 27, 41-42);
(5) cognitio: either the judges' examination of Jesus' testimony (7:14-14, 3743) or Jesus' scrutiny of the testimony of others (7:28-29);
(6) verdict: a guilty verdict implied in vv 30 and 44 when the court officials
"seek to arrest" Jesus;
(7) sentence: the references to "seeking" Jesus refer to a death sentence, i.e.,
they "seek to kill" him (7:1, 19, 34).
The judges, moreover, are formally instructed on the principles of right
judgment (7:24); and one participant instructs the judges about valid legal
procedure (7:51). On the narrative level, there is no doubt that there
are judges and a defendant. In keeping with the informality of forensic
proceedings in Jesus' time, the "court" might be constituted by the public
crowds and located in the city (7:11-12, 25-31, 40-43) or by the Pharisees and
chief priests and situated in the Temple (7:14-24, 32, 45-52). People indeed
render testimony about Jesus and pass judgment on him. The whole
narrative, then, should be read as an extended forensic process.
On the level of the gospel's narrative rhetoric, however, all of these judges
are themselves on trial. As they judge, so will they be judged. And so another
trial occurs, not just the trial of Jesus, but that of his judges. It is no accident
that the narrative keeps a strict record of the right and wrong judgments
made about Jesus:
Contrasting Judgments about Jesus
1. A saint 1. Not a saint
v 12 "a good man" v 20 "you have a demon"
v 21 lawbreaker
737

2. The Christ 2. Not the Christ

v 31 "when the Christ comes will v 27 "we know where he comes from"
he do more signs than this man?"
v 41 "this is the Christ" v 42 "the Christ...comes from Bethlehem"

3. A prophet 3. Not a prophet

v 40 "this is really the prophet" v 12 "he leads the people astray"
v 47 "are you led astray?"
v 52 "no prophet is to rise from Galilee"
Thus readers can judge the judges and test whether they are judging
according to appearances or whether they judge justly. As one judges, so is
one judged.
4.0 A Second Reading: Challenge and Riposte in an Honor-Shame Culture.
As illuminating as a formal study of John 7 in terms of forensic proceedings
might be, such a reading is not enough. It tells us some things, perhaps many
things, but it remains at the level of interesting, but surface description.
Such a literary and formal reading of the trials (forensic) of Jesus does not
and cannot tell us about the pervasive social and cultural tribulations of
Jesus narrated in the gospel. If we choose to ask different questions, we must
do a second reading of the material. What questions? Social and cultural
ones such as: Why do these people fight constantly? What is their conflict
about? How do they generally fight, because only rarely are people put on
trial? When we ask these questions we are inquiring about the cultural
world of the Fourth Gospel of which conflict is a familiar aspect. The best
way to examine the cultural nature of the tribulations of Jesus described in
the Fourth Gospel is to employ concepts and models from the cultural
anthropology of honor and shame. The pervasive tribulations of Jesus in the
Fourth Gospel, we maintain, are about the honor of Jesus, that is, his status
738

and role. As Aristotle and other ancient informants tell us, any successful
person in that cultural world will be subject to envy and attacked in any
number of ways (Rhet. 2.10.1; see Elliott 1992:58-60). Trials (forensic) are
but one form of this envious conflict (Cohen 1995:61-118). Let us then begin
to read John 7 in terms of honor and shame and the conflict over reputation,
worth and fame which is dramatized there.
4.1 Meaning of Honor and Shame. Over the years, this journal has published
a number of studies of biblical documents which use the formal model of
honor and shame (Moxnes 1993; Collins 1995; Elliott 1995). It is not
necessary to repeat the entire model, but only to make salient remarks to
guide our second reading. In general, honor is the abstract, general term for
the positive worth, value, reputation and fame of a person. It refers to the
public evaluation of an individual in city or village in terms of the code of
excellence (aret) or cultural norms for success of the ancients. Classicists
and anthropologists of the Mediterranean world both ancient and modern
consider honor as a pivotal value in this cultural world (Peristiany 1966;
Malina 1993; Cohen 1995). Greeks and Romans alike were driven by a love
of honor, which inspired them to boldness and success. This positive public
evaluation might be expressed in a variety of ways, as Aristotle notes:
Honor is a sign of reputation for doing good . . .The components of honor are
sacrifices [made to the benefactor after death], memorial inscriptions in
verse or prose, receipt of special awards, grants of land, front seats at
festivals, burial at the public expense, statues, free food in the state dining
room, among barbarians such things as proskynesis and rights of
precedence, and gifts that are held in honor in each society; for a gift is a
grant of a possession and sign of honor, and thus those ambition for money
or honor desire them. Both get what they want: those ambitious for money
get a possession, those for honor an honor (Aristotle, Rhet. 1.5 1361a.271361b.3, trans. George A. Kennedy 1991:59-60).
Yet, what is honor? A leading authority on the topic describes it as both a
claim to worth and the public acknowledgment of that claim:
Honour is the value of a person in his own eyes, but also in the eyes of his
society. It is his estimation of his own worth, his claim to pride, but it is also
the acknowledgment of that claim, his excellence recognized by society,
his right to pride (Pitt-Rivers 1977:1).
By this he means that people present themselves to their peers and neighbors
as worthy. This might be an individual claiming for himself respect because
739

of some prowess or benefaction or a family claiming for its offspring the

same regard in which the family itself is held. Yet claims mean nothing
unless acknowledged by some public; for, honor comes down precisely to this
public grant of worth and respect. If claims are publicly acknowledged, then
a grant of honor is bestowed. Should claims be rejected or challenged, shame
becomes a possibility. For shame refers to the denial of respect and worth or
to its loss.
4.2 Sources of Honor. How does one get public respect and worth?
Reputation and evaluation occur in two ways, either ascribed worth or
achievement based on merit. Ascribed honor is like an inheritance: simply
by virtue of birth (or adoption) into an honorable family, appointment to
office by an elite, or consecration for sacred tasks, worth, status and regard
are given to someone independent of actions or merit. Ascribed honor
becomes a life-long trait, such that the person is always and in every
situation viewed by some appropriate title or status (e.g., "father," "king,"
"master"). Conversely, individuals could achieve a reputation and fame
through merit, excellence (aret), and prowess. Prowess in military, athletic
and literary competitions earned ancient Greeks battle trophies and laurel
wreaths, as well as celebration in literature (besides Homer, see 1 Sam 18:78; 21:11; 29:5). Aristotle, writing about urban elites, describes how honor is
earned through civic benefaction.
All of these examples depict how an elite person might perform socially
recognized deeds of excellence in the civic center and receive official
recognition of success and worth. What of achievement by non-elites in very
modest circumstances? Honor, worth, respect and reputation are generally
achieved even by non-elites in the ubiquitous and constant game of pushand-shove which characterized the agonistic nature of ancient societies. Not
simply on the battle field or at the Olympic games or at the royal court did
individuals merit the praise of others; they might just as well seek and earn
it in the ordinary intercourse of daily life through the game of challenge and
riposte. But why does honor involve challenge? how does it necessarily imply
conflict?
4.3 An Agonistic World: Conflict Over Limited Goods.
Honor apparently leads invariably to conflict because of the way those who
pursue it understand their world. Classicists often describe the ancient
world as a highly agonistic society (Vernant 1988:29-56; Walcot 1978: 52-76
and Goulder 1965:41-77). They observe how the ancients competed
vigorously and continuously for success and thus for the reputation and
740

honor which it brings. It takes little imagination to recall how Jesus is

constantly engaged in conflict, whether we describe this in terms of
responsive chreia in the synoptics or forensic proceedings in the Fourth
Gospel. In all gospels, we maintain, this conflict was a competition for
respect and honor. Yet this combat and conflict needs to be understood in
terms of a cultural perception of "limited good" if we are to understand why
it was so pervasive and intense and why the stakes so high. George Foster,
the premier expositor of the cultural perception of limited good defines it as:
By "Image of Limited Good" I mean that broad areas of
peasant behavior are patterned in such a fashion as to
suggest that peasants view their social, economic, and natural
universes--their total environment--as one in which all of the desired things
in life such as land, wealth, health, friendship and love, manliness and honor,
respect and status, power and influence, security and safety,exist in finite
quantity and are always in short supply, as far as the peasant is concerned.
Not only do these and all other "good things" exist in finite and limited
quantities, but in addition there is no way directly within peasant power to
increase the available quantities (1965: 296).
What are the likely outcomes if one perceives the world
in this fashion? Foster suggests an intense conflict which
is motivated by envy: "[A]ny advantage achieved by one individual
or family is seen as a loss to others, and the person who makes what the
Western world lauds as 'progress' is viewed as a threat to the stability of the
entire community" (Foster 1972:169). Why? If the supply of good things is
radically limited, the gain by one person must come through loss by another.
And if the "good" for which people are competing is "honor," which exists
in a very limited supply, then any claim to worth by another will inevitably
be seen as threat to the worth and standing of others. Jesus' success, then,
was perceived by many of the people around him as their personal loss. And
no honorable person can afford to lose the most precious thing he has,
namely, his honor or public reputation, without a fight. Failure to stem the
loss of public reputation would itself be shame, which is the equivalent of
social death.
Although Foster describes modern peasant villages in Latin America, the
same perception seems equally true of the Greco-Roman and Semitic worlds
of antiquity. For example, an anonymous fragment of Iamblicus
states: "People do not find it pleasant to give honor to
someone else, for they suppose that they themselves are
being deprived of something" (cited in H. Diels, Die
741

Fragmente
der
Vorsokratiker.
5th
ed.
Berlin:
Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1935. 2.400). Plutarch
describes the discomfort which people experience
listening to a successful lecturer which he credits to their
own perceived loss of worth at the lecturer's rise in
reputation: "As though commendation were money, he
feels that he is robbing himself of every bit that he
bestows on another" (On Listening to Lectures 44B).
Finally, Josephus not only tells of the envious discomfort
of his rival as Josephus' success increased, but of the
behavioral consequences of thinking this way, namely,
aggressive envy and rivalry: "But when John, son of
Levi. . .heard that everything was proceeding to my
satisfaction, that I was popular with those under my
authority and a terror to the enemy, he was in no good
humour; and, believing that my success involved his own
ruin, gave way to immoderate envy. Hoping to check my
good fortune by inspiring hatred of me in those under my
command, he tried to induce the inhabitants of Tiberias,
Sepphoris, and Gabara -- the three chief cities of Galilee
-- to abandon their allegiance to me and go over to him,
asserting that they would find him a better general than I
was" (Josephus, Life 122-123).
The perception of limited good can be observed in two incidents in the
Fourth Gospel, both of which are invitations to conflict. First, the disciples of
the Baptizer are outraged by the rising success of Jesus, for they rightly
perceive that his gain is their loss (3:25-26). Their very complaint to their
leader and mentor indicates that they are poised to combat Jesus' success in
some fashion. But the Baptizer untypically accepts his loss at Jesus' gain and
refused to act agonistically and in envy of Jesus: "He must increase, but I
must decrease" (3:30). In this rare instance, combat is avoided because the
person losing honor interprets the loss as divinely authorized; after all, John
"was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light" (1:8). It was John's
role to "bear witness to him, and cry, "This is he of whom I said, 'He who
comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me'" (1:15). He dutifully
fulfilled that role by pointing out Jesus to his own disciples, "Behold, the
Lamb of God" (1:29, 36), with the inevitable consequences that Jesus would
increase at his expense. Not so the Pharisees and the Jewish council! They
too perceive Jesus' success and interpret his gain as their loss in public
worth (11:47-48). But unlike the Baptizer, they act agonistically and in envy
742

to destroy Jesus (11:49-53). Both Mark and Matthew indicate that "it was
out of envy that they handed Jesus over" (Mark 15:10//Matt 27:18). They
acted true to their culture in envying Jesus' success and acting to reduce his
stature and even crush him. Jesus' gain means their loss, and they were not
mandated by God to allow this.
Therefore, why do the ancients, Greeks and Semites, fight? They perceive all
of the worlds' goods to exist in a very limited supply -- including and
especially honor-- such that the rise in another's fame and reputation
necessarily means loss to others and to themselves. The conflict, moreover, is
over the most valuable of all "goods," namely, honor and public worth. Such
a perception necessarily leads to envy and the desire to level the successful
person. As David Cohen has noted, in classical Athens the envious and
competitive ancients use the law courts as the forum and vehicle of
expressing this conflict and envy, a point which has relevance for the forensic
proceedings against Jesus (1995: 61-142). Thus even the Fourth Gospel is no
stranger to this cultural pattern of perception and action; and so, it should
come as no surprise to find Jesus engaged in endless tribulations (honor
challenges) from those who perceive themselves to be losing in the
competition for this very limited good.
4.4 Challenge and Riposte. Given the cultural facts of an agonistic world, the
cultural perception of limited good and the inevitable envy which arises, we
are in a position now to describe in a general way the shape and aim of
conflictual dynamics in antiquity, that is, challenge and riposte. In
describing the kinds of challenges that occur in an honor-shame world,
Bruce Malina distinguishes between positive and negative one (1993:34-37,
42-45; Malina and Neyrey 1991: 29-32). For our purposes, we focus on
negative challenges. Negative challenges describe the actions of an enemy or
adversary who explicitly sees to humiliate or slight or offend another. They
can occur when someone physically or verbally attacks another person,
engages in sexual aggression against another man's wife or drags him to
court. These actions all have but one purpose: to harm the reputation of the
successful person and so to level them or at least to reduce their prestige to
an acceptable level.
A typical challenge situation tends to have the following four steps (Bourdieu
1966:215): (1) a claim to honor, often implicit, (b) a challenge to that claim,
(c) a riposte to the challenge, and (4) a public verdict of honor or shame
bestowed by the audience which must be present during the contest.
Inasmuch as "honor" comprises the ability to defend what is one's own
(property, wife, reputation, etc.), a riposte must be given to an honor
743

challenge, lest the person so challenged be dismissed as a wimp or a patsy or

an easy mark. With this cultural model of conflict in mind, let us re-read the
trials (forensic) of Jesus in terms of honor challenges.
4.5 Conflict in John 7: Challenge and Riposte in an Honor-Shame World
4.5.1 Technical and Equivalent Terminology for "Honor" in John 7. Earlier
in the narrative, Jesus declared that it was the will of God that he be
honored with an exceedingly great honor. God had put all judgment in
Jesus' hands "that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He
who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him" (5:23).
This claim was made to Jesus' very critics, who, far from acknowledging it,
prosecute him as a sinner and seek his shame, even his death (5:17). Given
the narrative link between chs 5 and 7, the same claim to honor remains
before both the narrative characters and the readers. Although the technical
term "honor" (tim) does not occur in John 7 (see 4:44), equivalent
expressions focus the challenge-riposte dynamics in terms of assessing Jesus'
worth, status and reputation. Jesus himself articulates a key principle in the
game of honor: "He who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory;
but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true" (7:18). "Glory"
(doxa) is often and correctly translated as reputation or fame; it means
"public opinion" quite simply, that is, "honor" (for doxa/glory as a synonym
of honor, see Rom 16:25-27; Eph 3:20-21; Jude 24-25; 2 Peter 3:18) As Jesus
states the case, ambitious achievers seek honor for themselves, while those
with ascribed honor seek honor for the ascriber. Aristotle and other
rhetoricians do not praise but rather blame people who act for idiosyncratic
and selfish motives (Rhet 1.9.17-18). Therefore, the narrative maintains that
Jesus is not seek his own honor and "glory," but according to the virtue of
righteousness seeks what rightfully belongs to his Patron-Father who sent
him. He is not, then, acting out of "love of honor" or ambition.
In regard to "shame," although the technical term does not appear in John
7, the actions of Jesus' adversaries all converge on destroying his reputation
and discrediting him from social life. Negative labels such as "deceiver"
(7:12b, 47) and "demon possessed" (7:20), if sustained, would utterly
disvalue Jesus; negative evaluations of Jesus' place of origin likewise
discredit him: "nobodies" come from "nowhere." On negative labels, see
Malina and Neyrey 1988: 35-38.
Putting Jesus "on trial" may be the appropriate narratological and formcritical classification of the story in John 7. But being "on trial" is precisely
a test of Jesus' reputation, worth and status, in short, a test of his honor. The
744

very demand of Jesus that the audience "not judge by appearances, but
judge with right judgment" (7:24) is an unequivocal demand that Jesus'
honor claims be properly assessed and publicly acknowledged. Hence, the
narrator frames the rhetorical issue in John 7 as an issue of the honor and
shame of Jesus or the acknowledgment/rejection of his claims. Readers as
well as the characters in the narrative must make evaluative judgments
about Jesus, judgments of his worthiness or baseness, which are the grounds
for praise or blame.
4.5.2 Ascribed or Achieved honor in John 7? Three native criteria
for ascribed honor are clearly in the foreground of John 7: origins, teachers,
and authorization. Does Jesus come from an honorable city or region, a
typical topic whereby the ancients evaluated people in terms of their origins
(Neyrey 1994a: 181-82, 189-90; Malina and Neyrey 1996:23-26). In terms of
the honor one derived from being born and raised in a certain city, we cite
the rules from the progymnasmata of Menander Rhetor for composing an
encomium on a city. These rules were educational commonplaces in
antiquity; all who learned to write Greek were schooled in them. They
represent, moreover, the general cultural code of honor of the Hellenistic
world. The very first thing an author should note when composing an
encomium on someone is the honor which accrues simply from being born in
an honorable city (or country). Because of its relevance for this study, we cite
Menander in full:
If the city has no distinction, you must inquire whether his nation as a whole
is considered brave and valiant, or is devoted to literature or the possession
of virtues, like the Greek race, or again is distinguished for law, like the
Italian, or is courageous, like the Gauls or Paeonians. You must take a few
features from the nation . . . arguing that it is inevitable that a man from
such a [city or] nation should have such characteristics, and that he stands
out among all his praiseworthy compatriots (Menander Rhetor, Treatise II
369.17-370.10; trans. Russell and Wilson, p. 79).
Thus it was "inevitable" that a person from such an honorable city would
have its honorable characteristics. Both in the Fourth Gospel and in Acts,
Jesus and Paul are evaluated as honorable or worthy people precisely in
terms of their origins: Jesus was dismissed by Nathanael simply because he
came from the village of Nazareth (John 1:46), whereas Paul claimed
honorable status because he was from Tarsus, "no low-status city" (Acts
21:39) and had visited Philippi, "the leading city of the district of
Macedonia" (16:12).
745

In regard to the second criterion for ascribed honor, has Jesus been taught
by a wise and respected teacher? Again, in the rules for composing an
encomium in the progymnasmata, writers and speakers are instructed to
pay attention to "nurture and training" which consisted of an evaluation of
the person's education (paideia), his teachers, arts and skills (techn), and
grasp of laws (nomoi). We cite again Menander Rhetor:
Next comes "nurture." Was he reared in the palace? Were his swaddlingclothes robes of purple? Was he from his first growth brought up in the lap
of royalty? Or, instead, was he raised up to be emperor as a young man by
some felicitous chance? If he does not have any distinguished nurture (as
Achilles had with Chiron), discuss his education, observing here: "In
addition to what has been said, I wish to describe the quality of his mind."
Then you must speak of his love of learning, his quickness, his enthusiasm
for study, his easy grasp of what is taught him. If he excels in literature,
philosophy, and knowledge of letters, you must praise this. If it was in the
practice of war and arms, you must admire him for having been born
luckily, with Fortune to woo the future for him. Again: "In his education, he
stood out among his contemporaries, like Achilles, like Heracles, like the
Dioscuri" (II. 371.17- 372.2; trans. Russell and Wilson, p. 83).
In terms of ascribed honor, we highlight several things here. Individuals
were thought to be shaped, molded and formed by their mentors and
teachers, whose stamp they henceforth bore. Given the reverence for the
past and the importance of tradition and the cultural expectation of living
up to the mos maiorum (the customs of the ancestors) in ancient culture,
young men were only as good as their teachers and those who formed them
in the social values enshrined in their past culture. This correlates with the
preceding notion of family stock. If the parents were noble, so must the
children be; if the teachers were excellent, so must the pupil be.
Hence, when the question is raised, "How is it that this man has learning,
when he has never studied?" (7:15), several things are in view. First, it seems
to be a public fact, at least in the Johannine narrative world, that Jesus did
not have a formal paideia and did not sit at the feet of any teacher, such as
Paul did (Acts 22:3). This fact, moreover, implies that Jesus' worth can only
be as good as the quality of his teachers; hence, if he had no teachers at all,
much less distinguished ones, then there is no way to test or acknowledge his
learning. His claims to learning, then, seem presumptuous and vain. The
dispute over whether he speaks "on his own authority" or on the "authority
of another" expresses the controversy over his education quite plainly; this
may be simply a case of vainglory if Jesus falsely and foolishly claims to
746

know something (see 1 Cor 3:18; 8:2) but because he has not engaged in the
process which leads to wisdom and knowledge, he speaks on his own
authority, which is empty and pretentious. Finally, formal lack of education
was a cause for public shame even in the New Testament, to judge by the
treatment of Peter and John in Acts 4:13.
The third indicator of ascribed honor is raised by Jesus himself who claims,
neither to be acting on his own authority nor to be seeking his own glory, but
to be "sent" and speak on the authority of another and to seek the glory of
his sender (7:16-18; see Borgen 1968).
We might summarize the argument in John 7 by noting that Jesus'
adversaries credit him with ambitiously trying to achieve honor and respect,
albeit vainly and erroneously. They refuse to acknowledge any claims to
achieved honor and see no grounds for conceding ascribed honor, especially
honor deriving from culturally correct education. The narrator, on the other
hand, presents Jesus' status and worth in terms of ascribed honor, which is
likewise continually rejected by Jesus' adversaries. The precise debate over
"judging by appearances" (7:24) might be accurately paraphrased as a
controversy over the correct assessment of the source of Jesus' honor and
worth: is it achieved or at least claimed on the basis of achievement, as some
interpret the scene? or is it ascribed to Jesus by the most honorable person
in the cosmos, as the narrator claims? John 7 presents a public debate with a
"divided" crowd and hence a divided verdict: "While some say 'He is a good
man,' others said, 'No, he leads the people astray'" (7:12) and "So there was
division among the people over him" (7:43).
4.5.3 Challenges to Jesus. We will understand the challenges to Jesus in
proportion to our appreciation of the claims made by him or for him. The
narrator addressing the fictional audience has already made substantial
claims on Jesus' behalf. He is "the Word" who is face-to-face with God and
actually in the bosom of God (1:1, 18). John the Baptizer, "a burning and
shining lamp" (5:35) bore testimony on Jesus' behalf as a superior person
who "ranks before me, for he was before me" (1:15, 27, 30). Most of the
narrator's claims on Jesus' behalf can be discerned when we see whether
characters in the story acknowledge or reject Jesus in any way. After all,
claims are either acknowledged or rejected. Again the Baptizer is the
greatest acknowledger of Jesus' honor: "I have seen and have borne witness
that this is the Son of God" (1:34) and "Behold, the Lamb of God!" (1:29,
36; see also 5:32-35). Nathanael, an Israelite in whom there is no guile,
acknowledges Jesus: "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of
Israel!" (1:49). Nicodemus (3:2), the Samaritans (4:42), crowds in Galilee
747

(6:14-15), crowds in Jerusalem (7:12a, 40-41a; 9:17, 33; 11:27; 12:13) all
acknowledge Jesus' role and status as a King or Prophet or Son of God or
Christ. Truly exalted claims are made by Jesus in 7:37-39 to be the
replacement for the prayed-for water and rains during the feast of
Tabernacles; but the author does not record any reaction whatsoever to
these claims. Yet claims to worth and status are constantly being made
throughout the Fourth gospel and even in John 7.
Of course, this record of acknowledgement and testimony on Jesus' behalf is
hardly the entire story of the Fourth Gospel, as most scenes and episodes
deal with refusals to acknowledge Jesus' claims to honor. According to the
choreography of honor and shame interchanges, these refusals are formal
challenges to him. We focus here only on the challenges to Jesus in John 7,
which are both numerous and deadly serious. The entire narrative consists
of an escalating series of challenges to Jesus. First, his brothers urge him to
go publicly to the feast, which we consider as a challenge for several reasons.
As the narrator indicates, "even his brothers did not believe in him" (7:5)
and they belong to the world which hates Jesus (7:7); hence they belong to
the camp of Jesus' adversaries and so their remarks should be seen as
hostile. Their implied motivation, while not to see Jesus arrested and killed,
appears to be self-serving, namely, that Jesus continue to gain a great
reputation, which will enhance their own standing as "brothers." Their
"challenge," then, is to take a large share of Jesus' reputation and fame,
which we saw in the discussion of limited good" means that Jesus must lose
as they gain.
Second, challenges to Jesus in John 7 are typically cast in terms of the
forensic process waged against Jesus. Most obvious are the charges leveled
against him by the various "courts" who evaluate and judge him. For
example, as we have seen, Jesus is engaged in a forensic process in 7:15-24,
where the residual charge against him appears to be his previous healing on
the sabbath (5:10, 16): "I did one deed, and you all marvel at it" (v 21).
Other forensic judgments are made about him which attack his popularity
and public reputation, such as, "He is leading the people astray" (7:12) and
"How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?" (7:15).
Third, in keeping with the forensic process, others challenge Jesus when they
testify against him and present arguments which attack his claims. For
instance, some argue that Jesus cannot be the Messiah because they know
whence he comes, but when the Messiah comes no one will know where he
comes from (7:27). Others point to the fact that Jesus is from Galilee, but as
all know, the Christ is not to come from there, but being "descended from
748

David, he comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was" (7:41-42).
Finally, the Pharisees and chief priests contest Jesus' role and status as a
prophet by declaring that "No prophet is to rise from Galilee" (7:52). Thus
any claims made that Jesus is the Messiah (7:31, 41) or a prophet (7:40, 52)
are challenged outright.
Thus his "brothers" and his formal adversaries and the crowds each
challenge Jesus, but in different ways. Yet in their challenges, each
completely misses and thus fails to acknowledge the core of Jesus' claims,
namely, his ascribed role and status: that he has an "hour" assigned him for
his works (7:6), that he is authorized to do what he does (7:16-18) and that
he "comes from" an exalted person who ascribes him great honor (7:25-29).
4.5.4 Always Answer a Challenge. Challenges must be answered; failure to
deliver a riposte normally results in loss of honor. As we shall see, the
ripostes come first and foremost from Jesus himself, with occasional
assistance from others. The narrative presents Jesus adroitly giving a riposte
to each of the three challenges just noted above. First, Jesus flatly rejects the
suggestion of his "brothers" to perform more signs or honor claims at this
time; it may be "their time," but his hour has not yet come (7:6). They, in
effect, belong to "the world" which hates Jesus, which only serves to
distance Jesus and his true disciples from his adversaries (see 15:18-25).
Jesus effectively dismisses them with a command, "Go to the feast
yourselves" (7:8); he refused their challenge to manipulate him for their own
honor. He defends his honor by not being put upon or manipulated, which
pattern Gibson has noted occurring in 2:1-10; 4:46-54; 7:1-8 and 11:1-16.
As we noted above, 7:15-24 contains a number of key strategic moves
characteristic of a defense in forensic proceedings. Presuming that the
charges against Jesus and the current public hearing are themselves
challenges to him, Jesus mounts a careful riposte to the charges. His
teaching and thus his authority to heal on the Sabbath come from God; and
this God is "true, and in him there is no falsehood" (7:18). He has adequate
"learning" to speak, hence he is no false prophet who leads the people
astray. Jesus, moreover, only seeks God's honor, not his own advancement;
hence he acts honorably, not dishonorably (7:18) in speaking as he has been
commanded. Moreover, in defense of his healing on the Sabbath, Jesus offers
a legitimate defensive argument: if Moses authorizes circumcision on the
Sabbath, surely making a broken man whole on the Sabbath is permitted
(7:23). Each and every accusation or insinuation is answered directly, often
by simply being denied.
749

Again, as noted above in the section on forensic proceedings, it is

characteristic for the narrator of the Fourth Gospel to present a "turning of
the tables" during forensic proceedings against Jesus. Jesus himself
articulates the shape of his riposte when he commands of his judges, "Do not
judge by appearances, but judge with right judgement" (7:24; 8:15). The
judges themselves are put on trial and judged according to the judgment
they make, that is, whether they truly know whence Jesus comes. In the
choreography of honor and shame dynamics, this means that forensic
proceedings against someone are effectively challenges to them, and that the
turning of the tables means that the defendant's riposte consists of
conducting the same proceedings against his accusers. Thus the narrative of
the forensic trial equals a challenge to Jesus; but by the "turning of the
tables" on the judges, he issues the groundwork for a fitting riposte.
In this vein, we interpret Jesus' bold accusations against his accusers as
appropriate ripostes to challenges to him. If they accuse him of leading the
people astray and violating the Sabbath, he returns the compliment by
accusing them of murder (7:19) and lying (7:20). These countercharges are
more than the turning of the tables and the judgment of the judges
according to the measure with which they judge. Judging according to
appearances is an evil, but it is not in the same category as murder and
lying.
In the third instance of challenges to Jesus (7:26-29), he rebuts certain false
claims to know whither he comes with a question, which we noted above
often serves as a rhetorical index of a challenge. "You know me, and you
know where I come from?" (7:28). The impact of Jesus' response depends on
the audience appreciating the irony of the moment: very few people truly
know "whence Jesus comes," although many claim to know. According to
the narrative, their claim is false and Jesus mocks it (7:28), thus beginning
his riposte. The rebuttal continues when Jesus says "I have not come of my
own accord; he who sent me is true, and him you do not know. I know him
for I come from him" (7:28-29). Aside from the fact that we have claims and
counterclaims to correct knowledge, it is simply insulting on Jesus' part to
call his audience both stupid and lying. Yet, such "insults" according to the
choreography of honor represent a legitimate riposte to a prior challenge.
The narrator emphasizes the power of the insult-riposte when he tells that as
a result of Jesus' testy remark "they sought to arrest him" (7:30).
Apart from Jesus' personal ripostes to challenges, two other narrative
characters come to his defense and participate in the process of delivering a
riposte to challenges to Jesus. The officers sent by the chief priests and
750

Pharisees to arrest Jesus return empty-handed (7:32, 45). Why? "No man
ever spoke like this man!" (7:46). On the narrative level, it is always a coup
of honor for an accused or executed person to elicit a final grant of honor
and respect from his executioner (see Matt 27:54 and Luke 23:47). It does
not matter if these officers are dismissed as "lead astray" and "accursed"
(7:47, 49), they have borne their testimony which challenges Jesus'
challengers. Second, Nicodemus, whether a true disciple or only one in
secret, proposes a legal question which works on Jesus' behalf, "Does our
law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he
does?" (7:51). However we evaluate this as a formal defense of Jesus, it
serves to call in question the legitimacy of the challenges to Jesus, thus
embarrassing them for their envious challenge in the first place. In the
narrative, it was perceived as a gross insult to which a curt and stinging
riposte is returned: "Are you from Galilee too? Search and you will see that
no prophet is to rise from Galilee" (7:52).
Moreover, despite the official censure of public discussion of Jesus, the
officials do not have their way in silencing all defense and praise of Jesus,
which challenges the negative evaluations and judgments; in contrast to the
accusation that Jesus leads the people astray, some declare that "He is a
good man" (7:12-13); and juxtaposed to those who argue that Jesus cannot
be the Christ, others state "When the Christ appears, will he do more signs
than this man has done?" (7:31); and canceling the judgment that Jesus
cannot be the Christ because he is not from Bethlehem, some acclaim him
favorably: "This is really the prophet!" and "This is the Christ" (7:40-41).
Thus the "schism" or divided judgment about Jesus contains both
challenges and ripostes on his behalf. The challenges just will not stick, and
so Jesus' honorable role and status remain acknowledged, at least by some.
5.0 Conflict in Two Keys: Summary and Conclusions
This study has focussed on conflict in John 7, both the trials (forensic) and
tribulations (honor challenges) of Jesus. We hope to have shown that the
narrative in ch 7 (along with 8:12-59) enjoys a distinctive unity in terms not
only of the context which is the Feast of Tabernacles, but especially in terms
of the extended forensic proceedings occurring. From a literary and formal
consideration, John 7 consists of an extended trial of Jesus. Knowing the
conventions of a forensic proceeding, we were able to identify the various
characters in the narrative according to their proper role in a trial, thus
learning how to read the story more accurately in light of the author's
formal shaping of the narrative and his ideological perspective.
751

But it would have been shameful to rest contented with this literary, formcritical reading. For if we would truly understand the record of conflict
described in the story, we need more social tools to sort out the cultural
elements which go into an adequate reading of the conflict. To this end, we
turned to the anthropology of honor and shame. This culturally appropriate
model instructed us on things which could never be gleaned from even the
most exacting literary and formal-critical analysis. We learned what the
conflict was all about, namely the worth, reputation and status of Jesus -- his
honor rating. Moreover, we learned more about the code of honor, that is,
the typical things which the ancients considered in evaluating someone's
worth, in this case the cultural importance of "origins/birth" ("whence")
and "nurture and training" (paideia or education). The forensic model of
analysis simply cannot tell us the importance of such things. Furthermore,
we learned about the social and cultural patterns of Jesus' world, how they
assessed honor in terms of ascription or achievement, how they perceived
the limited character of all goods, including and especially honor, how
success inevitably breeds envy, and finally how they typically fight by means
of the choreography of challenge and riposte. John 7 is that much richer for
reading it in two keys, literary-formal and cultural. With this perspective we
begin to see that conflict, pure and simple, is the dominant game in town,
whether it is expressed literarily in terms of chreia or forensic proceedings.
Finally, what do we know if we follow these interpretative leads? First and
foremost, the rhetorical strategy of the gospel writer has been and remains
the honoring of Jesus as a person of incalculable worth, status and prestige.
For it is the will of God that "all shall honor the Son, even as they honor the
Father. Who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent
him" (5:23). Hence, not only are the signs of Jesus told to elicit honor, but
also the stories of conflict in which Jesus acquits himself nobly. The signs
were performed and narrated "so that you may believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God" (20:31); they manifest his "glory" or honor (2:11).
They are, then, his claims to worth and status. But his forensic trials serve to
highlight that his claims are truly defensible and that Jesus, the honorable
man, knows how to defend his honor and thus earn our continual esteem
and praise. The author, then, presents Jesus according to the value system
and cultural code of his world, namely, honor and shame. And he portrays
Jesus as a fully honorable person, both in terms of ascribed honor
(origins/birth, education, authorization) and in terms of his ability to claim
and defend his honor. If honor is the pivotal or premier value of the author's
cultural world, then Jesus should be reckoned as a most exalted and worthy
and celebrated person. This kind of value statement simply cannot be
gleaned from a mere study of the forensic process.
752

Works Consulted
Ashton, John
1991 Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Attridge, Harold W.
1980 "Thematic Development and Source Elaboration in John 7:136," CBQ 42: 160-70
Bassler, Jouette M.
1989 "Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel," JBL 108: 635-46
Blank, J.
1959 "Die Verhandlung vor Pilatus, Joh 18,28-19,16 im Lichte johanneischer
Theologie," BZ 3: 60-81
Borgen, Peder
1968 "God's Agent in the Fourth Gospel." Pp. 137-48 in Jacob Neusner,
ed., Religions in Antiquity. Leiden: E.J. Brill
Bourdieu, Pierre
1966 "The Sentiment of Honour in Kabyle Society." Pp. 191-241 in J.G.
Peristiany, ed., Honour and Shame. The Values of Mediterranean Society.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Brown, Raymond E.
1966 The Gospel According to John. AB 29. Garden City: Doubleday
Cadbury, Henry J.

753

1979 "Roman Law and the Trial of Paul." Pp. 295-337 in F. Jackson and K.
Lake, eds., The Beginnings of Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House. Vol 5
Carson, D.A.
1982 "Understanding Misunderstandings in the Fourth Gospel," TynBul 33:
59-91
1991 The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans
Cohen, David
1995 Law, Violence and Community in Classical Athens. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Collins, Matthew S.
1995 "The Question of Doxa: A Socioliterary Reading of the Wedding at
Cana," BTB 25:100-109
Derrett, J. Duncan M.
1971 "Law in the New Testament: The Parable of the Unjust
Judge," NTS 18: 178-191
1982 "Law and Society in Jesus' World," ANRW II.25.1 pp. 477-564
1991 "Circumcision and Perfection: A Johannine Equation," EvQ 63: 211-24
de Jonge, Marinus
1977a "Jewish Expectations about the 'Messiah' According to the Fourth
Gospel." Pp. 77-116 in his Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God.
Missoula, MT: Scholars Press
1977b "Nicodemus and Jesus: Some Observations on Misunderstanding and
Understanding in the Fourth Gospel." Pp. 29-47 in his Jesus: Stranger from
Heaven and Son of God. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press
Elliott, John H.
754

1992 "Matthew 20:1-15: A Parable of Invidious Comparison and Evil Eye

Accusation," BTB 22:52-65
1995 "Disgraced Yet Graced: The Gospel According to 1 Peter in the Key of
Honor and Shame," BTB 25: 166-78
Falk, Z.W.
1972 Introduction to Jewish Law of the Second Commonwealth. Leiden:
Brill
Foster, George M.
1965 "Peasant Society and the Image of Limited Good," American
Anthropologist 67:293-315
1972 "The Anatomy of Envy: A Study in Symbolic Behavior," Current
Anthropology 13:165-86
Gibson, C. H.
1980 "Suggestion, Negative Response, and Positive
Action in St. John's Portrayal of Jesus (John 2.1-11; 4.4654; 7.2-14; 11.1-44)," NTS 26:197-211
Gilmore, David D., ed.
1987 Honor and Shame and the Unity of the
Mediterranean. American Anthropological Association
Special Publication # 22.Washington, D.C.: American
Anthropological Association
Goulder, Alvin W.
1965 Enter Plato: Classical Greece and the Origins of
Social Theory. New York: Basic Books
Harvey, A.E.
1976 Jesus on Trial. A Study in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta:
John Knox press
Jacobs, Louis
755

1971 "Sukkot," Encyclopedia Judaica 15.496-502

Kelly, J.M.
1976 "'Loss of Face' as an Inhibiting Factor." Pp. 93-111 in his Studies in the
Civil Judicature of the Roman Republic. Oxford: Clarendon
Kennedy, George A.
1991 Aristotle, On Rhetoric. A Theory of Civil Discourse. Oxford: Oxford
University press
Khler, Ludwig
1956 "Justice in the Gate." Pp. 149-775 in his Hebrew Man. London: SCM

Knig, Eduard
1905 "Tabernacles, Feast of," The Jewish Encyclopedia 11.656-62
Leroy, Herbert
1968 Rtsel und Missverstndnis. Bonn: Peter Hanstein
Lincoln, A.T.
1994 "Trials, Plats and the Narrative of the Fourth Gospel," JSNT 56: 3-30

Mack, Burton L. and Vernon K. Robbins

1989 Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press
Malina, Bruce J.
1993 The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology.
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox
Malina, Bruce J. and Jerome H. Neyrey
756

1988 Calling Jesus Names. The Social Value of Labels in Matthew. Sonoma,
CA: Polebridge Press
1991 "Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean
World." Pp. 25-65 in J. H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts.
Models for Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
1996 Portraits of Paul. An Archeology of Ancient Personality. Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox Press
Martyn, J. Louis
1979 History and Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. 2nd ed. Nashville:
Abingdon Press
McKenzie, D.A.
1964 "Judicial Procedure at the Town Gate" VetT 14: 100-105
Moxnes, Halvor
1993 "Honor and Shame," BTB 23: 168-77
Neyrey, Jerome H.
1984 "The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul's Trial Speeches in Acts 22-26:
Form and Function." Pp. 210-24 in C. H. Talbert, ed., Luke-Acts. New
Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar. New York:
Crossroad
1985 The Passion According to Luke. A Redaction Study of Luke's
Soteriology. New York: Paulist Press
1987 "Jesus the Judge: Forensic Process in John 8,21-59," Bib 68: 509-42
1988 An Ideology of Revolt. John's Christology in Social-Science
Perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress Press
1994a "Josephus' Vita and
Personality," JSJ 25:177-206

the

Encomium:

Native

Model

of

1994b "'What's Wrong with This Picture?' John 4, Cultural Stereotypes of

Women, and Public and Private Space," BTB 24: 77-91
757

1995 article on honor and shame and the passion of John 18-19 (due last Nov
from Semeia)
Pancaro, Severino
1972 "The Metamorphosis of a Legal Principle in the Fourth Gospel. A
Closer Look at Jn 7,51," Bib 53:340-61
Peristiany, J.G., ed.
1966 Honor and Shame. The Values of Mediterranean Society. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press
Pitt-Rivers, Julian
1968 "Honor," IESS 6.503-11
1977 The Fate of Shechem or the Politics of Sex. Essays in the Anthropology
of the Mediterranean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Richard, Earl
1985 "Expressions of Double Meaning and their Function in the Gospel of
John," NTS 31: 96-112
Rochais, G.
1993 "Jean 7: Une construction littraire dramatique, la manire d'un
scnario," NTS 39: 355-78
Rger, Hans Peter
1969 "Mit welchem
werden," ZNW 60:174-82

Ma

ihr

met,

Russell, D.A. and N.G. Wilson

1981 Menander Rhetor. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Rylaarsdam, J.C.
1962 "Booths, Feast of," IDB 1.455-456.

758

wird

euch

gemessen

Sherwin-White, A.N.
1963 Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Swarney, Paul R.
1993 "Social Status and Social Behaviour as Criteria in Judicial Proceedings
in the Late Republic." Pp. 137-55 in Baruch Halpern and Deborah Hobson,
eds.., Law, Politics and Society in the Ancient Mediterranean World.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press
Trites, A.A.
1977 "The Concept of Witness in the Fourth Gospel." Pp. 78-127 in his The
New Testament Concept of Witness. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Ulfgara, Hakan
1989 Feast and Future. Revelation 7:9-17 and the Feast
of Tabernacles. ConB NT series 22. Almqvist and Wiksell
Vernant, Jean-Pierre
1988 Myth and Society in Ancient Greece. New York: Zone Books
Von Wahlde, U. C.
1981 "The Witnesses to Jesus in Jn 5:31-40 and Belief in the Fourth
Gospel," CBQ 43: 385-404
1984 "Literary Structure and Theological Argument in Three Discourses
with the Jews in the Fourth Gospel," JBL 103: 575-84
Walcot, Peter
1978 Envy and the Greeks. A Study in Human Behaviour. Warminster: Aris
and Phillips

759

"The Foot Washing in John 13:6-11; Transformation

Ritual or Ceremony?"
Jerome
University of Notre Dame

H.

Neyrey,

S.J.

Pp. 198-213 in L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough, eds., The Social World of the
First Christians. Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress,. 1995
I. Introduction and Hypothesis

The narrative in John 13:4-20 is notoriously complicated.(1) The evangelist narrates Jesus'
washing of the disciples' feet (13:4-5), a conversation with Peter (13:6-11), and then a
general discourse about footwashing (13:12-20). But the remarks in vv 12-20 hardly serve
as an adequate or proper commentary on the events in vv 6-11. (2) Similarities abound
between 13:6-11 and 12-20, but the differences deserve attention. (3) (1) Peter becomes
Jesus' conversation partner in vv 6-9, whereas all the disciples are addressed in vv 12-20.
(2) Peter is told "You do not know" (v 7) but will understand later, whereas all of them are
clearly "in the know" during the general explanation of the rite: "You know what I have
done" (v 12) . . . "If you know these things, honored are you if you do them" (v 17). (3)
Jesus tells Peter, "Unless (ei m) I wash. . ." (v 8), whereas they "ought" (opheilete) to
wash others' feet (v 14) -- different notions of obligation. (4) Jesus' action will make Simon
and others "pure" (katharoi, vv 10-11), whereas their washing of others' feet will make
them "honored" (makarioi, v 17). (5) The remark in v 10 identifies someone who is not
pure, "You are clean, but not every one of you." The evangelist says that this refers to Jesus'
betrayer: "He knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, 'You are not all clean'" (v
11). In contrast, when Jesus mandates washing of feet, he alludes to a traitor, "I am not
speaking of you all; I know whom I have chosen" (v 18); he quotes Ps 41:9 about a
treacherous table companion. "Clean" and "chosen" are different things, as are Jesus' own
words and a snatch of psalm. (6) The "now/later" distinction functions differently: Peter
does not understand now, but will later (v 7), whereas all of them know "now," so that
"later" when the prophecy comes true, they will remain faithful (v 19).
The action in 13:6-11 signifies something quite different from what is discussed in vv 1220. Some event on Jesus' part warrants notice as an "example," which Jesus commands to
be repeated (vv 15, 17).(4)But what was described in vv 6-11 is a distinctively Johannine
conversation(5) about an unrepeatable action. Jesus' action in vv 6-11 and his remarks about
"purification" simply do not parallel what is discussed in vv 12-20, an action repeated
whenever the group gathers.
760

Notions of "ritual" and "ceremony" from cultural anthropology can serve as important lens
for sharpening our perception of 13:6-11 and explaining the differences between the two
accounts of Jesus' symbolic action. "Ritual" refers to rites of status transformation, such as
baptism, marriage, consecration, in which individuals change status and role. "Ceremony"
refers to rites which confirm roles and statuses, such as anniversaries, priestly rites,
triumphal parades, and the like. In 13:6-11 Peter is urged to undergo a status
transformation ritual to become "wholly clean" and so have a special inheritance or place
with Jesus. In 13:12-20, however, the disciples are told to practice a ceremony in which
their role and status is confirmed by acts of hospitality to group members. Peter's
footwashing ritual has to do with his transformation into the role of an elite, public witness
to Jesus with accompanying risk of death - a one-time event. Conversely,
the ceremony which the disciples will perform to members of their circle confirms their
role and status as leaders of the group - an action to be repeated regularly. Two different
rites are described in 13:6-11 and 12-20, and the use of materials from anthropology offers
a fruitful way of clarifying the social dynamics of the narrative.
II. Cultural Anthropology: Rituals and Ceremonies

Victor Turner described the difference between ritual and ceremony:

"I consider the term 'ritual' to be more fittingly applied to forms of religious behavior
associated with social transitions, while the term 'ceremony' has a closer bearing on
religious behavior associated with religious states. . . Ritual is transformative, ceremony
confirmatory."(6)
The following diagram compares and contrasts
change rituals and ceremonies which confirm status.(7)
ELEMENTS OF A RITUAL
1. frequency: irregular pauses
2. schedule/calendar: unpredictable, when needed

the

elements

of

status

ELEMENTS OF A CEREMONY
1. frequency: regular pauses
2.
schedule/calendar:
predictable,
planned
3. temporal focus: past-to-present
4. presided over by: officials

3. temporal focus: present-to-future

4. presided over by: professionals
5. purpose: status reversal; transformation roles and statuses in
5. purpose: confirmation of status
institutions
(1) Frequency: Both rituals and ceremonies represent pauses in life's rhythms. Certain
pauses occur irregularly (sickness, uncleanness), which we call rituals, that is, pauses which
allow us to assume new and different roles and statuses. Other pauses, which occur
routinely in our lives, we call ceremonies (meals, festivals). These do not effect change of
role or status, but confirm them. (2) Calendar: Ritual pauses occur unpredictably; we
761

undergo them when necessary. No one plans to be ill or unclean; but when sickness or
pollution occur, rituals for changing from those states are handy. Some rituals are
unrepeatable status changes, such as birth, coronation, death and the like. On the other
hand, ceremonial pauses occur on fixed calendar dates, such as Sabbath and Passover. We
anticipate and plan for them. (3) Time Focus: Ritual pauses take us from present needs to
the future, as we change our current status and assume a new role in the future.
Ceremonies, however, look to the past and celebrate its influence on the present. Past roles
and statuses continue to exist in the present and influence present social dynamics.
(4) Presiding:
Different
kinds
of
people
preside
over
rituals
and
ceremonies. Professionals (physicians, prophets) preside over or direct status
transformation rituals. These are the "limit breakers" whom society allows to deal with
marginal people as they cross fixed social lines. (8) Officials (father at Passover meals,
temple priests) preside over or direct the appropriate ceremonies in their
institutions. 5) Purpose: Ceremonies leave in place the lines of the maps of society, because
they function to confirm the values and structures of society and to celebrate the orderly
classification of persons, places and things in the cosmos. (9) For example, birthdays,
anniversaries, pilgrimage feasts and the like confirm the roles and statuses of individuals in
the group as well as the group's collective sense of holy space and holy time which pertain
to its festivals. Ceremonies look to the stability of the lines of society's maps. Conversely,
rituals attend precisely to those lines, but focus on their crossing. Rituals are stable ways of
dealing with necessary instability in the system: a boy and a girl cross lines to become
husband and wife in a marriage ritual; sick people cross lines and become healthy (Lev 14;
Mark 1:44); sinners become purified (Luke 18:13-14). The converse is also true: a
seemingly innocent person may become guilty through a ritual trial. The status of those
who cross lines is thereby changed, and so these rites are called "status transformation"
rituals. If ceremonies look to the center of the map and the stable lines which make up the
map, rituals look to the map's boundaries. These should be stable, but may be legitimately
or fraudulently crossed.
A. Footwashing (13:6-11) as Ritual of Status Transformation
Using our model of a ritual, let us examine Jesus' washing of Peter's feet. (1)Frequency:
this ritual occurs just once in the Fourth Gospel. (10) Since the meal had begun when Jesus
rose to wash his disciples' feet, this ritual occurs as an irregular pause in a ceremonial meal.
(2) Calendar: the narrator locates the general meal in the context of Passover, a fixed
calendar date (13:1). Because the footwashing in 13:4-5 is not a fixed element of Passover
or any other known Jewish meal, it is an irregular, unpredictable pause; it arises then
because it was needed ("Unless. . ."). (3) Time Focus: the present footwashing looks to the
future: "Unless I wash you, you have no part in me" (13:8). The narrator evokes no past
action of Jesus here, as in 13:14-15; rather a new status with Jesus depends on what is
presently happening. (4)Presiding: Jesus presides over the ritual. Were this an act of
etiquette which welcomed guests to a ceremonial meal, Jesus would be an official of the
kinship institution which celebrated its commitment through commensality. But his
washing of Peter's feet has nothing to do with welcoming etiquette or meal participation.
This action will make Peter "wholly clean," a status which he cannot now enjoy, unless
Jesus performs this ritual. Jesus, then, acts here as a professional, not an official. He allows
762

Peter to cross from one status ("already bathed") to a better status ("wholly
clean"). (5) Purpose: Whatever role and status Peter enjoyed prior to 13:6, Jesus requires
that he undergo this ritual for two reasons. First, unless he accepts this, "You will have no
part in me." Second, when completed, Peter will be "wholly clean." As regards the former
purpose, this footwashing resembles other status transformation rituals in the Fourth
Gospel, many of which are presented under the rubric of "unless":
3:3 Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
3:5 Unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6:53 Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood,
you have no life in you.
8:24 Unless you believe that 'I AM,' you will die in your sins.
12:24 Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone.
13:8 Unless I wash you, you have no part in me.
15:4 As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you,
unless you abide in me.
John 3:3 and 5 refer to the status transformation ritual of baptism. (11) Outsiders become
insiders by virtue of this entrance ritual. (12) Jesus demands of prospective disciples in 8:24
that they acclaim him by a confession of his divinity, thus changing status from outsiders or
luke-warm disciples to that of first-class insiders. Later even this confession is deemed
insufficient; something more is required. Like grains of wheat, disciples must be willing to
die (12:24; see 16:1-2; Mark 8:34-37). Jesus tells Peter, who is already a member of the
circle, that still more is needed, that his current status is inadequate, and that while he is
"bathed," he is not yet "wholly clean." Finally, unless branches abide through thick and
thin, they bear no fruit.
Most of these "unless" statements, then, describe status transformation rituals. Some
represent the radical change of status from that of outsider to insider (3:3, 5). Others
763

indicate a change of insider status, from less complete to more complete disciple and from
imperfect to perfect follower. Indeed, there seems to be a sense of escalation in these
statements: first, mere membership (3:3, 5); then, elite confession (8:24); then, elite
behavior (12:24).
According to the story's logic, Peter is a disciple who has passed one loyalty test (6:67-69)
and so enjoys basic membership and is part of the general circle of disciples (see 9:28). The
"part" Jesus offers in 13:8 would seem to be a new elite status.(13) The footwashing, then,
stands as the last, and perhaps the climax of these transformation rituals.
As regards the second stated purpose of this ritual, what does it mean to be "wholly
clean?"(14) Purity and cleanness are issues of considerable importance in this gospel. The
references are clustered in John 2-3 and 13-15. Jesus' initial sign has to do with
"purification," for the six jars at Cana which he filled stood there "for the Jewish rites
of purification(katharismon)" (2:6).(15) The gospel's logic argues Jesus replaces former rites,
feasts, places of worship, etc. with new and better ones. (16) The sign at Cana heralds the
beginning of new and better "purification" rituals, even status transformation rituals. The
narrator then presents a discussion of baptism between Jesus and Nicodemus (3:3-5), a
status transformation ritual for "entering the kingdom of God" (3:5). A brief notice is then
made of "a discussion between John's disciples and a Jew over purification (peri
katharismou)" (3:24). The gospel argues that Jesus' "purification" is superior to all others,
as well as essential for special status.
Talk about purification occurs again in 3:6-11 and 15:1-3. In the latter place, Jesus states
that the vinedresser "takes away" unfruitful branches, but "prunes" fruitful one (15:2).
"Pruning" masks the actual verb used, namely, "to purify" (katharizein). Hence more
cleansing awaits disciples, despite the fact that they were already cleansed in baptism. In
13:10 Jesus affirmed that some have already "bathed and do not need to wash";
nevertheless they still need to have their feet washed so as to become "wholly clean."
Likewise in 15:3 Jesus affirms, "You are already made clean (katharoi) by the word which I
have spoken to you"; nevertheless they will be made "clean" when pruned/cleansed by the
vinedresser. In 15:1-3, then, a status transformation ritual is envisioned, whereby an already
"clean" disciple will take on a new status of "cleanness" (a branch which bears more fruit),
when cleansed by the vinedresser. This ritual transforms mere insider status to that of elite
or perfect insider status. This status transformation occurs through suffering (see 12:24 and
16:1-2).
These references to purification influence how we interpret "wholly clean" in 13:10. At a
minimum, Jesus' washing of Peter's foot is a washing, whose aim is purification. Like other
washings, it too is a status transformation ritual, not a mere entrance ritual, but a ritual
whereby an insider gains a better status, a more perfect role. Peter will be wholly clean,
something impossible without this ritual. The comparison of 13:6-10 with 15:1-3 suggests
764

that this footwashing is more than a mere washing ritual; perfect katharismos comes about
by public confession and even risk of death (16:1-2).(17)

B. Footwashing (13:12-20) as a Ceremony

If 13:6-11 describes a ritual of status transformation, a different type of ritual action is
portrayed in 13:12-20. Because this does not involve change of role or status but rather
confirmation of them, let us read vv 12-20 according to the model of ceremony.(18)
(1) Frequency: Jesus mandates in 13:12-15 that the feet of church members be regularly
washed as a standard part of their gatherings. Whereas Peter would be washed once and
then be "wholly clean," the feet of the members of the group would be washed again and
again. How often? If this footwashing is, as I suspect, an act of etiquette which welcomes
people to a ceremonial meal (see Luke 7:44-46; 1 Tim 5:10), then it would be repeated
whenever the group gathered. We simply do not know how frequently they gathered,
whether only at Passover (13:1) or at Sabbath or the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). But
as often as they gathered, this act of etiquette would be appropriate. (2) Calendar: this
footwashing is expected with every gathering, and should occur regularly at the beginning
of the ceremony. It is not the emergency ritual which interrupted the meal in progress when
Peter's feet were washed. (3) Time Focus: it harkens to the past example of Jesus which
should be presently imitated by the group's leaders. Jesus calls attention to his past action as
the warrant for its continuation in the present: "Do you know what I have done to you? . . .
If I have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet" (13:12, 14). Present
roles and relationships among the Johannine group depend on the past action and example
of Jesus. (4) Presiding: Jesus presides at this footwashing as an official. If footwashing
belongs in the orbit of etiquette and etiquette denotes commensality, then Jesus presides
over that ceremony. (5) Purpose: The purpose of this footwashing in 13:12-16 is manifold.
Jesus confirms his own role and status by this act: "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord'; and
you are right, for so I am" (13:13). Then he alludes to himself as "Master" (13:16). Yet the
appropriate act of this Teacher-Lord-Master is to wash the feet of disciples and servants,
thus offering them welcome. By presiding at this ceremonial washing, Jesus confirms his
unique role as Teacher-Lord-Master and his exalted status, even if the action done is
"humble" in our eyes. Only the person of this exalted role and status within the group is
expected to perform this action.
So when those whose feet Jesus has washed in turn wash the feet of others, they do so
precisely as leaders of the group. In Jesus' absence, they enjoy roles and status comparable
to that of Jesus, who enjoyed a superior role and exalted status. Hence, Jesus' word
legitimates their position. In their ceremonial actions they are like the master; they are not
"greater than their master" so as to avoid this action. Rather as "servants" they imitate their
"master": "A servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he
who sent him" (13:16). They too will be officials presiding at this ceremony. Their
765

performance of this action will serve to confirm their role a leaders and teachers of Jesus'
group. Moreover, they wash the feet of members of the church, and so the status of those
washed is confirmed as authentic members of this Jesus synagogue.

III. Who Participates in These Rituals & Ceremonies?

Who gets elevated to what role or status in the ritual in 13:6-11? Was the
transformation successful? Was the new status acknowledged? I ask these questions in light
of recent studies which argue that readers must attend to the whole of the story in John 13.
(19)
Although focussing on Peter, we compare and contrast him with other candidates for
ritual transformation in John 13. The narrator highlights four characters: Jesus, who
presides at all the rituals and ceremonies, and three candidates for the rituals: Peter (vv 610, 36-38), Judas (vv 11, 18, 24-29), and the Beloved Disciple (vv 23-26). Since Collins'
work(20) readers are sensitive to the representative nature of the dramatis personae of the
Fourth Gospel. This pertains to our analysis of status transformation rituals, for we should
inquire about the characterization of the candidates for ritual transformation.
Peter He is typically presented in this gospel in terms of comparison and contrast.(21) On the
narrative level, he is contrasted in 13:6-11 with Judas, just as he was in 6:67-71. If Jesus
washes him he will be "wholly clean," which juxtaposes him with Judas, who is "not
clean." Yet he is also contrasted with the Beloved Disciple. In seeking to know the traitor's
identity, Peter asks the BD to ask Jesus.(22) Peter's alleged primacy among the Twelve stands
in contrast with the actions of the Beloved Disciple. He is "in the know," Peter is not; he
enjoys the place of honor next to Jesus, whereas Peter reclines further away. As we shall
see, the BD and Peter will be contrasted first as shepherd and sheep (18:15-16) and then as
loyal disciple (19:26-27) and disloyal coward (18:17, 25-27).
Jesus converses with Peter again in 13:36-38. His remark to him there resembles that in
13:7. Peter cannot follow Jesus now, just as he does not know now what Jesus is doing. But
"you will follow afterward," just as "afterward you will understand." This suggests that
Peter remains in a liminal or candidate state of transformation, incomplete both in
knowledge and following. Jesus refuses acknowledgment that Peter has achieved the new
status signalled in 13:6-11. He will not prove a loyal disciple, willing to die for the Master.
Thus, the narrator compares and contrasts Peter with both Judas and the Beloved Disciple.
The BD knows and follows most closely -- not so Peter; Judas disguises himself and plots
malice -- not so Peter, who openly professes loyalty, but fails the test of courage. Yet the
narrative says that Peter will know afterward and follow afterward. Hence he remains in a
liminal stage of the ritual; his status and role have not yet been transformed. He is not yet
an elite figure, but neither is he a hostile outsider.
766

Judas Readers were told that the devil had already put it into Judas' heart to betray Jesus
(13:2), a remark which echoes 6:70-71 where loyal and disloyal disciples were contrasted.
Jesus then labels him "not clean" (13:10b-11). Despite Jesus' washing of his feet, Judas
certainly will not be transformed to elite status, especially if it means public loyalty to
Jesus. Judas, then, appears disloyal and demonic (3:27).
According to 13:12-15 Jesus' ceremonial washing of the disciples' feet confirms both
membership status and specific roles. But this does not apply to Judas. After giving the
mandatum, Jesus excepts Judas from the ceremony: "I am not speaking to you all; I know
whom I have chosen" (13:18). Indeed he identifies Judas as the one who violates the basic
laws of commensality: "'He who ate my bread has lifted up his heel against me'" (13:18b).
He certainly did not participate in the status transformation ritual (he was not made "clean")
nor was he confirmed as a group member in the ceremony. He fails as regards both ritual
(vv 6-11) and ceremony (vv 12-20).
Beloved Disciple We learn abruptly that he is "the one whom Jesus loved." His intimacy is
symbolized by "lying close to the breast of Jesus" (13:23); from Jesus he receives special
information hidden to all else: "Lord, who is it?" (13:25-26). Thus, he acts as Peter's broker
or mediator; what Peter lacks, the Beloved Disciple has or can get. He is, then, the
consummate insider, a true elite, who has access to knowledge of deviants in the group.
Finally, he follows Jesus most closely, both to Caiaphas' house and to the cross, displaying
public loyalty at the risk of his life. He would appear to have achieved the new status
suggested by the footwashing ritual in 13:4-5, as well as confirmed group membership
according to 13:12-20.
When we survey the characters in John 13 and ask about their participation in the rituals
and ceremonies described there, we find the following characterization:
Person
Peter
Judas
BD

Ritual (13:6-11)/Ceremony (13:12-20)

1. ritual: still a candidate for failed status
2. ceremony: confirmed group member
1. ritual: no status transformation ("One is not clean")
2. ceremony: group membership denied ("I am not speaking of you all")
1. ritual: elite status transformation
2. ceremony: confirmed group member

IV. Peter: Claimant for the Role of Good Shepherd

767

Characterization
transformation
loyalty
hostile
disloyalty
courageous
loyalty

We turn now to "the Noble Shepherd" materials, for these involve Peter and influence how
we should read the narrative in John 13. Jesus enjoys the role of the Noble Shepherd. When
calling the sheep by name, leading them out or laying down his life for them, he acts as the
Noble Shepherd and confirms his role. Yet Peter too lays claim to this role.
In 13:37 Peter protests to Jesus that "I will lay down my life for you" (13:37), which is
what the shepherd does. We compare this with Jesus' remark to Peter in 13:6-11, and note
striking formal similarities between the two conversations.
13:6-8
13:36-38
1. Question by Peter: "Lord, do you wash my
1. Question by Peter: "Lord, where are you going?" (13:36)
feet?" (13:6)
2. Answer from Jesus: Jesus answered and said 2. Answer from Jesus: Jesus answered him: "Where I am
to him: "What I am doing you do not know now, going you cannot follow now, but afterward you will
but afterward you will understand" (13:7)
follow" (13:36b)
3. Peter's Boast: Peter said to him: "You shall 3. Peter's Boast: Peter said to him: "Lord, why cannot I
never wash my feet" (13:8)
follow you now? I will lay down my life for you" (13:37)
4. Response from Jesus: Jesus answered: "Will you lay
4. Response from Jesus: Jesus answered him:
down your life for me? Amen, amen I say to you, the cock
"Unless I wash you, you have no part in me"
will not crow, until you have denied me three times"
(13:8)
(13:38)

Both conversations are formally similar in terms of topics discussed and rituals of status
transformation described. In both, Jesus tells Peter that he does not know and cannot follow
Jesus now; but afterwardhe will understand and follow. When Peter speaks in 13:36, he
remains a candidate for the elite status which the "footwashing" symbolized. Yet his present
boast of loyalty unto death implies that he presents himself as no mere candidate for elite
status, but a tested and acknowledged holder of that status. Peter's boast of loyalty,
moreover, denotes another claim, namely the role of a "noble shepherd, who lays down his
life for another.
TheNoble Shepherd (10:11)
Peter, the Shepherd? (13:37)
The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep I will lay down my life for you

After Jesus commands that his disciples "love one another" (13:34-35), he defines that
"love" in terms of what the noble shepherd does: "Greater love has no one than this, that a
man lay down his life for his friends" (15:13). Noble Shepherds, then, love by laying down
their lives for their sheep/friends. Peter claims in v 37 both the status of an elite disciple and
768

the particular role of "noble shepherd." But has he been formally initiated to that role? Does
anyone acknowledge it?
Jesus challenges his claim to this new status, indicating that Peter remains but a candidate
for the new role and status. Instead he predicts that Peter, far from being the noble
shepherd, will instead act like a hireling, who sees the wolf coming and flees (10:12). If this
is true, then the narrator issues a serious challenge to Peter's role vis--vis the group.
According to Johannine logic, the hireling has no relationship with the sheep: "He who is a
hireling, whose own the sheep are not . . . He flees because he is a hireling and cares
nothing for the sheep" (10:12-13). Whatever the Johannine group knew of the traditional
role and status of Peter, that would be severely challenged by Peter's association here with
the hireling and not the shepherd. Who, then, is the noble shepherd? The Beloved Disciple
fulfills that ceremonial role. Returning to Jesus' parables of shepherds, doors, and sheep in
10:1-4 and 11-13, we learn that the true shepherd enters the door; the doorkeeper
recognizes and admits him; and he calls the sheep by name. This fully describes what the
Beloved Disciple does in 18:15-18.
Metaphorical Description of the Noble Shepherd

Johannine Description of the Beloved Disciple

1. BD Enters By the Door: "As this disciple was
1. Shepherd Enters by the Door: "He who enters by the known to the high priest, he entered . . . while
Peter stood outside at
door is the shepherd of the sheep" (10:2)
the door" (18:15)
2. Gatekeeper Recognizes Him: "So the other
2. Gatekeeper Recognizes Him: "He who enters by the
disciple, who was known to the high priest,went
door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper
out and spoke to the maid who kept the door"
opens." (10:2-3)
(18:16).
3. He Leads the Sheep In/Out: "He calls his own sheep by
3. He Leads the Sheep In: "Peter stood outside
name and leads them out. When he has . . brought out all
the door. The other disciple spoke to the maid
his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him"
who kept the door and brought Peter in" (18:16).
(10:3-4)(23)
In fact, using the perspective of this study, we should label the actions described in 18:1518 as a ceremony. The respective roles of Beloved Disciple and Peter are confirmed as
shepherd and sheep. Far from being either shepherd or noble, Peter acts out the inferior role
of the sheep.
Yet the conflict over who is the group's shepherd ends only in John 21. There the
evangelist presents Peter again in terms of rituals of status transformation. The scene opens
with Peter assuming the role as chief fisherman: "I am going fishing" (21:3). When six
others join him, Peter's role as leader of Jesus' followers is ceremonially confirmed (see
Luke 5:1-11). Yet Peter's ideal role is not Fisherman, but Shepherd. Yet this scene alerts us
to examine the role and status of Peter once more.

769

Jesus serves a ceremonial meal confirming his role as host and provider, that is, shepherd
who feeds his flock. Then he addresses Peter in a way which signals a radical
transformation of his status. Readers know that Peter failed thrice in loyalty (13:38; 18:17,
25-27). Despite his claims to the contrary (13:36-38), he has been presented, neither as
"noble" nor as "shepherd," but as a hireling or sheep. Now Jesus questions Peter, and in
doing so transforms his status to that of loving/loyal disciple and publicly acknowledges his
role as shepherd.
Question:
Answer:
Status Transformation:
"Simon, son of John, do you love me more "Yes, Lord; you know that I "Feed
my
lambs"
than these?"
love you."
(21:15a,16a,17a)
"Tend
my
sheep"
(21:15b,16b,17b)
"Feed
my
sheep"
(21:15c,16c,17c)

This gospel labors to affirm that Peter finally becomes the group's shepherd. Through ritual
loyalty oaths, the status transformation of Peter is accomplished. Jesus himself
acknowledges it as he invests Peter with the role and status of Shepherd of all the sheep
("Feed my lambs . . . Feed my sheep").(24) It is now legitimate for Peter to act as "shepherd."
But is he also a "noble" shepherd?
The scene concludes with the prediction of Peter's death (21:18-19). Earlier Peter had
boasted that he would lay down his life for Jesus, only to have this challenged (13:38). Now
Jesus' prediction acknowledges Peter's earlier claim. But is this too a status transformation
ritual? Does it add anything to the role and status of Peter?
At this point, we should ask about the relationship of 13:6-11 to 21:18-19. In the former
passage, Jesus would make Peter "wholly clean." But at that point, can Peter be "clean,"
much less "wholly" clean, for he will fail in loyalty (13:36-38)? Jesus told Peter "What I am
doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand" (13:7). When did Peter
finally know? These questions call attention to the problem of understanding fully what is
being communicated in 13:6-11. It narrated an incomplete ritual, whose completion lies
later and whose meaning will only be understood "afterward." But when?
The answers come in 21:18-19. Peter becomes "wholly clean" though a death whereby
"God will be glorified" (21:19). The failure in loyalty is replaced by a declaration of "love"
(21:15-17).(25) The ungrasped meaning of Jesus' actions is met with full understanding of
Jesus' words in 21:19.

770

According to ritual analysis, Peter the initiand should experience status elevation by
becoming "wholly clean" (13:10); but Jesus refused to acknowledge any change of status
(13:36, 38). Peter remains a candidate for status transformation, as Jesus twice tells him
that completion of the ritual lies in the future ("afterwards you will know," v 7; "you will
follow afterward," v 36). In 21:15-17 and 18-19 the Fourth Gospel finishes Peter's status
transformation. He is finally acknowledged to be the official and unchallenged Shepherd
("Feed my lambs . . . Feed my sheep," 21:15-17). Likewise his status as "noble" shepherd is
acknowledged; he can truly "follow Jesus" and "lay down his life for him" (13:37). His
death as faithful witness will seal his status as an elite disciple, courageous, loyal and
perfect according to the canons of this gospel. In his death, he will become "wholly clean."
In conclusion, by itself cultural anthropology cannot fully interpret the symbolic meaning
of the footwashing in 13:6-11. Nothing replaces the study of background materials (26) and
redactional inquiry.(27)But its use aids in clarifying what Jesus intends for Peter in vv 6-10 (a
status change) and what his example means for the disciples in vv 12-20 (confirmation of
their ceremonial roles).
A model of rites of status change and status confirmation greatly assists our reading of the
Fourth Gospel. This gospel records precious few successful ceremonies. Since attention is
focussed on boundary crossings and status changes (i.e. "unless . . ."), we are urged to focus
on the social conflict within and without the Johannine community; this is helped by noting
the shifting demands made of disciples, which are expressed in terms of new rites of status
transformation. This model, moreover, greatly clarifies the rivalry between the symbolic
figures Peter and the Beloved Disciple, when we see the latter successfully if temporarily
acting as the ceremonial Noble Shepherd. The figure of Peter, moreover, remains in a state
of
change
and
uncertainty
until
the
final
ritual
in
21:15-19.
NOTES
1. On the distinction between 13:6-11 and 12-20, see Fernando Segovia, "John 13:1-20:
The Footwashing in the Johannine Tradition," ZNW 73 (1982) 31; Arland Hultgren, "The
Johannine Footwashing (13:1-11) as Symbol of Eschatological Hospitality,"NTS 28 (1982)
539-40; Karl Kleinknecht, "Johannes 13, die Synoptiker und die 'Methode' der
Johanneischen Evangelienberlieferung," ZTK 82 (1985) 366-68.
2. Rudolf Bultmann (The Gospel of John [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971] 466-67)
insisted that there are two interpretations of the footwashing, vv 6-11 and 12-20. Similar
observations can be found in Edwyn Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel(London: Faber and
Faber, 1947) 436-39; M.-E. Boismard, "Le lavement des pieds (Jn, XIII, 1-17)," RB 71

771

(1964) 5-24; and Herold Weiss, "Footwashing in the Johannine Community," NovT 21
(1971) 301-2.
3. Commentators distinguish the two interpretations in vv 6-11 and 12-20 in three basic
ways: Boismard ("Le lavement," 6-8, 18-20) contrasted sacramental with moral
interpretations (see also Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John [New
York: Crossroad, 1982] 3.21); Georg Richter (Die Fusswashung im
Johannesevangelium [Regensburg: Pustet, 1967] 252-78) distinguished a christological
interpretation from a sacramental one; Bultmann (The Gospel of John, 467) juxtaposed a
cleansing by hearing of the revealer's word with a gesture of humility.
4. Some identify 13:4-5 as the "action" which is then interpreted; see Robert T. Fortna, The
Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth
Gospel (SNTSMS 11; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970) 155-56.
5. The Johannine redactional elements include: (1) Simon Peter as a "representative
character" (see R.F. Collins, "Representative Figures in the Fourth Gospel," DRev 94
[1976]: 26-46, 118-32); (2) statement/misunderstanding/clarification (see J.H. Neyrey, An
Ideology of Revolt [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988] 42, 234 # 10 & 11); (3) dialogue with a
disciple (see R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 3.18); (4) knowing vs
not knowing; (5) purification (2:6; 15:3); (6) "unless. . ." demands (see Neyrey, An
Ideology of Revolt, 41, 138); (7) laying down/taking up (see R. E. Brown,The Gospel
According to John XIII-XXI (AB 29A; Garden City: Doubleday and Co., 1970) 551.
6. Victor Turner, The Forest of Symbols. Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1967) 95 (emphasis added); see also Raymond Firth and John
Skorupski, Symbol and Theory: A Philosophical Study of Theories of Religion in Social
Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) 164.
7. See Bruce J. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology. Practical Models for
Biblical Interpretation(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1986) 139-143. See also Jerome
Neyrey,Paul in Other Words(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990) 76-80, and
Mark McVann, "Rituals of Status Transformation in Luke-Acts: The Case of Jesus the
Prophet," The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation (J.H. Neyrey, ed.;
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991) 334-36.
8. "Limit breaker" is the term Bruce Malina (Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology,
144-54) uses to identify the professional presider at rituals of status transformation, whom
society authorizes to lead people across lines and boundaries usually judged dangerous.

772

9. On "purity systems" and "symbolic universes," see J. H. Neyrey, "The Symbolic

Universe of Luke-Acts: 'They Turn the World Upside Down,'" The Social World of LukeActs. Models for Interpretation, 271-304 and Paul, In Other Words, 21-55.
10. We should contrast it with two others in which Jesus is the recipient of the action. In
Luke 7:37-38 a woman interrupts a meal to wet his feet with her tears; Luke interprets this
as aceremonial act of welcoming etiquette which the host failed to extend to Jesus (vv 4446); such actions should confirm his status as "honored guest." In John 12:1-8, Mary
interrupted Jesus' meal with the family to anoint Jesus' feet (vv 2-3). Although this is an
anointing and not a "footwashing," we label it as a status transformation ritual, for it
constitutes part of Jesus' burial ritual (v 7). Ceremonial etiquette can be extended
repeatedly, not so ritual anointing for burial.
11. See Ignace de la Potterie, "'To be Born Again of Water and the Spirit' -- The Baptismal
Text of John 3,5," The Christian Lives by the Spirit (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1971)
1-36; David Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community(Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1988) 57-59, 66-70.
12. Rensberger (Johannine Faith and Liberating Community, 40) indicates that Nicodemus
is a symbolic character, namely, a representative of Jewish leaders who are unwilling to
come publicly to Jesus. See Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved
Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979) 68-73, 77-82, 89. Nicodemus' "baptism" would
elevate his status to that of a confessing member of Jesus' circle (see 9:22; 12:42), truly the
elite "inner circle."
13. Meros has been particularly difficulty to interpret. Often it means (1) a region or
place (Matt 2:22; 15:21; Mark 8:10; Acts 2:10; Eph 4:9; Rev 16:19), (2) a party or
faction(Acts 23:9; Josephus B.J. 1.143), (3) an inheritance (Rev 21:8; 22:19), or (4) a
member of the body (Eph 4:16). All of these meanings find a ready equivalent in Johannine
symbolic world: (1) Jesus speaks about "where" he is going and the mansions awaiting his
disciples (14:2); (2) we recognize many factions within the Johannine church, among them
the elite (12:24) and the cowards (9:22; 12:42); (3) rewards and inheritance ("peace,"
14:27; the Holy Spirit, 15:26; "bring forth much fruit," 15:2-6); and (4) member of Jesus'
group (i.e., vine and branch, 15:1-7).
14. "Clean" is one aspect of the semantic word field that has to do with purity and
pollution; see J.H. Neyrey, "Unclean, Common, Polluted and Taboo," Forum 4,4 (1988) 7282 and Paul, In Other Words, 54-55. Generally "clean" either has to do with the removal of
pollution, consecration for entrance or participation in a holy rite.

773

15. These presumably include the washing of hands and perhaps vessels (see Mark 7:2-4);
the volume of the six jars correlates with a house filled with wedding guests needing to
wash their hands before the wedding feast.
16. See J.H. Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt, 130-41. See James VanderKam, "John 10 and
the Feast of the Dedication," Of Scribes and Scrolls (Harold Attridge, John Collins and
Thomas Tobin, eds.; New York: University Press of America, 1990) 203-14. See Francis
Moloney, "From Cana to Cana (Jn 2:1-4:45) and the fourth Evangelist's concept of correct
(and incorrect) faith,"Salesianum 40 (1978): 817-43.
17. J.A.T. Robinson ("The Significance of the Foot-Washing,"Neotestamentica et
Patristica [Supp NovT 6; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1962] 144-47), noted the parallel between Mark
10:32-45 with its offer of "baptism" to James and John; Jesus' "way of the cross/way of
glory" must be imitated by his disciples. Robinson also links Peter's remarks in John 13:36
about willingness to follow Jesus, even unto death.
18. Although we focus on only one ceremony (13:12-20), this gospel notes two other types
which correspond to two key social locations: (1) the temple and pilgrimage feasts to the
nation's shrine and (2) the household and meals. As regards the temple, Jesus participates in
certain feasts such as Passover (2:13ff; 13:1ff), Tabernacles (7:2-8:20), Dedication (10:21),
and an unnamed feast (5:1ff). Ideally these should confirm his membership, role and status
in the political institution, but in the Fourth Gospel he challenges and replaces them,
thereby disrupting their function as confirming ceremonies. As regards the household, Jesus
confirms his association with circles of intimate friends (12:1-8; 13:1-17:26; 21:9-13) and
general disciples (6:1-15). Meals confirm his special role as host and provider when he
feeds others or his status as honored guest when they fete him. This sketch suggests that in
this gospel ceremonies are not functioning properly on the public level of participation in
the nation's ongoing socialization, which indeed is challenged by Jesus. But on the level of
private associations in households they do function to confirm membership, as well as
specific roles and statuses. On the importance of the temple/household distinction, see John
H. Elliott, "Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts: A Contrast in Social Institutions," The
Social World of Luke-Acts, 212-17, 230-38.
19. In particular, Francis J. Moloney, "A Sacramental Reading of John 13:1-38," CBQ 53
(1991) 242-48 and F. Manns, "Le lavement des pieds: essai sur la structure et la
signification de Jean 13," RevScRel55 (1981) 159.
20. "Representative Figures in the Fourth Gospel," 26-46, 118-32 and These Things Have
Been Written (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991) esp. 38-46; see Alan
Culpepper, The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983) 105,
118-123.
774

21. Increasingly New Testament scholars are studying the rhetorical device
called synkrisis or comparison, especially as this is found in the progymnasmata; see James
Butts, The Progymnasmata of Theon. A New Text with Translation and Commentary (diss.
Claremont Graduate School, 1986) 494-512. See Christopher Forbes, "Comparison, SelfPraise and Irony: Paul's Boasting and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric," NTS 32
(1986): 1-8; Peter Marshall, Enmity at Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul's Relations with
the Corinthians (WUNT 2.23; Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1987) 53-56, 325-29, 348-65; D. A.
Russell, "On Reading Plutarch's Lives," Greece and Rome 13 (1966): 150-151; P. A.
Stadter, "Plutarch's Comparison of Pericles and Fabius Maximus," GRBS 16 (1975): 77-85.
22. Compare this with a parallel process in 12:20-23. Certain "Greeks" ask to see Jesus.
They ask Philip, who asks Andrew, who takes them to Jesus. Hence certain people in this
gospel function as mediators or brokers of access and information, thus indicating their
special role and status.
23. According to the parable, the sheep know the voice of the shepherd (10:4-5); this seems
to be ironically illustrated in 18:15-18 when the maid recognizes the voice of Peter and
identifies him as a follower of Jesus, an association he denies.
24. Just as Jesus acted as the host of the ceremonial meal just finished (21:13), so Peter will
assume that role too, as Jesus tells him, "Feed my lambs. . .Feed my sheep" (21:15,17).
Whether we understand Jesus' command literally (Peter as host at genuine community
meals) or symbolically (Peter as shepherd who pastures the flock), Jesus designates him as
a ceremonial official.
25. Recall "greater love no one has than 'to lay down one's life'" (15:13); but "laying down
one's life for the sheep" is the mark of a noble shepherd (10:11). Hence "love" is linked
with the heroic loyalty of the shepherd. It is hardly incidental, then, that Jesus asks Peter
"do you love me?"
26. For example, the Torah speaks of two kinds of footwashings: (1) a ceremonial act of
hospitality to travelers before they eat (Gen 18:4; 24:32; Judg 19:21) and (2) a ritual
purification of priests before entering and ministering to the Lord (Exod 30:19-21; 40:31).
Philo gave a moral meaning to priestly footwashing, namely, blamelessness or walking in
the way of the Lord (Mos. 2.138; Q. Exod. 1.2); when a sacrificial animal's feet are washed,
the true follower of God no longer walks on earth, but in God's realm (Spec. Leg. 1.206);
see Herold Weiss, "Foot Washing in the Johannine Community," 315-17.

775

27. On the relationship of the footwashing in 13:6-11 to Jesus' death, see Hoskyns, The
Fourth Gospel, 435; Brown, The Gospel According to John, 2.551; J.D.G. Dunn, "The
Washing of the Disciples' Feet in John 13,1-20," ZNW 61 (1970) 249.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

John 4, Cultural Stereotypes of Women,
and
Public
and
Private
Space"
Jerome
University
Notre Dame, IN 46556

H.
of

Neyrey
Notre

Dame

1.0 Introduction.
1.1 State of the Question. For some, much is "wrong with this picture" of the
Samaritan woman. Certain critics focus on the marriage or sexual aspects of the story
(Carmichael 1980:336-40). Eslinger (170-71), for example, identifies many double
entendres regarding wells, living waters and springs as metaphors for sexual
intercourse. These double entendres suggest that something is "wrong with this
picture" in that the woman and Jesus appear to be engaged in a sexual game in
violation of the cultural conventions for shame-guarding females in antiquity.
Others attend to "what is right with this picture" (Schssler-Fiorenza 327-28; Seim
69-70; Schneiders 1991:186-94). Sometimes they focus on the role the woman plays in
bringing the word about Jesus to her village, thus suggesting that she assumes the role
of a "missionary" or "apostolic witness." Conversely, they often argue that nothing is
"wrong with this picture": the Samaritan woman should not be construed as a whore
nor should females be reduced to their sexuality; her "five husbands" need not be
males in the village, but false gods worshipped by the Samaritans.
Are the different readings of John 4 merely a reflection of the gender of the
commentator? It is easily verified that male critics tend to accentuate the sexual and
marriage allusions in the story, while feminist readers focus on aspects of the story
with potential for liberating Christian women. Nevertheless, if the aim of biblical
criticism is the recovery of the communication of the sacred author, the conversation
about John 4 must continue. As we become aware of the gender perspectives of
authors ancient and modern, we should likewise take into account the cultural
background of the ancient writer. Admittedly this ancient Mediterranean, preindustrial cultural background might well clash with our modern Western, post776

industrial world. And this will raise difficulties for contemporary males and females in
their appropriation of biblical materials. But a full and honest reading of John 4 must
take into account the ancient cultural expectations concerning males and females.
Such cultural matters may even be part of the "good news" of the story.
When we recover the general cultural expectations concerning gender in antiquity, we
must ask "what, if anything, is wrong or right about this picture?" In light of
prevailing gender customs, does the author perceive a violation of them in the story?
What is the author's rhetorical stance toward this? a re-imposition of gender rules? a
transformation of them? Merely to point out how John 4 accords with or violates
gender expectations is only part of this investigation. We must investigate what
rhetorical stance the author takes in regard to this issue. What is needed, then, for a
full conversation on John 4 is a more accurate description of the general cultural
expectations for males and females in antiquity as the appropriate background of the
narrative.
1.2 Hypothesis of This Study. We argue that the basic rhetorical strategy in John 4
requires of us an appreciation of the cultural stereotypes of females in the ancient
world. Knowing this, as did the males and females in that world, we can observe with
them how the author plays with "what's wrong with this picture?" Initially, from a
cultural perspective, everything appears "wrong with the picture" in John 4:
unrelated males and females are meeting in the "public" world. As we shall see, the
ancients construed the world as gender divided: males in the "public" and females in
the "private" world. Males in that culture, moreover, were expected to be sexually
aggressive, whereas females were deemed virtuous in terms of their defense of their
sexual exclusivity (Malina-Neyrey 1991:41-44). In John 4, all social taboos customarily
separating males and females into separate worlds are systematically recognized, but
broken and transformed. This upsetting of cultural taboos, moreover, is conscious and
intentional; it constitutes an essential part of the communication of the author. We
must, then, initially assess "what is wrong with this picture."
But finally, all may not be "wrong with this picture," if modern readers attend to
several more pieces of the cultural background of John 4. First, the author intends the
scenario described there to be perceived as the "private" world of kinship groups. It
may be narrated as occurring "out of doors," but the meetings of Jesus and the
woman (4:7-26) and the woman and the villagers (4:39-42) should ultimately be seen
as the formation of fictive kinship groups, and so they are governed by the customs of
the "private," not the "public" world. Something, then, may take place "out of doors"
and yet be "private," not "public." And thus nothing may be "wrong with this
picture," if the space is considered "private," not "public."
We recall the fact that the early church never attempted to form a "public" ekklesia,
but gathered in households and modeled itself after the "private" institution of the
family, household and kinship group (Elliott 165-207; Verner 27-81). If the "private"
world of the kinship group is what the author has in view, then nothing is "wrong with
this picture." But this judgment will depend on whether we perceive the events as part
of either the "public" or the "private" world.
777

Second, how are we to assess the male/"public" and the female/"private" world? Most
of our ancient documents were written by males and often portray the "public" world
positively; conversely, they view the "private" world as a less important arena. With
our dearth of female evaluations of the "private" world, we are generally left with
only one voice in the matter: the "public" is better than the "private" world. This
viewpoint is reinforced in some modern discussions of the place of males and females
in our world. In the eyes of many, the "private" world of today's household can mean
second-class status for females, lack of respect for their talents, and numbing
drudgery. Thus, if we argue that Jesus invited people into the "private" world of a
kinship group, this might appear to some to be a reactionary statement, that Jesus
would resist welcoming females into the "public" world. Such a view would
misconstrue the narrative in John 4. There was no "public" Christian world for males
or females. They met in "private" space and adopted the customs appropriate for
households and kinship groups.
What seems to be needed is a more culturally sensitive evaluation of the "public" and
"private" worlds in antiquity. Some ancient writers reflect that the "public" world
was characterized as an agonistic place where males engaged in constant honor
challenges (Malina-Neyrey 1991:35-38, 49-52). Hierocles, admittedly a male voice
which may idealize the "private" world, questions the prevailing myth of the "public
world":
[T]hose gloomy circumstances of life which involve the forum or the gymnasium or
the country or, in general, all our anxieties while we are occupied with our friends and
spend time with our associates are at the time not obvious to us, since they are
obscured by inevitable distractions. . .But when a wife is present she becomes a great
comfort in these circumstances by asking her husband about non-domestic matters or
bringing up and considering together with him matters concerning the home, thus
causing him to relax, and she cheers him up by her unaffected enthusiasm" (On
Duties, On Marriage 4:22.21-24 = 4.502, 1-507).
Yet, if nurturing, security, and mutuality for females and males can be found
anywhere in antiquity, they are more likely to occur, not in the "public" world, but in
the "private" world of the kinship circle. Thus, further appreciation of the "private"
world of the fictive kinship group may be necessary to appreciate what the author of
John 4 is doing by welcoming the Samaritan woman into a new network of social
relations.
We should, then, attend to the cultural clues in the narrative. To do this, we must
recreate the cultural world of the author and begin to see things as he and other males
and females saw them. In true reader-response criticism, how would ancient readers
hear this story? What aspects of their culture are inextricably embedded in the
narrative, which we of another culture cannot readily see? What do modern readers
need to know of that culture to be informed and respectful tourists in another
country?

778

We recognize that the ancients viewed the world and everything in it as gender
divided. This implies consequent cultural expectations about honorable males and
shame-respecting females. To grasp this, we need knowledge of the typical and
ordinary cultural expectations about the behavior of males and females in antiquity.
In short, we need to develop a stereotype of that gender-divided world, the cultural
expectations of males and females in it, and notions of what constitutes a shamerespecting or shameless female. Implied in all of this is a clearer assessment of what
constitutes a "private" world and what social dynamics are appropriate there.
2.0 Cultural Expectations: Gender Division of Society
Cultural anthropologists argue that the ancient peoples of the eastern Mediterranean
viewed all reality in terms of gender division, that is, in terms of honor and shame,
especially as these apply to males and females. We examine, then, the ancient
distinction between "public" and "private," with the attendant focus on the kinship
network as the prime example of the "private" world. This is best illustrated by
reference to ancient topoi on the topic in which the cultural stereotypes of male and
female are described.
Philo offers a summary of what we call the gender division of society. He distinguishes
both male and female space as well as male and female tasks:
Market-places and council-halls and law-courts and gatherings and meetings where a
large number of people are assembled, and open-air life with full scope for discussion
and action -- all these are suitable to men both in war and peace. The women are best
suited to the indoor life which never strays from the house, within which the middle
door is taken by the maidens as their boundary, and the outer door by those who have
reached full womanhood (Special Laws 3.169).
The proper place for males is in public, doing public things, whereas females belong in
private space. Although Philo does not spell out what women do "in private," in
another place he comments on the popular perception of male and female physiology:
". . . how unlike the bodily shapes of man and woman are, and each of the two has a
different life assigned to it, to the one a domestic to the other a civic life" (Philo, Virt.
19). Thus we learn that females do tasks associated with private space or the domestic
life ("the house"), namely, food preparation, clothing production, and child rearing.
Philo's description of the gender-divided world of antiquity is itself a topos easily
traced back to classical Greek writers, who themselves only reflect common opinion
on the topic. Xenophon's summary is worth noting:
[H]uman beings live not in the open air, like beasts, but obviously need shelter.
Nevertheless, those who mean to win store to fill the covered place, have need to
someone to work at the open-air occupations; since plowing, sowing, planting and
grazing are all such open-air employments; and these supply the needful food. Then
again, as soon as this is stored in the covered place, then there is need for someone to
keep it and to work at the things that must be done under cover. Cover is needed for
779

the nursing of the infants; cover is needed for the making of corn into bread, and
likewise for the manufacture of clothing from the wool. And since both the indoor and
the outdoor tasks demand labour and attention, God from the first adapted the
woman's nature, I think, to the indoor and man's to the outdoor tasks and cares"
(Oeconomicus 7.19-22).
Space is divided according to gender: males in "open air" space (hypaithron) and
females in "covered" space (stegnon), males "without" (ex) and females "within"
(endon). Their respective tasks are gender-divided as well: males work at "open-air
occupations" such as plowing, sowing, grazing, etc. and females at "indoor
occupations," such as child rearing, food preparation and clothing production.
A third example of this commonplace illustrates how the ancients generally perceived
the world divided according to cultural notions of gender:
Before anything else I should speak about the occupations by which a household is
maintained. They should be divided in the usual manner, namely, to the husband
should be assigned those which have to do with agriculture, commerce, and the affairs
of the city; to the wife those which have to do with spinning and the preparation of
food, in short, those of a domestic nature (Hierocles, On Duties (4:28.21ff).
The world of the ancients, then, was divided according to cultural perceptions of
gender into "male" and "female" space. In male space (market places, public squares,
open fields), males did male occupations, whereas in female space (houses, wells,
ovens), females did female occupations. Objects, moreover, were likewise classified as
male or female, depending on whether they are for "public" or "private" use:
agricultural implements, and weapons of war were male, whereas domestic
implements, cooking utensils, and looms were female. We must next ask about the
implications of ascribing to females "private space" and how this contributes to a
stereotype of ideal female behavior.
2.1 Private Space = Female Space. This commonplace in the gender division of the
world invites a closer examination of female space. As noted above, females are
perceived as part of the "private" world, that is, the house and spaces related to
household duties, such as ovens and wells. From our research we have discovered a
number of specific terms for male and female space; inasuch as our interest is in
female space, we focus on the most common of these terms, gynaiknitis or "women's
quarters." What we learn from a series of examples aids our reconstruction of a
stereotype of ideal female behavior in antiquity.
What are the cultural expectations about a typical female space? The
three topoi quoted above indicate that females are expected to dwell in "private"
space, primarily their homes and secondarily places where female tasks are
performed. But even in regard to homes or "private" space, Xenophon describes the
typical household in which women's quarters are separated from men's and bolted to
maintain that important cultural division: "I showed her the women's quarters
(gynaiknitin) too, separated by a bolted door from the men's quarters (andrnitidos),
780

so that nothing which ought not to be moved may be taken out, and that the servant
may not breed without our leave" (Xenophon, Oeconomicus 9.5). He observes that
male and female clothing is itself carefully separated and stored in its proper genderspecified place: "After that we put together the women's holiday finery, and the men's
holiday and war garb, blankets in the women's quarters (gynaiknitidi), blankets in
the men's quarters (andrnitidi), women's shoes, men's shoes" (Oeconomicus 9.6).
Women's quarters might be on the second story of a house (Lysias, On the Murder of
Eratosthenes 9) or in a part of the house guarded by a strong wall (Plutarch, Sayings
of the Spartans 230C).
Infants and children were kept in these quarters. Plutarch, writing of Charon,
describes how his son resided in the women's quarters: "He (Charon) brought his son
from the women's apartments (gynaiknitidos), a mere boy as yet, but in beauty and
bodily strength surpassing those of his years" (Pelopidas 9.5). Lucian likewise
describes the women's quarters as the place where children are raised: "You come in
too, Micyllus, and dine with us. I'll make my son eat with his mother in the women's
quarters (gynaiknitidi) so that you may have his room" (The Cock11).
Our survey of this term for women's quarters indicates that it: (a) describes the living
arrangements of Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Romans and Jews (see War 5.198-200,
esp. 199) and (b) covers at least the period from 400 B.C.E. through the first century
C.E. Cornelius Nepos indicates that gender expectations about females in the Greek
East were modified somewhat in the Latin West, at least by some elite females:
Many actions are seemly according to our code which the Greeks look upon as
shameful. For instance, what Roman would blush to take his wife to a dinner-party?
What matron does not frequent the front rooms of her dwelling and show herself in
public? But it is very different in Greece; for there a woman is not admitted to a
dinner-party, unless relatives only are present, and she keeps to the more retired part
of the house called "the women's apartment" (gynaeconitis), to which no man has
access who is not near of kin (Cornelius Nepos, praef. 4-7).
In her recent book, Kathleen Corley discusses the prevailing cultural expectations
concerning "private" women at "public" meals, the relaxation of those rules for elite
Roman women, and the subsequent social reaction to those changes (1993: 24-66).
Although she focussed on the presence of women at meals, her data confirm the
general stereotype of a gender-divided world described here. Appreciation of the
cultural expectations for females in a gender-divided world should help us to grasp the
intended shock in John 4 of a noonday meeting between Jesus and the woman in
public space.
2.2 House and Household Tasks. Ancient discussions of female tasks tend to compare
and contrast what is proper to them with what is expected of males. Xenophon
provides a useful example. Males, whose proper gender space is the "open air," do
tasks appropriate to that space: "plowing, sowing, planting and grazing are all such
open-air employments." But females, whose proper gender place is "covered," do the
basic tasks which support the household: "Cover is needed for the nursing of the
781

infants; cover is needed for the making of corn into bread, and likewise for the
manufacture of clothing from the wool" (Oeconomicus, 7.21; see
Aristotle, Oeconomica 1.3.4, 1343b 30 -- 1344a 9 and Keuls 228-65). The remark of
Hierocles quoted above repeats the commonplace that males engage in public affairs,
whereas females "have to do with spinning and the preparation of food, in short, those
of a domestic nature." The Mishnah likewise lists tasks appropriate to females
(m. Ket. 5.5; see also m. Shab. 7.2).
2.3 Female Chastity, Shame-guarding and Dealings with Males. One corollary of the
gender division of space and labor is the inevitable separation of males and females
who are not kin. Below is a sampler of the cultural expectations of females vis--vis
males outside the household or kinship group.
Although further historical studies are needed on the antiquity and pervasiveness of
the veiling of females in public, Dio Chrysostom speaks about it as an ancient custom
still valid in his time:
Many of the customs still in force reveal in one way or another the sobriety and
severity of deportment of those earlier days. Among these is the convention regarding
feminine attire, a convention which prescribes that women should be so arrayed and
should so deport themselves when in the street that nobody could see any part of
them, neither of the face nor of the rest of the body, and that they themselves might
not see anything off the road (Ora. 33.48-51).
The veil replicates the wall or barrier which spatially enclosed the "women's
quarters" discussed above.
If the purpose of the veil was to keep men from gawking at women (Leyerle 159-65),
then one might expect that other strategies of separating the genders were intended to
keep women not only out of the gaze of men, but out of their speech as well. Although
Plutarch disagrees with Thucydides, he witnesses to the conventional view of that
older historian:
I do not hold the same opinion as Thucydides ["Great is your glory if you fall not
below the standard which nature has set for your sex, and great also is hers of whom
there is least talk among men whether in praise or blame" 2.45.2] that the best woman
is she about whom there is least talk among persons outside. Regarding either censure
or commendation, feeling that the name of the good woman, like her person, ought to
be shut up indoors and never go out (In Praise of Women, 242E).
Yet even Plutarch notes other cultural norms concerning male talk about females:
But to my mind Gorgias appears to display better taste in devising that not the form
but the fame of a woman should be known to many. Best of all seems the Roman
custom, which publicly renders to women, as to men, a fitting commemoration after
the end of their life (In Praise of Women 242F, emphasis added).
782

We note the expectation that males will talk about the "form" of a female, with all its
sexual overtones. Plutarch, however, would restrict any talk of females until after their
death, when their sexual exclusivity cannot be threatened (see also
Plutarch, Camillus 8.3 133A; Livy, Ab Urbe Cond. 5.50.7; and Cicero, De Orat.
2.11.44). But the general rule was: "There ought to be no random talk about fair and
noble women, and their characters ought to be totally unknown save only to their
consorts" (Plutarch, Sayings of the Spartans 217F). And again, "In regard to a
woman's endowments, there should be absolutely no talk among those outside the
family" (220D). Since female sexual exclusivity was a primary value in the ancient
gender-divided world, whatever kept women from seduction or the mere threat of it
was valued and became constitutive of the stereotype of the ideal female and her
proper place and behavior. How anomalous, then, would seem the triple mention of
the Samaritan woman's sexual "past" in the presence of males not her kin (John 4:1618, 29, 39).
2.4 Female Public Silence. If it is deemed shameless for a male to talk about a female
not of his kinship circle, it goes without saying that females should not speak to
unrelated males, especially in public space. This aspect of the gender expectations of
females seems to be true of Rome as well as Greece, and for all periods of history.
"What have women to do with a public assembly? If old-established custom is
preserved, nothing" (Valerius Maximus, Fact. et Dic. 3.8.6; see Philo, Spec. Leg. 3.
174).
For females to speak with unrelated males in public spaces would be interpreted as
their "putting on men's airs," as Plutarch notes:
[T]heir women, it is said, were too bold, putting on men's airs with their husbands
even, to begin with, since they ruled their houses absolutely, and besides, on public
occasions, taking part in debate and the freest speech on the most important subjects.
But Numa, while carefully preserving to the matrons that dignified and honourable
relation to their husbands which was bestowed on them by Romulus. . .enjoined great
modesty upon them, forbade them all busy intermeddling, taught them sobriety, and
accustomed them to be silent; wine they were to refrain from entirely, and were not to
speak, even on the most necessary of topics, unless their husbands were with them
(Plutarch, Lycurgus and Numa 3.5).
The flip side of this cultural prescription of female silence in public is found in the
stereotype of ancient females as gossips and busybodies. Juvenal provides a
convenient example of this derogatory stereotype:
Better that your wife should be musical than that she would be rushing boldly about
the entire city, attending men's meetings, talking with unflinching face and hard
breasts to Generals in their military cloaks, with her husband looking on! This same
woman knows what is going on all over the world: what the Chinese and Thracians
are after, what has passed between the stepmother and the stepson; she knows who
loves whom, what gallant is the rage; she will tell you who got the widow with child,
and in what month; how every woman behaves to her lovers, and what she says to
783

them. . .she picks up the latest rumors at the city gates, and invents some herself
(Sat.6.398-409).
The cultural expectation of female silence in public should provide modern readers
with an adequate scenario for assessing the potential impropriety of the conversation
between the Samaritan woman and Jesus, as well as her subsequent colloquy with the
men of the village.
2.5 The Stereotype: Content, Constancy, and Validity. It goes against the grain for
historically trained commentators to deal with stereotypes (Burke 13-14), for the
prevailing scholarly paradigm instructs us to look at what is unique and different. Yet
study of cultural stereotypes should have an important place in the study of a culture
which itself relies on commonplaces, topoi, gnmai,sententiae, doxographies, and
other types of summary statements. Edward Hall, moreover, has called our attention
to cultures where stereotypes play an important role. He distinguishes between "low
context" and "high context" societies (1976:91-101; 1983:59-77). "Low context"
societies, such as the industrial West, produce detailed texts which spell out matters in
considerable detail and leave little to the imagination. One thinks of legal contracts
with all their fine print. "High context" societies, however, produce sketchy texts,
leaving much to the reader's imagination. For example, 2 Sam 11:1 tells us that kings
go out to war in the spring; what it presumes is our knowledge of a culture which
divides the year into rainy and dry seasons. Hence kings go out to war after the late
rains. So, too, with gender expectations. They are presumed as part of the cultural
context. It is, then, an appropriate piece of historical and critical inquiry to ask about
general cultural expectations, especially in regard to one of the prime values (honor
and shame) and its structural implications (gender division of society).
In brief, all reality was divided according to gender. Males belonged in public places,
performing male tasks, using male instruments and animals. Females belonged in
private places, attending to female tasks, and using female implements. Cultural
notions of honor and shame dictated that males be sexually aggressive, but that
females be shame-conscious and defensive of their sexual exclusivity. Hence, all
intercourse between non-related males and females should be viewed with suspicion
and rigorously controlled.
Although historians note some relaxation of these rules in Rome during the late
Republic period, it is safe to say that the cultural expectations regarding females
remained constant throughout antiquity. Furthermore, what was expected of elite,
urban females was likewise expected of non-elite, rural females insofar as space and
wealth allowed. The very documents of the New Testament, which are klein
Literatur or non-elite documents, witness to the pervasiveness of gender expectations
among urban artisans and village peasants (e.g., 1 Cor 14:33-35; 1 Tim 2:11-15; 5:1014). The stereotype, then, can be said to have validity for Greeks and Romans as well
as elites and non-elites.
3.0 What's Wrong With This Picture?
784

From the perspective of stereotypical female behavior for this cultural world we
initially ask "What's wrong with this picture?"
3.1 Time and Place (4:6-7). Jesus encountered the woman "at the sixth hour," which
was roughly midday (Walker 69). This seemingly innocuous detail, however, indicates
that the woman come to the well at an unusual hour -- for females, that is. Women at
wells were a common phenomenon, but only at certain hours, namely, morning or
evening (Gen 24:11; see Gen 29:7); midday is a culturally "wrong" time for females to
be at a well for domestic purposes. The woman, moreover, appears not to be in the
company of other women, as would have been the custom (see 1 Sam 9:10).
What's wrong with this picture? (1) She comes alone at an unusual hour (2) to a place,
which, when many women are gathered is appropriate, but at midday and alone
would label her as a deviant. The anomalous time, her isolation and the public nature
of the well at midday suggest might suggest that she has been shunned by the women
of the village for some deviant behavior (4:16-18), and so she acts alone when other
women are dutifully at work elsewhere.
3.2 Speech with a Strange Man in Public (4:7-26). The characters themselves tell us
how strange this encounter appears. The woman remarks to Jesus: "How is it that
you, a Jewish man, ask a drink of me, a Samaritan woman?" (v 8). The narrator
dilates on this issue with the remark, "For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans" (v
9). But more is at stake than ethnic differences. When the disciples return from the
village and see Jesus conversing with a female, they react with astonishment: "They
marveled that he was talking to a woman" (v 27a). Their shock lies in the fact that a
male and a female were conversing alone in public (Seim 59). The narrator then voices
the questions that should, but were not asked by the characters: ". . . but none said,
'What do you (Jesus) wish? or 'Why are you talking with her?'" (v 27b). They are
asked nonetheless.
What were Jesus and the woman talking about? Although it is not the whole of their
dialogue, they spoke about the woman's sexual shamelessness. When Jesus told her to
go and call her husband, she responds that she has no husband (v 17a), when in fact
she has had five husbands already. So we learn that she is no maiden, but a seasoned
woman. Her current male companion isnot her husband and so has no responsibility
to guard her shame or to defend her sexual exclusiveness, which is the only basis for
her honor in the village. Although she might have been widowed five times (see Mark
12:20-23), her current non-marital relationship with a sixth male suggests either
adultery or concubinage. In any case, she clearly lacks the exclusivity upon which her
reputation and honor depend in a gender-divided world. Moreover, when the woman
recounts her conversation with Jesus back in the village, she focusses on one point
alone, his remarks about her sexual history: "Come and see a man who told me
everything I have ever done" (v 29). The villagers were impressed with her testimony
that "He told me everything I have ever done" (v 39), which can only refer to Jesus'
remarks in vv 17-18 about the six men in her life, i.e., her lack of sexual exclusivity.

785

What's wrong with this picture? It is bad enough that a female is conversing with an
unrelated male in a public place at an unusual hour. Worse, the reader is told that she
considered the most significant item in this conversation Jesus' remarks on her
shameless sexual behavior (Pazdan 148).
3.3 Speech with Other Men in Public Space (4:28-30). Although Jesus commands her
to go and call her husband (v 16), she goes into the village marketplace where all the
men are gathered. The narrative does not say "marketplace"; but from our
knowledge of that culture, we would be culturally accurate in imagining males
gathered together in an open-air space, such as a marketplace (see Philo and
Hierocles, cited above). She did not go from door to door, interrupting the private lives
of her female neighbors; she did not go to her own house. She did not return to private
space at all, but went into public space, to the one place where males would be
expected to congregate.
From our knowledge of the gender division of space, females should not be present in
this public space when males are there. Rather they should be with the other females
of the household attending to household matters in appropriate private space.
Moreover, she speaks to these males and tells them of her conversation with another
strange man. And as we noted above, she tells the village males that this new male
knew about her sexual shamelessness, ". . . a man who told me all that I ever did"
(4:29, 39).
What's wrong with this picture? Absolutely everything. The details of this narrative
are at odds with the commonly expected behavior of shame-guarding females in the
ancient world of honor and shame. And as 4:9 and 27 indicate, even the characters in
the narrative are aware of these breaches of gender rules. So the readers and hearers
are carefully reminded of the impropriety of the conversation. Only by attending to
the stereotype of expected female behavior can we engage the narrator's craft in
treating these cultural conventions. The story loses its power and punch if these
critical details are ignored and dismissed.
3.4 Other Women at Wells: A Comparison (Conventions Confirmed). A comparison of
John 4 with other narrative scenes at wells confirms that we should attend to cultural
customs regarding females in this context. Hall's remarks on "low context" are
appropriate here, for much is presumed concerning women at wells. The Scriptures
narrate three scenes of males and females meeting at wells (Gen 24:10-49; 29:4-14;
Exod 2:15-22); and the Protoevangelium of James (11.1) records another. In all of
these, the narrators present prospective brides either to their husbands or their
agents. And since the key element of a worthy wife is virginity or sexual exclusivity,
the narratives all make a point that the social intercourse at the well is strictly in
accord with cultural customs (Alter 51-58). The females are shy and defensive of their
virtue; they speak respectfully to the males and obey when commanded; they seek the
shelter of the "private" world as soon as possible. In short, the narratives record that
everything is "right with this picture." Yet from other sources we know that females
risked being molested at wells (m. Ket. 1.10; Aristophanes,Lysistrata 327-31; see Keuls
235-40). These data confirm that scenes of females at wells normally contained a
786

sexual component which required viewers to attend to what was "wrong" or "right"
about the picture.
4.0 Rhetorical Criticism.
Feminist scholars pay close attention to rhetorical criticism, by which they mean the
ideological context of authors and their intent (Schneiders 1991:185). What, then, is
the rhetorical stance of the author of John 4 in regard to "what's wrong with this
picture?"
4.1. The Rhetorical Shape of the Narrative. The narrator recounts the dialogue part of
the story (4:7-26) according to a recurring pattern characteristic of this gospel,
namely, "statement . . . misunderstanding . . .clarification" (Neyrey 1988a: 42-44,
234).
statement 3:3 6:41 8:21 11:11 12:27 14:4
misunderstanding 3:4 6:42 8:22 11:12 12:29 14:5
clarification 3:5 6:43-48 8:23-30 11:13-15 12:30 14:6
Jesus makes a statement, which is misunderstood and which leads him to speak again
in clarification of his original remark. This dialogue may function either as an
invitation, so that addressees are led to insight and so to a change of status as
"insiders" (4:6-15; 11:20-27), or as a distancing mechanism, so that addressees are
proved to be ignorant and blind and are confirmed as "outsiders" (John 3:1-21); they
experience no status transformation.
4.1.1 John 4:7-15. The pattern functions here as an invitational dialogue describing
how the Samaritan woman is led progressively into insight and to a change of status,
from radical "outsider" to consummate "insider." It might be said to have a cyclical
movement, in that Jesus' "clarification" of the woman's "misunderstanding"
regularly serves as his new "statement" for her further "misunderstanding" and his
added "clarification":
statement 4:7 4:10 4:13-14
misunderstanding 4:9 4:11-12 4:15
clarification 4:10 4:13-14 -----Jesus states: "Give me to drink" (v. 7). She responds with surprise that a Jewish male
would ask a Samaritan female for a drink, thus misunderstanding Jesus. He confirms
her misunderstanding, remarking "If only you knew . . ." (v 10). If she were "in the
know," the issue of who gives whom a drink would be irrelevant, and she would ask
him and he would give her water: "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is
787

saying to you 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him and he would have given
you living water" (4:10). Thus the dialogue already encodes gender expectations, but
treats them in terms of "misunderstandings" which need "clarification."
Jesus' clarification in 4:10 of her misunderstanding becomes a new statement which
provokes another cycle of conversation. She misunderstands him when she comments
about buckets and deep wells. Jesus clarifies that "those who drink of the water that I
will give them will never be thirsty" (v 14). This clarification serves as a new
statement, which is again misunderstood. The woman asks Jesus for his water,
rejoicing that she will "never have to keep coming here to draw water" (v 15) from
this well.
Her "misunderstandings" are portrayed as progress in insight, not confirmation of
obtuseness. In terms of rhetorical patterns, she moves from the position of asking
questions (vv 9, 11, 12), to that of speaking imperatives ("give me," v 15). Indeed she
now mouths the original words of Jesus.
Jesus: "Give me to drink"
Woman: "Give me this water"
Jesus remarked earlier, "if you only knew, you would ask. . ."; she comes to know and
so she asks him for his water. She is progressively being enlightened by Jesus'
remarks. Hence, her character is portrayed as one which changes, from "not in the
know" to "in the know" and from radical "outsider" (Samaritan) to consummate
"insider" (one who shares Jesus' foods).
Is this a "public" or a "private" scene? Ostensibly it begins in public and is played
according to public rules. The woman's "saucy" speech has all the trappings of a
challenge-riposte exchange; she and Jesus meet at a public place in male time. But the
rhetorical pattern suggests that a transformation is taking place, not just of the status
of the woman who becomes an insider in Jesus' circle, but of the nature of the space
that they occupy. Inasmuch as Jesus is recruiting her, he welcomes her into a
"private" world, the sphere of fictive-kinship. There males share food and beverage
with females ("give me to drink") and exchange information ("are you greater
than..."); there honor challenges as well as "saucy" speech are absent. The change in
the rhetorical patterns of the woman's speech and her asking Jesus for a drink are
indications that the space in which she and Jesus have intercourse is ceasing to be
"public" and becoming "private." She is transformed into an "insider," whom Jesus
receives into his fictive-kinship circle, which is a "private" world.
4.1.2 John 4:16-26. Jesus again makes a statement, in this case, a command that the
woman "Go, call your husband and come here" (v 16). Something new happens, for
she neither questions Jesus nor misunderstands him. The modification of the form
indicates that the period of misunderstanding is over (vv 7-15). When she states
openly "I have no husband," Jesus praises her twice for speaking the truth:
788

"You are right in saying 'I have no husband'. . ." (v 17)

"What you have said is true" (v 18).
From now on, the woman speaks from clear knowledge: "I see. . ." (v 19) and "I
know. . . " (v 25). Truthfulness, praise, free exchange of information all characterize
this "private" world, whereas verbal challenges belong in the "public" world.
In light of Jesus' extraordinary knowledge, she now remarks with insight, "I perceive
that you are a prophet." She invites him to settle a thorny issue: "Our ancestors
worshiped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is
in Jerusalem" (v 20). Jesus freely gives her special knowledge that worship in the
future will not be "public" worship at civic shrines, as is customary for Jewish and
Samaritan males, but "private" worship, namely, worship in households which are
traditional "at home" space for females. It is not accidental that the only mentions of
"houses" and "households" in the Fourth Gospel include prominent women such as
Martha and Mary (11:20, 31; 12:2-3). Jesus' new revelation prompts the Samaritan
woman to remark that the "Messiah will announce all things to us." Jesus'
clarification is a formal revelation of his special identity: "I who speak to you am he"
(v 26).
There are gender considerations here. First, the topic is about males, her current male
companion (not her husband) and her five previous husbands. She talks of prophets,
traditional male prophets because the topic discussed is the correct place of worship
(vv 19-20). The only extant records of a discussion of this type come from male
prophets. She comments about "Messiah," who is male. It might also be the case that
political topics such as the correct place of worship and the coming Messiah are male
subjects of conversation (see Plutarch, Lycurgus and Numa 3.5, cited above), since
they pertain to the "public" world of males. Yet she engages in them unreservedly.
Thus her conversation is always about men: this Jewish man (Jesus), our father Jacob,
husbands, prophets, and the Messiah. If this were a "public" forum, these remarks
would be improper for they violate the cultural expectations of females in the male
sphere. But since this is now the "private" world of Jesus' kinship circle, astute
cultural readers would not perceive them as inappropriate.
The rhetoric of vv 16-26 contrasts with that of vv 7-15. As noted, the pattern of
"statement. . .misunderstanding. . .clarification" yields to truthful answers to
questions (v 17) and to claims such as "I see. . ." (v 19) and "I know. . ." (v 25). She
now queries him for information, and of a remarkable sort: "the place where people
must worship" (v 20) and "Messiah will tell us all things" (v 25).
The rhetorical exchange in 4:16-26 is proper to the "private" world. Information is
freely exchanged; no challenges are issued; no questions are asked; no "saucy"
conversation occurs. We characterize the dialogue here in terms of greater mutuality
and self-revelation, which are proper to kinship networks. The woman, then, has been
fully incorporated into the "private" world of Jesus' circle as a full "insider." She has
found a new home and new honor.
789

4.2 Clues in the Rhetoric. Our investigation of the rhetoric of the dialogue between
Jesus and the woman yields many thematic points. (1) The narrative begins by calling
attention to a sharing of vessels that contravenes cultural expectations about ritual
purity (Daube 137-38), thus indicating the breaking of a boundary. (2) The narrative
explicitly attends to cultural expectations about ethnic boundaries (4:9), which are
likewise broken. (3) This Samaritan female, moreover, is perceived by other
characters in the narrative as violating the gender expectations of that culture (4:27),
thus breaking a gender boundary. (4) At one point the narrative indicates a certain
role reversal; the male figure who asks this female for a drink (v 7) becomes the
serving figure who offers water to the woman (v 15). More breaking of gender
boundaries.
(5) Although Jesus commanded her "Go, call your husband" (v 16), she did not obey
him. Cultural expectation of ideal females would celebrate their obedience to males,
not such a strange performance as hers. Indeed the woman went and spoke, but her
action is hardly what Jesus commanded.
Jesus' Command (v 16) Woman's Actions (vv 28-30)
So the woman left her water jar,
Go, and went away into the city,
and said to the men:
call your husband 'Come, see a man who told me
all that I ever did.
Can this be the Christ?'
And they went out of the city
and come here. and were coming to him.
Since she "left her water jar" at the well (v 28), she did not go home, but to the public
square, the agora, where all the village males would be gathered. Instead of entering
her house (i.e. private space where females may speak freely with the males of their
kinship group), she enters "the city" (i.e. public space), and speaks with the males
there. Instead of "calling her husband," she speaks enthusiastically about still another
man, namely, Jesus. She insists, moreover, that "he told me all that I ever did," which
contextually refers to her five previous husbands and her current male companion;
and so she keeps referring to her sexual history, and that to other men (see also v 39).
Yet the narrative does not censure her for this, but endorses her behavior (4:37-38).
Again cultural expectations of female behavior are being ignored or transcended.

790

(6) The form in which the dialogue is cast indicates that the woman undergoes a
change of status. Not only is she transformed from "not in the know" to "in the
know," she moves from being a true "outsider" (Samaritans have no dealings with
Jews) to a genuine "insider." The rhetoric, then, supports the conclusion that the
woman has moved from "public" space to the "private" world of Jesus' kinship circle.
Behavior, which in the "public" world might properly be considered "wrong with this
picture," becomes appropriate within the "private" world of discipleship. Thus the
transformation narrated is also that of the space where the characters meet, no longer
viewed as public, but as private.
The rhetoric, therefore, aids the reader in appreciating "what's wrong with this
picture?" From the perspective of cultural expectations of gender space and behavior,
the woman is portrayed as violating and at variance with all gender expectations
regarding time, place, tasks, and persons insofar as this is public space. But, as the
rhetoric indicates, the dialogue reflects the transformation of the scene at the well into
"private space"; and so from the viewpoint of Jesus' kinship network, nothing is
"wrong with this picture."
Since the narrator consciously calls attention to the gender issues and their
impropriety, we argue that his treatment of them is part of the communication. Such
cultural conventions do not restrict Jesus' mission (vv 7-26) or that of the Samaritans
(vv 28-29, 39-42); their transformation is itself part of the message. No person is
excluded from kinship with Jesus because of gender, ethnicity or social status.
Discipleship is a matter of the "private," not the "public" world, where different
social dynamics are appropriate.
5.0 The Author's Agenda: How to Think About This Woman?
What, then, is being communicated there? How are we to think about this woman? It
has been maintained that the Johannine dramatis personae can be seen as
"representative figures" (Collins 37-40; Neyrey 1988b:70-71, 78-79), which asks us to
think about their stereotypical nature. Of what might they be types? How should we
think about the Samaritan woman?
Gentile. Ethnic boundaries are broken (4:9); non-Jews become insiders. This aspect is
evidently highlighted when the narrative climaxes in 4:42 with the proclamation of
Jesus as the "Savior of the world." Then follows an episode in which Jesus bestows a
benefaction on an "official's son" (4:47-54), figures often considered to be gentiles.
This gospel, moreover, formally proclaims Jesus as available to Jews, Greeks and
Romans (12:20, 32; 19:20). This editorial thrust, moreover, resembles the traditions in
the synoptic gospels about the impartiality of God's blessings to all peoples and their
inclusion in the covenant community: e.g., the Syrophoenician woman (Matt 15:21-28)
and the commission to make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19).
Unclean, Polluted. Jesus expresses willingness to drink from the same jug as the
woman, risking ritual uncleanness. When he discourses on the proper way to worship,
he sets aside issues of the right place (Jerusalem/this mountain). As the new Jacob,
791

who was known as "the supplanter" (Neyrey 1979:421-25, 436-37), Jesus regularly
supplants the purity rules of his world by working on the sabbath (5:17; 7:23; 9:16) or
by using the jars containing waters for purifying hands for wine (2:6). Thus Jesus is
portrayed as disregarding the purity system of his Jewish culture (Neyrey 1991:27489). This material resembles Jesus' touching of a leper, spitting on the eyes of a blind
man, being touched by a menstruating woman, and taking a corpse by the hand.
Furthermore, the synoptic gospels indicate that he "ate and drank with tax collectors
and sinners" (Mark 2:15-17, Matt 11:19; Luke 19:7). Commensality with the unclean
was a flagrant violation of the purity code. Yet he offers the woman a drink of his
water, and is willing to drink from her jug.
Sinner, Even Adulteress. Piggybacking on Jesus' breaking of purity regulations is his
studied unconcern for the "sinful" status of the woman, who appears to be either a
concubine or an adulteress (the sixth man with whom she is living is not her husband).
Yet Corley (1993:152-58) has shown that according to the tradition, Jesus was also the
friend of "courtesans." Hence, up to this point, the Samaritan woman could be the
Johannine "representative" of Jesus' inclusion of gentile disciples, even those
culturally labelled unclean, including "sinners" and even "courtesans." She would,
then, typify the most radical inclusivity of membership in the circle of Jesus disciples.
Female. If the cultural background of John 4 has any bearing on our understanding of
the social dynamics of the story, we might ask a further question concerning the
representative nature of the Samaritan woman. She speaks about Jesus to others,
presumably males, and leads them to him. In this does she embody a typical role
recognized by the Johannine group? If so, is this a role uncharacteristically given to a
female in this culture? We can compare her with two other Johannine characters,
Mary Magdalene and the first disciples of Jesus, to see if she is "representative" of
anything further.
In making comparisons, we are guided by sociological theory of "role" as a "set of
expectations for interaction" between a person who holds one position in a group and
another person who holds a reciprocal position (Hare 283). A "role" is commonly
defined as "the socially recognized position of a person which entails rights and
duties." Roles might be formal (i.e., king, priest, teacher, mother) or informal. Paul,
for example, claimed the formal role of "apostle" (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8-11), which entailed
certain "rights" (1 Cor 9:4-12) and "duties" (9:16-17). Can the Samaritan woman be
said to have a socially accepted "set of expectations"? does she have "rights"?
"duties"? Is she recognized by the other characters as having these? If she has a
"role," is it one in the "public" or "private" world.
5.1 Formal Spreading of the Word. Form-critical studies show that appearances of the
Risen Jesus function as explicit commissionings of certain male disciples as leaders
within the group and as spokesmen to the "public" world (Hubbard 102-12). This is
also the case with John 20:25 and 21:15-18 (Neyrey 1988b:76-91). Compared with
these narratives, John 4 should not be read as a formal commissioning. Although the
author knew the rhetorical form of a commissioning, he did not cast the narrative of
the Samaritan woman in it.
792

Yet this gospel contains another appearance of the Risen Jesus, this time to a female,
Mary Magdalene. In her case (20:11-17) we seem to be dealing with a formal role, but
not necessarily one in the "public" sphere. When we compare Mary with the
Samaritan woman, we learn the following. (1) In both cases, Jesus initially appears to
solitary females outside of the city in public space, apart from their private space,
namely, their houses (see also 11:20, 28-30). (2) In both, the women struggle with
incomprehension or misunderstanding: Mary thinks that Jesus is a gardener; the
Samaritan woman takes his words too literally (see also 11:23-26). (3) To both Jesus
gives a special revelation of his identity (see 11:25). (4) He issues a command to both
women to go and speak (see 11:28):
4:16 Go (deute) call your husband
20:17 Go (poreuou) say to my brethren
He gives Mary specific, significant lines to speak, "Say,'I am ascending to my Father
and your Father, to my God and your God'" (20:18). In terms of the high christology
of this gospel, she conveys a remarkable piece of information to the group (Neyrey
1988b: 73-75). In contrast, he told the Samaritan woman: "Call your husband"; yet
when she speaks, she emphasizes certain words of Jesus, which he did not authorize
her to speak: "He told me all that I ever did" (4:29, 39), which we know to be her
sexual shamelessness. (5) Mary made clear pronouncements ("He told me 'thus-andsuch'"), which differ formally from the Samaritan woman's questions ("Can this be
the Christ?").
(6) Mary obeyed Jesus' command; she "went and said to the disciples. . . 'He said
thus-and-such to me'" (20:18). The case is less clear with the Samaritan woman, who
went and spoke to the men of the village and wondered "Can this be the Christ?"
(4:30). Recall that Jesus commanded her, "Go, call your husband, and come here";
but she went to the village square and spoke to the men there. The rhetorical form of a
commissioning of Mary urges readers to recognize her as having a formal role within
the fictive-kinship group. Mary's "commission/fulfillment," however, contrasts with
the Samaritan woman's "command/quasi-obedience." Not every command entails a
formal commissioning to a role.
(7) Both are sent to the "private" world to speak: Mary to Jesus' "brethren" and the
Samaritan woman to "your husband." Neither is formally commissioned to speak to
the "public" world. In terms of gender-specific behavior, Mary's actions comply with
what we have come to know as the cultural expectations of shame-guarding females in
the "private" sphere. It is permissible for a female to speak with the males of her
household or kinship group (1 Tim 2:12; 1 Cor 14:33-36). Mary does not speak in
public to strange men, but speaks in private to members of Jesus' fictive-kinship
group ("my brethren"). She is not sent to "public" space, i.e., strange countries or
villages, to speak to strange men. In comparison, the Samaritan woman likewise
operates in the "private" world. As I have argued, she does not go as commanded to
her house or kin, but to the village square; she speaks to whoever is there, which in
that culture would mean the males of the village. Her relationship to at least six men
793

of the village might position her as a person with contacts to many households, and
thus aid the networking. As a person who has lost her sexual exclusivity, she is not an
anomaly in this "public" world. Although she appears in the marketplace or "public"
space, we are not to imagine that she remained there. After all, Jesus told her that true
worship would occur, not in "public" space ("this mountain or Jerusalem"), but in
"private" space, namely, households where kinship groups gather. The direction, then,
of the woman's speech is not to create a "public" forum where she would have a
"public" role. Rather, she moves from "private" space (her household) to "public"
space (the marketplace), but then back to "private" space (the circle of Jesus'
disciples).
The story about Mary was cast in terms of a formal commissioning narrative, and so
she might be said to be a "representative character." But the same cannot be said of
the Samaritan woman, who was not formally commissioned by Jesus to say specific
words to a specific group of people. Nor was she recognized by the townsfolk as
having a role with duties and rights. If the Samaritan woman had a "duty," it was to
obey Jesus' command to "call your husband." She has no duty to say specific words to
other people. Thus it cannot be maintained that she was sent, much less into the
"public" world.
5.2 Informal Spreading of the Word. Yet does she have an "informal" role? In the
rhetoric of the narrative, her conversation with the villagers is told with approval
(4:31-38; Seim 70). Is this indicative of a new, even an "informal" role? If so, is it a
role which belonged only to males? is it a role in the "public" or "private" sphere? Is
her "rushing to bring the news home" a convention of typical well scenes, as Alter
describes them (Alter 52, 58)?
In two rhetorically significant places in this gospel, readers are told of disciples
spreading in an informal manner the news about Jesus. Both at the story's beginning
and ending, those who have come to know Jesus tell others about him and even lead
them to him for purposes of joining his circle. In the gospel's beginning, John the
Baptizer tells two of his disciples about Jesus (1:35), who then "follow" him to learn
"private" information: "Where do you stay?" He tells them "Come and see" (39), and
so they enter his "private" world. Subsequently they find others, tell them about
Jesus, and invite them to "come and see." John tells Andrew, who tells Simon; Philip
tells Nathanael (Neyrey 1988a: 122-23). Thus, a clear pattern emerges, which is
repeated again and again in the Fourth Gospel (Schssler-Fiorenza 327-28): (1)
Martha tells Mary about Jesus (11:28); (2) Philip tells Andrew about the Greeks
seeking Jesus, and both tell Jesus (12:21-22); (3) the ten disciples, to whom the Risen
Jesus manifests himself, tell the absent Thomas: "We have seen the Lord" (20:25).
Jesus never authorized any of these folk to spread news about himself; no formal role
is indicated by this pattern.
Noteworthy, however, is the fact that this spread of information always occurs among
kin-group members and thus within the "private" world of the family. Although the
narrative location of the story may be in "out of doors," the communication occurs
between persons whose primary social locale is the "private" world of kinship.
794

Valuable information such as that about Jesus is always shared first among family
members.
In a world without media, news is spread informally in a "gossip network," a
technical term used by anthropologists to describe the spread of information in a
media-less world (Jones 1980; Handelman 1973). Spreading news does not seem to
entail any formal role; there emerges no recognized system of rights and duties, which
are characteristic of "roles." But let us note how in the passages we are investigating
certain gender expectations continue to prevail: men speak to men (1:35-46; 12:20-22;
20:25) and women to women (11:28). The speakers are either kin (Andrew and Simon
are brothers; Martha and Mary are sisters) or members of the same village ("Philip
was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter," 1:44) or fictive kin (the ten and
Thomas, whom Jesus calls "my brothers" in 20:17). This suggests that the informal
network we are observing reflects village social dynamics, as well as customary gender
expectations, and occurs fully within the conventions for kinship-related persons.
Again, the dominant institution is the "private" world of the household where
valuable information is shared, not the "public" world where unrelated males contest
with each other for prestige and honor.
These observations pertain to John 4 as well, but with some variation. The woman
spreads the "gossip" about Jesus. Yet she went to but one place, her village. Once she
spread the news, her place in the network vanishes. At first the Samaritans believed
"because of the word of the woman" (4:39); but as the circle of disciples grows, they
believed "because of his word" (v 41). After Jesus stayed with them, moreover, they
remarked to her: "It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have
heard for ourselves and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world" (v 42).
Like the male figures illustrative of this pattern, she too ceases to play a part once the
"gossip" about the Messiah is delivered.
We should look more closely at 4:39-42. I have maintained that Jesus and his disciples
gathered others into fictive-kinship relationships. We should, then, consider 4:39-42 in
terms of a new Jesus discipleship circle, even a fictive-kinship group. "Many
Samaritans," we are told, "believed in him" (v 39), and so join the woman as the
immediate circle around Jesus. When the text says "they asked him to stay with
them" (v 40), we should understand "stay" as a characteristic Johannine term
indicating close affiliation with Jesus, namely, membership in his circle (1:28-29; 5:28;
8:31; 12:46; 15:4-7). Then "many more believed" and joined the group (v 41). This
gathering, then, is not a "public" group in a "public" forum; it is a fictive-kinship
group and so must be considered "private."
Thus the woman is really engaged in "private" speech to newly related males in the
emerging kinship group (4:39). If the appropriate scenario is one of kinship, then the
woman brings her non-related male associates into a new social relationship which is
not "public" at all, but the "private" world of the fictive-kinship group. In that
context, nothing is "wrong with this picture."
6.0 Conclusions.
795

Of what might the Samaritan woman be a "representative"? Looking at 4:6-26, we

argue that the narrator has concentrated in this one figure many of the characteristics
of marginal persons with whom Jesus regularly deals in the synoptic gospels. She is an
amalgam of cultural deviance. In terms of stereotypes, she is a non-Jew, who is
ritually unclean; she is a "sinner," a publicly recognized "shameless" person, even
someone with whom Jesus has commensality. As a shameless woman, she embodies
most of the social liabilities which would marginalize her in her society. At a
minimum, she represents the gospel axiom that "least is greatest" or "last is first."
Ultimately, she represents inclusivity into the Christian group in a most radical way.
The stereotype of gender expectations serves to portray her precisely as the
quintessential deviant, the last and least person who would be expected to find favor
with God (see 1 Cor 15:8-9). Her status transformation in 4:6-26 is basically that of a
person moving from "not in the know" to "in the know" and from outsider to insider.
Does it matter if we note "what's wrong with this picture?" Throughout the story, she
violates the cultural expectations of her society. But, this intentionally and continually
casts her in a deviant role as the most unlikely person on the cultural horizon to be
welcomed into Jesus' kinship network. The initial violations of gender expectations
(4:6-17) as well as the latter ones (4:27-30) consistently stereotype the Samaritan
woman as a deviant, but this deviance does not matter to the narrator, which is the
rhetorical point of the story. The gospel goes to unlikely people; it might even be
spread in the gossip network by unlikely persons (see Acts 4:13; see John 4:36-38). By
noting "what's wrong with this picture?" the Samaritan woman becomes that much
stranger and that much more unlikely a candidate for inclusion. Then how much more
extraordinary is she as an example of God's inclusivity and Jesus' reform of social
conventions!
"What's wrong with this picture?" Gender stereotypes, then, initially work in the
narrative to label the Samaritan woman as the ultimate outsider: non-Jew, unclean,
sinner, shameless. The author, then, has created a stereotype of the
ultimate outsider and the quintessential deviant, only to have the stereotype broken,
but basically in the direction of the inclusivity of outsiders anddeviants.
Looking at 4:27-30 and 39-42, however, we are told more about the Samaritan woman.
Here she functions as a mediational figure in the spreading of the news about Jesus to
the Samaritans. Although Mary Magdalene may accurately be said to have a formal
role as the bearer of a sacred formula to specifically designated persons, we saw that
her role still conforms to the gender expectation of that culture and it occurs within
the "private" world of the kinship group. The Samaritan woman may occupy a
structural place in a "gossip network," but this entails no formal role. Even if on one
occasion the Samaritan woman speaks to non-kinship-related males, we should not
conclude that this is a new pattern, for it is not confirmed by the gender dynamics
between characters in the "gossip network," i.e., Martha and Mary (11:28) or the Ten
and Thomas (20:24-25).
Do gender considerations play a part in how we understand the Samaritan woman
vis--vis her townsfolk? As we have seen, gender considerations must be nuanced in
796

terms of "public" and "private" worlds. What is appropriate in one sphere is not in
the other. At the beginning of the story, the woman is clearly in the "public" sphere
and relates to Jesus in a fashion that tells us much is "wrong with this picture." But as
Jesus leads her into his "private" world of fictive kinship, her behavior become less
and less competitive and more typical of the "private" world. Thus less and less is
perceived as "wrong with this picture." Not only is the individual transformation of
the woman narrated, but the nature of the social relationships between her and Jesus
is also changed. As the woman is welcomed into Jesus' "private" world, she sheds her
"public" sauciness and speaks truthfully and receives intimate communications. She
then begins to model behavior appropriate to the "private" world of Jesus' fictivekinship circle, and so she represents much that is "right with this picture." But
"wrong" and "right" are contingent on whether the space is "public" or "private."
Thus gender considerations remain important throughout.
7.0 Works Consulted
Alter, Robert
1981 The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books
Arthur, Marilyn
1977 "Liberated Women: The Classical Era." Pp. 60-89 in Renate Bridenthal and
Claudia Koonz, eds., Becoming Visible; Women in European History. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company
Barton, Stephen
1968 "Paul's Sense of Place: An Anthropological Approach to Community Formation
in Corinth," NTS 32: 225-46
Bligh, John
1962 "Jesus in Samaria," HeyJ 3: 329-46
Brooten, Bernadette
1982 Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and
Background Issues. Providence: Brown University Press
Brown, Raymond E.
1976 "Roles of Women in the Fourth Gospel," TS 36: 688-99
Burke, Peter

797

1980 Sociology and History. London: George Allen and Unwin

Carmichael, Calum M.
1980 "Marriage and the Samaritan Woman," NTS 26: 332-46
Collins, Marilyn F.
1972 "The Hidden Vessels in the Samaritan Tradition," JJS 3:96-116
Collins, Raymond
1976 "The Representative Figures in the Fourth Gospel," Downside Review 94:26-46,
118-32
Corley, Kathleen E.
1989 "Were Women around Jesus Really Prostitutes? Women in the Context of
Greco-Roman Meals." SBLASP 487-521
1993 Private Women, Public Meals: Social Conflict in the Synoptic Tradition.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers
Daube, David
1950 "Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: The Meaning of sygchraomai," JBL 69: 13747
Davis, John
1984 "The Sexual Division of Labour in the Mediterranean." Pp. 17-50 in Eric Wolf
(ed.), Religion, Power and Protest in Local Communities. The Northern Shore of the
Mediterranean. New York: Moulton Publishers, 1984
Derrett, J. Duncan M.
1988 "The Samaritan Woman's Purity (John 4:4-52)," EvQ 60: 291-98
Elhstain, Jean Bethke
1981 Public Man, Private Woman. Women in Social and Political Thought. Princeton:
Princeton University Press
Elliott, John H.

798

1990 A Home for the Homeless. A Social-Scientific Criticism of I Peter, Its Situation
and Strategy. Minneapolis: Fortress Press
Eslinger, Lyle
1987 "The Wooing of the Woman at the Well: Jesus, the Reader and Reader-Response
Criticism," Journal of Literature and Theology 1: 167-83
Finley, M. I.
1968 "The Silent Women of Rome." Pp. 129-42 in his Aspects of Antiquity. Discoveries
and Controversies. New York: The Viking Press
Friedl, Ernestine
1967 "The Position
Quarterly 40: 97-108

of Women: Appearance

and

Reality," Anthropological

Gilmore, David D.
1987 Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean (American
Anthropological Association special publication # 22). Washington: American
Anthropological Association.
Giovannini, Maureen J.
1987 "Female Chastity Codes in the Circum-Mediterranean: Comparative
Perspectives." Pp. 61-74 in David D. Gilmore (ed.), Honor and Shame and the Unity
of the Mediterranean (American Anthropological Association special publication #
22). Washington: American Anthropological Association
Girard, M.
1986 "Jsus en Samarie (Jean 4,1-42): Analyse des structures stylistic et du processus
de symbolisation," Eglise et Thologie 17: 275-310
Hall, Edward T.
1976 Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday
1983 The Dance of Life: The Other Dimensions of Time. Garden City, NY: Doubleday
Handelman, Don

799

1973 "Gossip in Encounters: The Transmission of Information in a Bounded Social

Setting," Man 8: 210-27
Harding, John
1969 "Stereotypes," IESS 15.259-62
Hare, A. Paul
1969 "Groups: Role Structure," IESS 6.283-88
Hoffner, Harry A.
1966 "Symbols for Masculinity and Femininity: Their Use in Ancient Near Eastern
Sympathetic Magic Rituals," JBL 85: 326-34
Hubbard, Benjamin J.
1974 The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning: An Exegesis of
Matthew 28:16-20. SBLDS 19. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press
Jacobs-Malina, Diane
1993 Beyond Patriarchy. New York: Paulist Press
Jones, Deborah
1980 "Gossip: Notes on Women's Oral Culture," Women's Studies International
Quarterly 3: 193-98
Jonge, Marinus de (ed.)
1977 L'Evangile de Jean. Sources, rdaction, thologie. BETL 44. Louvain: J. Duculot
Kraemer, Ross S.
1983 "Women in the Religions of the Graeco-Roman World," RelSR 9:127-39
1986 "Hellenistic Jewish Women: The Epigraphical Evidence. SBLASP 1986: 183-200
Keuls, Eva C.
1985 The Reign of the Phallus. Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens. San Francisco:
Harper and Row
Leyerle, Blake
800

1993 "John Chrysostom on the Gaze," JECS 1: 159-74

MacMullen, Ramsay
1980 "Women in Public in the Roman Empire," Historia 29: 208-18
Malina, Bruce J.
1981 The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: John
Knox Press.
1990 "Mother and Son," BTB 20:54-64
Malina, Bruce J. and Jerome H. Neyrey
1991 "Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World."
Pp. 25-65 in Jerome H. Neyrey (ed.), The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for
Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Stephen Hendrickson, Inc.
Meyer, Marvin W.
1985 "Making Mary Male: The Categories 'Male' and 'Female' in the Gospel of
Thomas," NTS 31:554-70
Murnaghan, Sheila
1988 "How a Woman Can Be More Like a Man: The Dialogue between Ischomachus
and His Wife in Xenophon's Oeconomicus," Helios 15:9-22
Neyrey, Jerome H.
1979 "Jacob Traditions and the Interpretation of John 4:10-26," CBQ 41: 419-37
1988a An Ideology of Revolt. John's Christology in Social-Science
Perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress Press
1988b The Resurrection Stories. Wilmington, DL: Michael Glazier
1990 "Mary: Maid and Mother in Art and Literature," BTB 20:65-75
1991 The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers
Olsson, Birger

801

1974 Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A Text-Linguistic Analysis. ConB
6; Lund: Gleerup
Pazdan, Mary Margaret
1987 "Nicodemus and the
Discipleship," BTB 17: 145-48

Samaritan

Woman:

Contrasting

Models

of

Peristiany, J. G. (ed.)
1966 Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Pitt-Rivers, Julian
1968 "Honor," IESS 6.503-11
1977 The Fate of Shechem or the Politics of Sex: Essays in the Anthropology of the
Mediterranean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schaps, David
1977 "The Woman Least Mentioned: Etiquette and Women's Names," CQ 27: 323-30
Schneiders, Sandra M.
1982 "Women in the Fourth Gospel and the Role of Women in the Contemporary
Church," BTB 12:35-45
1991 The Revelatory Text. Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture. San
Francisco: Harper
Schssler-Fiorenza, Elizabeth
1984 In Memory of Her. New York: Crossroad
Seim, Turid Karlsen
1987 "Roles of Women in the Gospel of John." Pp. 56-73 in Lars Hartman and Birger
Ollson, eds., Aspects on the Johannine Literature. Coniectanea Biblica. New
Testament Series 18. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell
Sterling, Gregory E.

802

1993 "Women, Culture, and Religion in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (323
B.C.E-138 C.E)." Pp. 41-92 in Carrol D. Osburn, ed., Essays on Women in Earliest
Christianity. Joplin, MO; College Press Publishing Company
Verner, David C.
1983 The Household of God. The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles. SBLDS 71.
Chico, CA: Scholars Press
Walker, Norman
1960 "The Reckoning of Hours in the Fourth Gospel," NovT 4: 69-73.

"I SAID: YOU ARE GODS":

PSALM 82:6 AND JOHN 10
JEROME H. NEYREY, SJ.
Biblical texts that called mortals "gods" attracted attention from commentators and
became the focus of ingenious interpretations and exegetical principles. [1] This is certainly
true of Ps 82:6, "I said: 'You are Gods.'" The present study examines the use of Ps 82:6 in
John 10:34-36. It is my hypothesis that the Fourth Gospel understands Psalm 82 very much
the way it was understood in Jewish midrash, for which it might be the earliest extant
example. An examination of the understanding and function of Ps 82:6 in John 10:34-36
will necessarily entail a survey of Jewish interpretations of that Psalm to put the Johannine
passage in its proper perspective.
I. Status Questionis
In the 1960s, a debate emerged over the interpretation of Ps 82:6-7 in relation to John
10:34-36, the general lines of which were summarized by Anthony Hanson. [2] He called
attention to four different ways in which Psalm 82 was understood in Jewish traditions,
with reference to (a) angels, (b) Melchizedek, (c) judges, and (d) Israel at Sinai. All four
interpretations are attested to in midrashic literature, but which one relates to John10:3436?
Angels. In an early study on Psalm 82, J. A. Emerton [3] argued that in the targum to the
Psalms, [4] Qumran, [5] the Peshitta, and the Fathers, elohim in Psalm 82 was understood to
refer to "angels." Emerton suggests that elohim refers to superhuman beings to whom the
nations were allotted (e.g., Deut 4:19; Daniel 10), whom the Jews regarded as angels but
whom the Gentiles called gods (see 1 Cor 10:20).

803

Melchizedek In llQMelch, Psalm 82 was cited apropos of Melchizedek The modern

editor of llQMelch described the document as an "eschatological midrash" which cast
Melchizedek in the role of judge. [6] Emerton, who had argued that the "gods" mentioned in
Psalm 82 were "angels,"' now saw the Melchizedek = Elohim reference in llQMelch
strengthening his earlier interpretation of Psalm 82; he suggested that Melchizedek was
being identified with the archangel Michael. [7] Hanson conceded that Melchizedek might
be called "god," but rejected its relevance for John 10. [8]
Judges. Psalm 82 has also been interpreted in Jewish tradition to refer to the judges of
Israel, evidence for which comes from b, Ber. 6a and Midr. Ps. 82. [9] This interpretation of
the psalm enjoyed considerable popularity during a certain period of Johannine
scholarship. [10] Returning to the issue of Melchizedek in llQMelch, Joseph Fitzmyer, [11] who
basically agreed with van der Woude's original interpretation of the passage, paraphrased
line 10 of this fragment as follows: "Elohim (Melchizedek) has taken his stand in the
assembly of El (Yahweh), in the midst of gods (angelic court) he gives judgment." [12] He
understands Melchizedek's role in that text not as an angel but as a judge. [13]
Israel at Sinai. As far back as Billerbeck, [14] it was argued that Ps 82:6-7 was
historicized in Jewish traditions to refer to Israel at Sinai when God gave it the Torah,
making it holy and so deathless. This midrash, which has become a popular understanding
of the use of Ps 82:6-7 in John 10:34-36, [15] implies that Israel experienced a new creation
at Sinai. Because God gave Israel the word of Torah, to which it became obedient, Israel
became deathless once more as it resumed the "image and likeness of God" given it at
creation. James Ackerman, the chief proponent of this argument, suggested that the
Johannine Prologue bears striking resemblances to the "Sinai myth,"' indicating how
Wisdom once dwelt on earth with humankind (Ps 82:6), thus making them immortal; but
because Wisdom was rejected and returned to heaven, sinful mortals now die (Ps 82:7). [16]
As regards these interpretations and John 10, Hanson rejected the traditions that
interpret "god" as either angels or judges. [17] He correctly concluded that only the last
interpretation of Psalm 82 (Israel at Sinai) has any bearing on the argument in John
10. [18] All of the studies cited above, however, are deficient for several reasons. First, they
tend to argue for an extrinsic interpretation of Psalm 82 in John 10: if Jews in their
scriptures or tradition can call a man "god," then Jesus is not totally out of line in being
called a divine figure. [19] This type of extrinsic argument shows little respect for the
midrashic understanding of Psalm 82 or other texts from scripture about the justification in
the first place for calling any human "god," even by extension. Are there intrinsic reasons in
the midrash on Psalm 82 which give warrant to such a predication? Second, those who treat
the background of Psalm 82, even in passing, do not present an adequate exegesis of the
argument in John 10 to see on what grounds Jesus is acclaimed "equal to God" (10:30, 33)
and what Psalm 82 has to do with that argument- There are some commentators who deny
that Psalm 82 in any way responds to the charges. [20] There is, then, much work left to be
done. We turn now to a more detailed exegesis of John 10 to see what is being argued, so
that we might assess more clearly the meaning and function of Psalm 82 in relation to that
argument.
II. The Argument in John 10:28-37
804

Unless Psalm 82 is used in a purely extrinsic manner [21] in John 10:34-36, then we
must investigate how it functions as an apology to a specific charge in the forensic
dynamics of John 10. The starting place is 10:30, where Jesus claims "I and the Father are
one (or equal)." The crowds correctly interpret this to mean that Jesus in some way claims
"equality with God." His claim leads them to a judgment, "blasphemy, because you, being a
man, make yourself God" (10:33). Several questions arise: In what respect are Jesus and
God "one" (or equal)? Is it true that Jesus "makes himself" God? This means that we must
examine both the earlier part of John 10 to see in what sense Jesus and God are "equal" and
the subsequent apology in 10:34-38 to see how Psalm 82 relates to the claims of equality.
The First Forensic Proceeding (10:1-28a)
After Jesus claimed to be the door and the shepherd (10:1-16), the Gospel describes
confusion in the crowd about these claims: Is he a demon or a saint (10:19-21)? So intense
is this popular confusion that a formal forensic process is begun in 10:22-27 about Jesus'
claims. Since the crowd, who is an uneducated 'am ha-ares (7:47-49), could not possibly
decide these claims, a solemn assembly gathers "in the temple, in the stoa of Solomon"
(10:23). There it puts a formal question to Jesus: "Tell us plainly, if you are the Messiah?"
(10:24). Thus, 10:1-28a can be seen as a forensic proceeding [22] which formally examines
Jesus' claims:
Claim:
Judgment:
Apology:

Jesus is the Door, Good Shepherd (10:1-16)

Tell us plainly if you are the Christ? (10:24)
Defense of Jesus as Shepherd (10:25-27)

Jesus' defense of his claim contains no new material which proves its truth, but is itself
a judgment on his judges, [23] an actual demonstration of how his claims work.
10:1-16
1. The (true) sheep hear
his voice (10:3b)
2. 1 know my own
and my own know me (10:14)
3. The sheep follow him, for
they know his voice (10:4)

10:27-28a
1. My sheep hear
my voice (10:27a)
2. I know them (10:27b)
3. And they follow me (10:27c)

By Jesus' criteria of judgment, then, he proves that his judges are not his sheep nor is he
their shepherd. According to the Gospel's logic, these self-confessed non-sheep have
rejected Jesus' basic claims to be God's agent and so are convicted of sin and unbelief (see
John 3:18, 20; 5:40-45; 9:39-41; 12:46-48). Yet the forensic process is not yet finished.
The Second Forensic Proceeding (10:28b-39)
In 10:28-30 Jesus makes newer and bolder claims Although formerly this Gospel
claimed that believers by their own judgment come to life and pass beyond death (3:16-19;
5:24), now Jesus asserts that he himself is the giver of eternal life: "I give them eternal life
and they never perish" (10:28a). He asserts that "no one shall snatch them out of my hand"
805

(10:28b). [24] Thus, Jesus now functions as the active agent of life, as giver of eternal life and
as protector of his sheep even in death. Yet these claims would put him on a par with the
all-powerful God.
10:29 states two things about God. First, God is "greater than all" [25] in virtue of God's
ruling or executive power as pantocrator, despotes, and basileus. [26] Second, of God it is
said, "My Fatherhas given them [the sheep] to me and no one is able to snatch them out
of the Fathers hand" (10:29). Concerning the latter remark, then, Jesus and God are alike,
even equal.
Jesus (10:28)
I give them eternal life
and they shall not perish
forever,
and no one shall snatch
them out of my hand.

The Father (10:29)

My Fatherhas given
them to me
and no one is able to snatch
them out of the Fathers hand.

To underscore the boldness of Jesus' claims, the text emphasizes that "God is greater than
all (10:29b), thus raising God above all other creatures, be they of no power or great
power. Yet Jesus claims that he is "equal to" God who is "greater than all," when he draws
the conclusion in 10:30, "I and the Father are hen."
Literally hen means "one." But the context suggests that this adjective be translated as
"equal to" or "on a par with." Jesus claims far more than mere moral unity with God, which
was the aim of every Israelite; such moral unity would never mean that mortals had become
god; as Jesus' remark is understood in 10:31-33. The very argument in John, then,
understands hen to mean more than moral unity, that is, "equality with God." By way of
confirmation, 1 Cor 3:7 indicates that hen can mean "equality." [27] In virtue of the comparison noted above, Jesus claims equality with God, who is "greater than all," because
there is no snatching out of their hands. To what does this refer?
In the context of 10:28, Jesus claims both the power to give eternal life so that his sheep
do not perish and the power to guard them from being snatched. Being snatched, then,
has to do with life and death, such that Death [28] has no ultimate power over Jesus' sheep.
Conversely, this implies that Jesus has such power from God so that he is the one who gives
eternal life and rescues the dead from the snares of Death (see John 5:25, 28-29; 6:39, 44,
54; 8:51; 11:25). Since God alone holds the keys of life and death, Jesus claims an
extraordinary power which belongs exclusively to God. [29] There is substance, then, to the
claim that Jesus and the Father are "equal" (10:30).
I have shown at great length that the Fourth Gospel clearly and formally argues that
Jesus is "equal to God" (5:18; 10:33) because God has given him full eschatological power
(5:21-29). [30] God gave him power (1) to give eternal life (5:21; 10:28), (2) to judge (5:22,
27; 8:21-30), (3) to be honored as Lawmaker and Judge (5:23), (4) to have life in himself
(5:26; 10:17-18), and (5) to raise the dead and judge them (5:28-29). In fact, 5:21-29, a
summary of Jesus' eschatological power, functions as a topic statement which the Gospel
806

subsequently develops in chaps, 8, 10, and 11. [31] The claims in 10:28-30, then, continue
the exposition of Jesus' full eschatological power.
Our exegesis of 10:22-30 yields the following information. A second forensic process
begins in 10:28-30. Jesus is formally on trial, not just concerning whether he is "the Christ"
(10:23-24), but especially about his claim to be "equal to God" (10:30, 33), The chief issue
that is contested, moreover, concerns ultimate power over death, whereby Jesus is equal to
God.
Claim: I and the Father are one. (10:30, 33), i,e., power over death (10:28-30):
(a) I give them eternal life
(b) "they do not perish forever"
(c) "no one snatches them out of my hand"
Judgment: "Blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself equal to
God" (10:33)
Apology: Use of Ps 82:6 (10:34-36): their judgment is false, because God makes Jesus
to be "Son of God"
Our focus necessarily turns to the apology in 10:34-36. How does the Fourth Gospel
understand and use Psalm 82, and does this usage have any relationship to the claims made
in 10:28-30? As we begin, let us pay special attention to the form of the charge in 10:33.
Jesus is accused of "making himself" equal to God, a charge that dominates the many
forensic proceedings against him:

5:18
10:33
19:7
19:12

"making himself God"

"you, a man, make yourself God"
"he made himself the son of God"
"who makes himself king" [32]

The evangelist distinguishes two elements of the judgment against Jesus: (1) Does
Jesus make himself God or equal to God? (2) In what sense is Jesus equal to God or god?
The distinction is important, for the Johannine Gospel denies the former half, that is, that
Jesus makes himself anything, but carefully explains and defends the assertion of his
equality with God. [33]
Psalm 82 as Apologetic Response
In response to the charge of blasphemy, Jesus advances an argument from scripture
using Psalm 82. When he cites Ps 82:6 in 10:34, he establishes the mode of argument by
comparing two things: if scripture was not in error calling mortals "gods" (Ps 82:6), then
807

neither is there error in calling the one whom God consecrated and sent into the world "the
Son of God" (10:35-36).
Jesus' reference to "Son of God" in 10:36 does not weaken the argument by reducing
the claim from god to son of God, because if one continues reading Ps 82:6, the two
terms are considered parallel and equivalent there ("I said, 'You are gods, all of you, sons of
the Most High'"). [34] In claiming to be the consecrated "Son of God," he does not claim
less than what is claimed by being "god" according to Ps 82:6. On the contrary, he claims
more.
Yet how does the Fourth Gospel understand Ps 82:6? One stream of critical opinion
takes the citation extrinsically, on a literal level as a mere play on words. If mortals, for
whatever reason, can truly be called "gods" according to scripture, then the term is not a
priori preposterously applied to Jesus. This type of explanation does not ask under what
circumstances mortals might be called "gods," and it sees Jesus basically engaging in an
evasive maneuver.
Such reasoning, however, does not mesh with the Johannine perspective for several
reasons. The Fourth Gospel always criticizes people who take things literally, either Jesus'
word or the scriptures. Regularly we find a pattern where Jesus makes a statement, which
his hearers misunderstand because they take it on a literal level, which leads Jesus to issue
a clarification which exposes the spiritual or inner meaning of his words. [35] It seems
improbable, then, that the Fourth Gospel is dealing superficially with Psalm 82, asking
readers to take its phrases and argument on a literal or extrinsic level. This is all the more
true since the Gospel constantly maintains that spiritual vision is needed to see the inner
meaning of texts from the scriptures which Jesus fulfills (see John 2:17, 22; 6:31; 8:56, 58,
etc.).
A literal reading of Psalm 82, moreover, seems inconsistent with the more typical
pattern of Johannine Christology. Wayne Meeks noted that when something claimed about
Jesus causes a reaction from the synagogue, the Johannine community tends not to
moderate its claim, but to rephrase it in such a way as to cause even greater
offense. [36] Thus, if mortals may be called "god," then Jesus, whom God consecrated and
sent into the world, can be called "Son of God," meaning "equal to God." A purely extrinsic
reading of Ps 82:6 in regard to John 10:34-36 hardly seems warranted.
How, then, does the Fourth Gospel understand and use Psalm 82? The chief clue to a
special reading of Ps 82:6 lies in 10:35, when we observe the way the Gospel interprets Ps
82:6 as part of its argument: If he called them 'gods' to whom the word of God
came Whoever, then, is called "god" is so named because "the word of God came" to
them. Scholars have long argued that this refers to Israel at Sinai when God gave it the
Torah, which I think is absolutely correct. [37] Yet what is the shape of the midrash on this
and how might it apply to the Fourth Gospel?
B. F. Westcott, for example, argued that when the Fourth Gospel speaks of "those to
whom the word of God came," the evangelist refers to the preexistent Word who regularly
gave theophanies to Israel's patriarchs. [38] Although the Fourth Gospel indeed develops an
808

argument that Jesus is the appearing deity of the OT, [39] it is not apparent that an allusion is
being made to that tradition in John 10, nor is it clear how such an allusion really advances
the argument that Jesus is rightly called "god." The evangelist, moreover, does not propose
here the argument which was made in the prologue, that the "Word came unto his own and
his own received him not" (1:11). [40] Israel is not being reproached here for rejecting once
more God's revelation to it.
III. Ps 82:6 in Jewish Midrash
The emphasis in John 10:35 is not on Jesus, the preexistent Word, but on "those to
whom the word of God came," who are called gods. Who were these people? Although it
is not the only stream of interpretation of Ps 82:6-7 in Jewish literature, there is a clear
sense that Ps 82:6-7 was understood in terms of Israel at the Sinai theophany. A secondcentury midrash goes as follows:
If it were possible to do away with the Angel of Death I would. But the decree has long
ago been decreed. R. Jose says: It was upon this condition that the Israelites stood up
before Mount Sinai, on the condition that the Angel of Death should have not power
over them. For it is said: I SAID: YE ARE GODS (Ps 82:6). But you have corrupted
your conduct. "SURELY YE SHALL DIE LIKE MEN" (Ps 82:7). [41]
Commentary: the occasion is Sinai (Israel stood up before Mount Sinai), when God
descended on the mountain to give the Torah. According to Exod 20:18-19, when the
Israelites saw the mountain blazing with lightning and heard the thundering, they said to
Moses: "You speak to us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die." In light
of this, the Mekilta indicates that God restrained the Angel of Death, so that Israel did not
die. And so because Israel became deathless, that is, beyond the power of the Angel of
Death, Ps 82:6 applied to them, I said You are gods. Gods, then, becausedeathless. But
with the worship of the golden calf, Israel sinned, and suffered once more the penalty for
sin, which is death: "You shall die like men" (Ps 82:7).
An important variation of this midrash occurs in b. 'Abod. Zar: 5a. The context is a
discussion of Deut 5:25-26 where Israel received the Sinai revelation. The author
comments that they have seen God and yet still live (recall the discussion of Exod 20:18-19
above); therefore, they ask, "why should we die?" This question becomes the occasion
for comment about the fluctuating power of the Angel of Death.
R Jose said: The Israelites accepted the Torah only so that the Angel of Death should
have no dominion over them, as it is said: I SAID: YE ARE GODS AND ALL OF YOU
SONS OF THE MOST HIGH (Ps 82:6). Now that you have spoilt your deeds, "YE
SHALL DIE LIKE MORTALS' (Ps 82:7). [42]
Commentary: the occasion is Sinai; Israel is once again called god because deathless. But
now we find the explicit note that being called god and being deathless are linked to the
reception of Torah. In fact, Israel chooses God's Torah for the express purpose that the
Angel of Death should not have power over it. Something else, then, is operative here
809

which suggests that receiving God's word (Torah) makes one holy, and if holy, then sinless,
and if sinless, then deathless.
A third early midrash can help to clarify the basic lines of this interpretation of Ps
82:6-7. The context is a reflection on Deut 32:20, "I will see what their end will be," which
is seen referring to a fickle, perfidious people.
You stood at Mount Sinai and said, "All that the Lord hath spoken will we do, and
obey" (Exod 24:7), (whereupon) "I SAID: YE ARE GODS' (Ps 82:6); but when you
said to the (golden) calf, "This is thy god, 0 Israel" (Exod 32:4), I said
to you, NEVERTHELESS, YE SHALL DIE LIKE MEN (Ps 82:7). [43]
Commentary: at Sinai Israel received God's word of Torah ("all that the Lord hath spoken")
and became holy and sinless ("...we will do and obey"), for which reason they are
called gods. Although it is not explicitly stated here, this argument assumes that holiness
leads to deathlessness, which is a godlike quality, for which reason Israel is called god. Yet
with Israel's new sin comes death, the typical fate of sinful mortals ("ye shall die like
men").
The basic lines of the midrashic understanding of Ps 82:6-7, then, are clear. When
Israel at Sinai received God's Torah and obeyed, this led to genuine holiness which resulted
in deathlessness; hence, Israel could be called god because deathless. But when disobedient
and sinful, Israel deserved the wages of sin, that is, death; hence, Israel could be
called man.
Yet this type of argument presumes some biblical understanding of death and
deathlessness as well as of the nature of humanity and God. In short, the link between
obedience-holiness-deathlessness lies back in the Genesis exposition of Adam in God's
"image and likeness," [44] an implicit scenario made explicit in the following midrash. The
segment is somewhat long, but because of its importance and the complicated argument in
it, it deserves to be cited as fully as possible.
R. Eleazar b. R. Jose the Galilean remarked: The Angel of Death complained to the
Holy One, blessed be He: 'I have then been created in the world to no purpose!' The
Holy One, blessed be He, replied: I have created you in order that you shall destroy
idol-worshippers, but not this people, for you have no jurisdiction over them. That they
should live and endure for ever; as it says, "But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your
God are alive every one of you" (Deut 4:4). In the same strain it says, "The writing was
the writing of God, graven (haruth) upon the tables" (Exod 32:16). What is the
signification of "haruth"? R. Judah says: Freedom (heruth) from foreign governments;
R. Nehemiah says: From the Angel of Death; and Rabbi says: From suffering. See then
the plan the Holy One, blessed be He, had made for them! Yet forthwith they frustrated
the plan after forty days. Accordingly it says, "But ye have set at nought all my
counsel" (Prov 1:25). The Holy one, blessed be He, said to them: 'I thought you would
not sin and would live and endure for ever like Me; even as I live and endure for ever
and to all eternity; I SAID: YE ARE GODS, AND ALL OF YOU SONS OF THE MOST
810

HIGH (Ps 82:6), like the ministering angels, who are immortal. Yet after all this
greatness, you wanted to die! INDEED, YE SHALL DIE LIKE MEN (Ps 82:7)--Adam,
i.e. like Adam whom I charged with one commandment which he was to perform and
live and endure for ever'; as it says, "Behold the man was as one of us" (Gen 3:22).
Similarly, "And God created man in His own image" (Gen 1:27), that is to say, that he
should live and endure like Himself. Yet [says God] he corrupted his deeds and nullified
My decree. For he ate of the tree, and I said to him: "For dust thou art" (Gen 3:19). So
also in your case, I SAID YE ARE GODS; but you have ruined yourselves like
Adam, and so "INDEED, YE SHALL DIE like Adam" (Num Rab. 16.24) [45]
The typical features of the midrashic understanding of Ps 82:6-7 are clearly evident: (a)
Sinai and the giving of the Torah, (b) Israel's obedience ("cleaving unto the Lord"), (c)
deathlessness or immortality ("freedom from the Angel of Death" .."live and endure for
ever like Me"), and hence (d) Israel being called god (Ps 82:6). This midrash makes explicit
the generally assumed doctrine of the relation of sin and death found primarily in Genesis
1-3, for it points out that God created Adam in His image and likeness, that
is, deathless. Adam was deathless because holy and obedient (I charged with one
commandment which he was to perform and live and endure for ever). Adam died
precisely because he sinned and lost God's holiness and "image." This midrash also makes
clear that interpreters of Ps 82:6-7 saw Sinai as a new creation, when the obedience,
holiness, and deathlessness of Adam were restored to Israel, thus linking the Adam myth
with the Sinai myth, as the following diagram suggests.
Adam in Paradise
1. created in holiness
2. and so deathless
3 yet sinned (ate fruit)
4. and so died,

Israel at Sinai
1. reconstituted in holiness
2. and so deathless,
3. yet sinned (worshiped calf)
4. and so died.

The midrashim we are examining all presume a complex yet traditional explanation of
the source of death. Good biblical doctrine states that God created Adam in a state of
holiness. He was, moreover, created in God's image and likeness, which Wisdom 2:23
explains as a state of deathlessness: [46]

God made man for incorruption

and made him in the image of his own eternity.
Deathlessness (or eternity) was conditioned upon holiness. God said, On the day you eat
it you shall die (Gen 2:17; 3:3). The tempter deceived Eve that if she broke Gods
commandment You shall notdie (Gen 3:5), which was a lie; for of the sinful Adam God
said, You are dust and to dust you shall return (Gen 3:19).
Although we have surveyed only four instances of the midrashic understanding of
Psalm 82, many more can be found in Jewish literature. Yet as we investigate those other
citations of Psalm 82, they only confirm what has just been shown. In general, it can be
stated that when Psalm 82 is cited in Jewish midrash, writers generally understand that
Israel is called god because of its holiness and/or its deathlessness. [47]
811

Evidently some midrashim contain a fully developed exposition of the Psalm, while
others have but fragments of an explanation. Yet even the earliest midrash cited above,
the Mekilta, implies as much as it states, probably because it reflects a very common
tradition which is presumably well known. Not all of the elements of the midrash,
moreover, need be explicitly mentioned when the Psalm is interpreted, for midrash is like
an iceberg. As much is implied as is visible. With this survey of midrashic interpretation of
Ps 82:6 in mind, we return to John 10:34-36. Does the Fourth Gospel interpret Psalm 82 in
a midrashic manner, and, if so, how much of the midrash does it know and use?
IV. Midrash in John 10:34-36
If the Fourth Gospel understands Psalm 82 in a midrashic manner, we would want
to see where John 10:34-36 stands in regard to three issues which regularly arise in the
midrashim. First, the historical occasion of Psalm 82 is regularly seen to be Israels
reception of Gods word at Sinai. Second, the midrash on Psalm 82 does not call
Israel gods for purely extrinsic reasons, but links godlikeness with deathlessness and/or
holiness. Finally, even the simple midrash assumes some biblical notion of death and
deathlessness, which implies an understanding of Genesis 1-3 or some popular myth of the
origin of death in the world. With these points in mind let us return to John 10.
As we noted above, the Fourth Gospel seems to understand Psalm 82 in a midrashic
sense as referring to Israel at Sinai. For the evangelist interprets the content of I said, You
are gods apropos of those to whom the word of God came (10:34-35). People, then, are
not called god gratuitously, for there is intrinsic content to the predication. The Fourth
Gospel does not explicitly state that gods...those to whom the word of God came refers to
Israels deathlessness, but only to its holiness in virtue of an obedient hearing of Torah.
Although deathlessness is not explicitly mentioned in 10:34, I would argue that it is
assumed in the link between holiness and godlikeness. After all, it is not the mere physical
hearing of the Word of God, but hearing in faith and obedience which constitutes holiness.
Such is the hearing that is celebrated in John 5:24; 8:37; 9:27. This Gospel clearly sees an
intrinsic link between hearing in faith and passing to eternal life. Nevertheless, John 10:3436 does not explicitly link godlikeness with deathlessness, but only with holiness.
The focus on holiness, moreover, continues in the application of Ps 82:6 to Jesus in
10:36. If Israel, who became holy, may be called god, then it is not blasphemy if Jesus,
whom God consecrated and sent as his apostle into the world, is called god and Son of
God. Holiness or sinlessness again serves as the ground for calling someone, Israel or
Jesus, god.
Throughout the Fourth Gospel. Jesus holiness or sinfulness has been a formal topic of
debate. As regards his alleged sinfulness, the Gospel repeatedly takes note of the popular
judgment of Jesus as a sinner (9:16, 24), a judgment based on his two healings on the
sabbath (5:1-17; 9:1-7). His enemies, moreover, charge him with being thoroughly evil, that
is, possessed of a demon (7:20; 8:48; 10:20). Here in 10:33 and 36 he is charged with a new
sin, blasphemy, for claiming to be equal to God.
812

In the face of these accusations, the Fourth Gospel denies any sin on Jesus part. John
10:36 represents but the most recent evidence of this defense, as it proclaims that
God consecrated Jesus. After all, Gods judgment of Jesus must surely have greater weight
than that of his peers (see 5:31-46). We have, moreover, heard of Gods evaluation of Jesus
elsewhere, that The Father loves the Son (3:35; 5:30). Sinners, of course, find no place in
Gods presence, yet Jesus was face to face with God (1:1-2) and in Gods bosom
(1:18). And Jesus will return to Gods presence at the completion of his mission (13:3; 17:5,
24). God, then, judges Jesus to be sinless and worthy to stand in the divine presence.
Nor could anyone convict Jesus of sin (8:46). His working on the sabbath constituted
no breach of Gods law, but must be perceived precisely as obedience to Gods will (5:31;
7:21-23). In fact, Jesus very ability to open the eyes of the blind testifies to his closeness to
God (9:31-33). Jesus holiness (6:69) and his consecration (10:36) attest to his preeminent
sinlessness or holiness.
Divine consecration of Jesus, moreover, suggests a picture of him as one totally set
aside for Gods purposes [48] and completely obedient to Gods will. This radical image of
commissioning evoked for Rudolf Schnackenburg the sense of a person sealed with the
Holy Spirit, [49] a comment that makes us recall the testimony of the Baptizer in 1:30-31.
John testified that he saw Gods Spirit not only descend on Jesus but remain on him
(1:32-33), which suggests that divine power and holiness were no passing phenomenon for
Jesus. Because of the dwelling of the Holy Spirit on Jesus, John testifies that he is the Son
of God (1:34), a figure whose task was to purify others with the Spirit which remained in
him (1:33). Jesus, then, is no sinner, but Gods Holy One.
Thus far we have noted that 10:34-35 understands Ps 82:6 to mean that obedience to
Gods word leads to holiness and godlikeness. As we saw with the midrashim, this
interpretation presumes some notion of deathlessness linked with holiness. Yet it is
important to pay attention to where and how Ps 82:6 functions in the forensic structure of
10:28-36. The Fourth Gospel uses Psalm 82 as a refutation of part of the charge. Jesus
judges judged wrongly when they accused him of making himself god or equal to God,
because God Himself makes Jesus Son of God, just as God mode Israel god by delivering
the Torah to it. At a minimum, then, Jesus refutes the essence of the charge by maintaining
that God makes him what he is, namely, a consecrated servant, agent, and apostle, a person
totally set apart by God for sacred duty. [50] The apology based on Psalm 82, then, argues
two things: it refutes the charge that Jesus makes himself Son of God, even as it affirms
his radical holiness against the charge of blasphemy. But if it confounds his accusers
(10:31-33), does it explain or support the claims made in 10:28-30 which precipitated the
forensic controversy in the first place?
We claimed above that Jesus is equal to God because of his power over death. In
regard to this, Ps 82:6 does not seem to play a significant part.
Claim:

Equal to God: power over death (10:28-30)

Judgment: Blasphemy, you a man, make yourself a god (10:33)

813

Apology: Charge refuted: it is God who makes Jesus Son of God because
of his holiness (Ps 82:6//John 10:34-36)
Ps 82:6, then, functions in a limited way; it proves the judges judgment is false, but it
hardly pertains to the substance of Jesus claims in 10:28-30. Psalm 82, moreover, would
not be a satisfactory explanation for Jesus equality with God according to the Fourth
Gospel. Even when made deathless, Israel always remained less than God, merely mortal;
the Angel of Death might still have power over them. Of Jesus, however, this Gospel claims
that he is no mere mortal, but a divine figure. He has power over the Angel of Death, not
vice versa. Ps 82:6 may function to prove the judges judgment wrong (he does not make
himself anything; God makes him Son of God), but it is not exploited as an adequate
explanation for the Johannine assertion that Jesus has power over death (10:28-30). Ps 82:6
functions only to prove that the judges judgment is false.
What then of the forensic claims themselves? Jesus and God are equal in terms of
power over death. Yet is Jesus himself deathless? Whence comes his power over death?
Friend and foe both know that he died on the cross. Friends proclaim that his death was
Gods will and plan (Acts 2:23; 4:28) and that he was fully obedient to God, even unto
death (Phil 2:8; Mark 14:35-36). The Fourth Gospel, moreover, proclaims a more
remarkable thing about Gods involvement in Jesus death. In 10:17-18 Jesus asserts that
God loves him precisely because he dies: For this reason the Father loves me, that I lay
down my life, that I may take it again (10:17). Death is usually a sign of Gods wrath, not
love. Jesus death, then, is clearly not the result of sin, as the midrash on Ps 82:7 argues.
Nor is Jesus the helpless victim whose life is taken from him, either by men or the Angel of
Death. For, as he declares, No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord
(10:18a). Furthermore, his death occurs in strict obedience to God, not as punishment for
sinfulness on his part: This commandment I have received from my Father (10:18b). In
10:28-30, moreover, Jesus claims to be equal to God in having Gods own power over
death. Jesus, then, while not literally deathless himself, has full power over death.
Indisputably Jesus dies, but the Fourth Gospel steadfastly maintains that Jesus has
power over death, both the death of his followers and his own. We noted earlier how this
Gospel proclaims that Jesus has Gods eschatological power to the full, one aspect of which
is to give life to others (5:21; 10:28) and to raise the dead (5:25, 28-29; 11:25). Yet
Jesus has power over his own death, to lay down his life and to take it back (10:17-18); this
power was received when God gave him to have life in himself (5:26), just as God has
life in Himself. And so Jesus is proclaimed deathless in a special way: although he dies, he
has complete power over death, his own and that of his followers. He raises himself from
death to life and he raises his followers from death as well.
Ps 82:6 in the midrashim explains deathlessness, but in a way that is not adequate to the
claims made in the Fourth Gospel about Jesus power over death. For this reason, I suggest,
the evangelist did not employ the full midrashic understanding of Psalm 82 which was
available to him.
IV. Conclusions and Further Questions
814

In summary, John 10:34-36 can be said to understand Ps 82:6 and use it in specific
ways. (1) According to 10:34-35, Ps 82:6 (I said, You are gods) is understood to refer to
Israel at Sinai when it received the Torah (to whom the word of God came, 10:35). (2)
Implied in this understanding is the intimate link between holiness :: deathlessness ::
godlikeness. The Fourth Gospel cites only an abbreviated form of this,
holiness :: godlikeness (3) Ps 82:6b (sons of the Most High) is cited by Jesus when he
calls himself Son of God (10:36), and it refers to his godlikeness in terms of holiness (see
consecrated and sent). (4) Ps 82:6 does not touch the substance of the claims made in
10:28-30 which precipitated the forensic process in 10:31-39. It functions as an adequate
refutation of the erroneous judgment of Jesus judges, who charged that he, a man, makes
himself equal to God, This judgment is false because God makes him Son of God. (5)
According to the apology in 10:34-36, holiness is linked with godlikeness in ways that are
appropriate to human beings, first Adam, then Israel. Jesus would be a mere human being
even if acclaimed god/Son of God, as was Israel. But the forensic argument in John 10
claims much more. No mere human being, Jesus is a heavenly figure who is equal to
God. His equality rests not on holiness but on divine powers intrinsic to him, that is, full
eschatological power.
(6) Jesus claims in regard to power over death always remain important in John 10. In
this Gospel, his deathlessness [51] does not formally derive from sinlessness/holiness as in
the case of the midrashon Ps 82:6, but from full eschatological power which God gave him
over death (5:21-29; 10:17-18). In 5:18 and 10:30, Jesus may be called equal to God for a
much greater reason than ever justified calling Israel god, namely, because of powers
intrinsic to him. Power over death is the specific content of equal to God.
(7) If we are correct that Ps 82:6 is understood in 10:34-36 in line with its basic
midrashic interpretation, then the remark in 10:28-29 that no one shall snatch them out of
my hand probably echoes what the midrash discusses in terms of the Angel of Death
whose power over Gods people was restrained. The Angel of Death will not snatch Jesus
followers/sheep either from his hand or Gods hand. (8) Although the midrashim studied
above were written considerably later than the Fourth Gospel, the understanding of Ps 82:6
in John 10:34-36 belongs in that same trajectory of interpretation. It might be the earliest
extant witness of that tradition, although not the most complete example.
This study has not by any means exhausted the inquiry into John 10:31-39. But it does
raise new questions. It focuses on the formal forensic process which structures the narrative
in 10:21-28a and 28b-39, highlighting especially the claims made by Jesus. The use of
Psalm 82 in 10:34-36 only deflects the judges false judgment; a full exposition of Jesus
claims in 10:28-30 and their adequate apology in 10:37-38 remains to be examined. The
relationship of 10:28b-30 to issues of Jesus eschatological power in 5:21-29; 8:21-59;
11:1-41 remains to be considered.
The use of midrashic traditions is not confined to 10:34-36. [52] Appreciation of Johns
use not only of the scriptures but especially their midrashic understanding will go a long
way toward clarifying the context of the Johannine community. Finally, if there is substance
to the argument about two forensic processes narrated in 10:21-28a, 28b-39, this might
provide further clues to the historical development of the Johannine community. It would
815

stand as another piece of evidence for a development from a low Christology

(Messiah) to high Christology (equal to God). [53]

Notes
[1]

Forexample,Exod7:1,whereGodsaystoMoses,ImakeyouasgodtoPharaoh.Thiscausedno1ittle
difficultytoPhilo,ashewrestledwithitsinterpretationinLegAll.1.40;Sac.9;Det.3940,16162;Migr.84,
169;Mut.1920,125,12829;Somn.2.189;QuodOmn.4344;seealsoPost.4344andVit.Mos.1.158.
[2]
AnthonyHanson,"John'sCitationofPsalmLXXXIIReconsidered,"NTS13(196667)36367.
[3]
J.A.Emerton,"SomeNewTestamentNotes,"JTSII(1960)32932.
[4]
SeeLuisDiezMerino,TargumdeSalmos(BiblioPoliglotaComplutenseIV,1;Madrid:InstitutoFrancisco
Suarez,1982)142and269.
[5]
SeeJohn Strugnell, The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran4QSerek Sirot 'Olat Hassabbat, inCongress
Volume:Oxford1959(VTSup7;Leiden:Brill,1960)esp.33642.
[6]
The original study was by A.S. van der Woude, Melchisedek als himmlische Erlosergestalt in den
neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim aus Qumran Hohle XI, inOudtestamentliche StudienXIV
(Leiden:Brill,1965)35473;seealsoMarinusdeJongeandA.S.vanderWoude,11QMelchizedekandthe
NewTestament,NTS12(196566)304.
[7]
J.A.Emerton,MelchizedekandtheGods:FreshEvidencefortheJewishBackgroundofJohnX.34
36,JTS17(1966)400401.
[8]
Hanson,John'sCitationofPsalmLXXXIIReconsidered,366.
[9]
SeeW.G.Braude,TheMidrashonthePsalms(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1959)2.5960.
[10]
Forexample,B.F.Westcott,TheGospelAccordingtoStJohn(London:JohnMurray,1908)70;M.J.
Lagrange,Evangile selon Saint Jean(Paris: Gabalda, 1948) 290;andR. H. Lightfoot,StJohn's
Gospel(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1956)209.
[11]
JosephA.Fitzmyer,FurtherLightonMelchizedekfromQumranCave11,JBL86(1967)2541,which
isalsofoundinhisEssaysontheSemiticBackgroundoftheNewTestament(Missoula,MT:ScholarsPress,
1974)24567.
[12]
Ibid.,26162.
[13]
Ibid.,25153.
[14]
SeeStrB,2.543.
[15]
Forexample,seeC.K.Barrett,TheGospel AccordingtoSt.John(2ded.;Philadelphia:Westminster,
1978)38485;andNilsDahl,TheJohannineChurchandHistory,inJesusintheMemoryoftheEarly
Church(Minneapolis:Augsburg,1976)10910.
[16]
SeeJamesAckerman,TheRabbinicInterpretationofPsalm82andtheGospelofJohn, HTR59(1966)
18691.
[17]
NotallagreewithHanson;forexample,seeE.Jungkuntz,"AnApproachtotheExegesisofJohn10:34
36,"CTM35(1964)55665.
[18]
Thisinterpretationhasalreadybeenurged;seeJamesAckerman,"RabbinicInterpretation;"18691.
[19]
Jungkuntz summarizes how many modern commentators see the use of Psalm 82 either in anad
hominemargumentorconsideritsimplyirrelevanttothenarrative'sclaims("AnApproachtotheExegesisof
John10:34,"55658).
[20]
Forexample,RudolfBultmann,TheGospelofJohn(Philadelphia:Westminster,1971)389.
[21]
Thatis,"aplayonwords";see,e.g.A.Loisy,LequatriemeEvangile(Paris:EmilNourry,1921)335.
[22]
Some suggestions have been made about the relationship of John 10:2239 and the trial before the
SanhedrinintheSynopticGospels,butnoanalysishasbeenmadeoftheJohanninepassageintermsofthe
formal elements of a forensic proceeding; see Paul Winter, "Luke xxii 66b71,"ST9(1955) 11215;
RaymondBrown,TheGospelAccordingtoJohn(AB29;GardenCity,NY:Doubleday,1966)1.4046;and
RudolfSchnackenburg,TheGospelAccordingtoSt.John(NewYork:Crossroad,1982)2.306.Onforensic
processinJohn,seeJ.H.Neyrey,"JesustheJudge:ForensicProcessinJohn8,2159,"Bib68(1987)50941.

816

[23]

ItisvintageJohannineargumenttoturnajudgmentagainstJesusintoajudgmentagainsthisaccusers(e.g.,
5:3146;3:612);seeJ.H.Neyrey,"JohnIIIADebateoverJohannineEpistemologyandChristology,"NT23
(1981) 11718. Often "judgment" in the Fourth Gospel is selfjudgment, so that if people judge Jesus
incorrectly,theyjudgethemselves.
[24]
RobertAytounpointedoutthat10:2830bearsstrikingresemblancetoJohn17:12("NoOneShallSnatch
ThemOutofMyHand,"ExpTim31[191920]47576).Whilethereareclearparallels,Aytoundidnotnotice
that10:2830speaksaboutJesus'poweroverdeath,but17:12speaksaboutprotectingthedisciplesfrom
deathtwoquitedifferentissues.
[25]
C.K.Barrettdealtconvincinglywiththetextualissuehere(Gospel,38182);seealsoJ.Birdsall,"John
X.29,"JTS11(1960)34244.
[26]
SeeJ.Whittaker,AHellenisticContextforJohn10,29,VC24(1970)24144.
[27]
SeeJ.Bernard,ACriticalandExegeticalCommentaryontheGospelAccordingtoSt.John(Edinburgh:T.
&T.Clark,1926)366;andBarnabasLindars,TheGospelofJohn(London:Oliphants,1972)370.
[28]
OnerecallshowPaulpersonifiesDeathinRomanswhenhespeaksof"Deathreigned"(5:14,17,21).
[29]
JewishlorenotesthatGodgaveElijah,Elisha,andEzekielthekeytothreethingsthatareexclusivelyin
Godspower,viz.,thekeytorain,thewomb,andthegrave;seeb.Ta'an.2a;b.Sanh.113a;Midr.Ps.78.5;
seealsoBarrett,Gospel,260.
[30]
SeeJ.H.Neyrey,AnIdeologyofRevolt:JohnsChristologyinSocialSciencePerspective(Philadelphia:
Fortress,1988)993:aprecisofthiscanbefoundin"'MyLordandMyGod:TheDivinityofJesusinJohn's
Gospel,"SocietyofBiblicalLiterature1986SeminarPapers(ed.K.H.Richards;Atlanta:ScholarsPress,
1986)15459.
[31]
SeeNeyrey,AnIdeologyofRevolt,3334.
[32]
SeeHeb5:5.Thesubstanceofthischargeisbestunderstoodfromtheperspectiveofculturalanthropology,
whichwoulddescribeMediterraneancultureintermsof"honor"and"shame";Jesuspeersinterpret his
remarksasclaimstoverygreathonor,claimsthatseemvaingloriousforapersonwhohasneverstudied
(John7:15);seeBruceJMalina,TheNewTestamentWorld:InsightsfromCulturalAnthropology(Atlanta:
JohnKnox,1981)2733.
[33]
InJohn5:1929,forexample,theFourthGospelrejectstheassertionthatJesus"makeshimself"anything;
seeNeyrey,AnIdeologyofRevolt,2022.
[34]
SeeBrown,Gospel,1.409.
[35]
OnthisformintheFourthGospel,seeHerbertLeroy,RatselundMisverstandnis(Bonn:PeterHanstein,
1968)4547,5367;andNeyrey,AnIdeologyofRevolt,4243.
[36]
WayneMeeks,TheManfromHeavenInJohannineSectarianism,JBL91(1972)7071.
[37]
IhastentoaddthatJohn5:37,whichalludestotheSinaitheophany,deniesthatIsraelactuallysawGod:
"His(God's)voiceyouhaveneverheard,Hisformyouhaveneverseen."Thistextbasicallyarguesthe
repeatedclaimintheFourthGospelthatnoonehaseverseenGod(3:13;6:46);itfunctionstodiminishthe
authorityofIsrael'spreviousrevealers,suchasMoses,Elijah,Abraham,andtheprophets,byreplacingthem
withJesus,theuniquerevealerofGod(1:18).Suchanargumentdoesnotdenythattheophaniesindeedtook
placeinIsraelshistory,butratherthatitwasJesus,therevealingdeity,whoappearedinthem(see8:58;
12:41).AlthoughIclaimthat10:3435referstoIsrael'sreceptionofTorahatSinai,thisinterpretationisnot
contradictedby5:37becausethetwopassagesarearguingquitedifferentpoints.
[38]
Westcott,Gospel,70; amodern versionofthisisargued byA.T.Hanson, "John'sCitationofPsalm
Ixxxii.Johnx.336,"NTS11(196566)15862.
[39]
SeeJ.H.Neyrey,JacobAllusionsinJohn1:51,CBQ44(1982)58994.
[40]
Forthistypeofargument,seeR.H.Lightfoot,St.JohnsGospel,208.
[41]
MekiltadeRabbiIshmael,TractateBahodesh9(trans.JacobLauterbach;Philadelphia:JewishPublication
SocietyofAmerica,1933)2.272.
[42]
Trans.I.Epstein,TheBabylonianTalmud(London:SoncinoPress,1935)19.
[43]
Sifre:ATannaiticCommentaryontheBookofDeuteronomy,Piska320(trans.ReuvenHammer;New
Haven:YaleUniversityPress,1986)329.
[44]
Onthispoint,seeJacobJervell,ImagoDei(Gottingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1960)103,11319.As
Jervellnoted,Gen1:26("imageandlikenessofGod")playedamoreimplicitroleintheexplanationsof

817

deathlessness;themorefrequentlycitedtextinthisregardwasGen3:22("themanhasbecomelikeoneof
us").
[45]
ThetranslationisfromMidrashRabbah(H.FreedmanandM.Simon;London:SoncinoPress,1939).
[46]
SeeJeromeMurphyO'Connor,"ChristologicalAnthropologyinPhil.,II,611,"RB82(1976)3137.
[47]
Besides the three examples cited, other instances of the use of Ps 82:6 would include:Exod.
Rab.32:7;Lev.Rab.4.1and11.3;Num.Rab.16:24;PirqeR.El.47;Pesiq.R.1.2;14.10;33.10;TanhumaB
Lev7:5;Pesiq.Rab.Kah.4;EliyyahuZuta4;EliyyahuRabbah24.
[48]
SoBarrett,Gospel,385.
[49]
Schnackenburg,Gospel,2.311.
[50]
See Peder Borgen, "God'sAgent in the Fourth Gospel," inReligions inAntiquity(ed. Jacob Neusner;
Leiden: Brill, 1968) 13748; and more recently George W. Buchanan, Apostolic
Christology,SocietyofBiblical Literature 1986 Seminar Papers(ed. K. H. Richards; Atlanta: Scholars
Press,1986)17282.
[51]TheFourthGospelhasveryconflictingmaterialaboutdeathlessness.Concerningdisciples,onemightliterallytakestatementssuchas3:16;5:24;6:50,54tomeanthattruedisciples
donotdie;somecharactersinthenarrativearesaidtobelievejustthis(8:5153;11:21,32).ItisevensuggestedthattheBelovedDisciplewouldnotdie(21:23).YettheGospelseemsto
havequicklycorrectedthatliteralreadingofJesus'words.ConcerningJesushimself,however,hisfollowerscouldneverclaim"deathlessness"forhim,givenhisevidentdemiseonthe
cross.Yettheydidclaimthatheoverpowereddeath(8:28;13:13).Hisresurrectionfromdeathisseenashisownactofpower(10:1718),thusaffirminghispoweroverdeath,ifnot
deathlessnessitselfinanotherform
[52]

Forexample,concerningtheJohannineuseofmidrashictraditionsaboutJacob,seeJ.H.Neyrey,Jacob
TraditionsandtheInterpretationofJohn4:1026,CBQ41(1979)41937.
[53]
SeeJ.LouisMartyn,GlimpsesintotheHistoryoftheJohannineCommunity,inhisTheGospelofJohn
inChristianHistory(NewYork:Paulist,1979)90121.

Jesus the Judge: Forensic Process in John 8,21-59

Biblica 68
Jerome
University
Notre Dame, IN 46556

(1987)

pp.
H.

of

Notre

509-541
Neyrey
Dame

This study of John 8 takes its clue from what appears to be a contradiction in the
text. In 8,15 Jesus states that "I judge no one ", a fair statement in light of the fact
that he is himself being judged by others (see 7,32.45-52). But in 8,26, the
situation is reversed, as Jesus states "I have much to say about you and
much to judge ". It is my hypothesis that John 8,21-59 contains a considerable
amount of forensic imagery and that its narrative is formally structured as a
forensic process, a trial in which Jesus is no longer plaintiff but judge. While a
forensic approach to the Fourth Gospel is scarcely new (1), John 8,21-59 has not
818

been examined in this regard, an important thematic perspective which

thoroughly pervades the Fourth Gospel.
I. Typical Forensic Process
If, according to the hypothesis of this study, John 8,21-59 is structured as a
typical forensic process, it is necessary to know what that process would look
like. For only when we know that can we have a better grasp of the elements of
John 8 and see how they conform to the cultural expectations of a forensic
proceeding. The issue initially seems somewhat complicated, for the first-century
world did not enjoy a uniform forensic system. From the Roman trial of Jesus by
Pilate, we know a great deal about Roman judicial process (2). The following
diagram indicates six formal elements in Jesus' Roman trial, as seen in the
accounts of both Luke and John:
Forensic
Elements
1. arrest
2. charges
3. cognitio
4. verdict
5. sentence

Luke

John
(a)

John
(b)

23,14a 18, 1-11 18,2923,14b

19,7
30
18,3323,14c
19,8-11
38
23,14d 18,39 19,6
19,1223,15b 16

6.
judicial
23,15c 19,1-4 warning

This procedure is also evident in the trials of Paul before the Roman governors,
Felix and Festus (3). In such forensic proceedings, the identity and authority of
the judge is evident from the beginning; the process consists mainly in
the cognitio of the judge, in which he evaluates the testimony of the plaintiff in
response to the charges alleged against the plaintiff. In Acts, moreover, we have
formal forensic speeches, both those of Paul's accusor, Tertullus (24,2-8), and
those of Paul, the plaintiff (22,1-21; 24, 10-21; 26,1-23), which are readily
intelligible in terms of classical forensic rhetoric (4).
But Jesus and many of his early followers were engaged in forensic proceedings
with Jews as well as Romans, as is evident in the trials before the Sanhedrin both
of Jesus in the synoptic gospels and of Peter and John in Acts 4 and 5. Jewish
forensic process in many ways differed from Roman (5). Legal Authority: the
"judges" may not necessarily be legal magistrates with clearly defined authority
819

but the leading men (6) of the city or village. For example, Jesus is tried before
the Sanhedrin, which consisted of the Chief Priests, as well as Scribes and Elders,
and Susanna was simply tried before the Elders. Matters of Arbitration: as
Harvey points out, some trials might focus on the establishment of fact, as in the
case of murder or theft, for which purpose eyewitnesses are indispensable. But
many forensic situations might deal with allegations or claims by witnesses (see I
Kgs 21,12-14), in which case the brunt of the process consists of the
testimony of honorable witnesses and the scrutiny of these witnesses, as the case
of Susanna and the elders demonstrates. No new evidence is presented before the
judging elders, only the discrediting of the accusing witnesses whose testimony is
shown to be contradictory, and so false (7). Considerable attention will be placed,
then, on the veracity of the witnesses and on their character. Witness and
Character: testimony from an honorable, educated, prominent person simply
commands more credibility in forensic situations than that of a slave, a woman,
or an uneducated person (see Acts 4,13). Jewish forensic process, then, was much
less formally structured than Roman procedure. The judges might well be the
elders of the city or village, assembled in the city gate, who attend primarily to
the testimony of witnesses and their character. Obviously both Roman and Jewish
forensic procedures are similar in that" judges" assemble to hear" charges" and
investigate the truth of the witnesses in the case.
II. Jesus Does Not Judge (8,12-20)
Before we can examine the forensic procedure in 8,21-58, we must attend to
8,12-20, which is itself a forensic process. But in 8,12-20, Jesus insists that he
does not judge (v. 15), whereas he shortly proclaims that he has much to judge
(v. 26). This important aporia might be taken as a clue to different layers of
tradition in the Fourth Gospel. At present, let us examine 8,12-20 in terms of the
forensic process presented there.
Regarding 8,12-20, scholars agree that it is of a piece with John 7 (8). The
occasion is still the Feast of Tabernacles (7,2), and Jesus claims to offer Christian
replacements for the water (7,37-39) and light (8,12) which are prayed for at this
feast. More importantly, the forensic process begun in ch 7 continues in 8,12-20,
as the following synopsis indicates:
1. Legal Claim
8,12

7,37

claim: Jesus = light

claim: Jesus = water

I am the light of the world.

If anyone thirst, let him come to me

820

and drink.
7,38
He who believes in me, as the Scripture
He who follows me will not walk in
says, "Out or his heart shall flow rivers
darkness, but will have the light of life.
of living water".

2. Basis for Testimony: First-Hand Knowledge

8,14

7,17

If any man's will is to do his will, he

Even if I bear witness to myself, my
will know whether the teaching is from
testimony is true; for I know whence I
God or whether I am speaking on my
have come and whither I am going.
own authority.

3. Demand for Impartial Judgment

8,15

7,24

Do not judge according to appearances

but judge with right judgment. (See
You judge according to the flesh; I judge
debate over whether the Christ or a
no one.
prophet can come from Galilee,
7,27.40-44.52).

4. Acceptable Testimony: Two Witnesses

8,16-18

7,26-27

Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is

My teaching is not mine but his who
true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I
sent me; if any man's will is to do his
and he who sent me. In your law it is
will, he shall know whether the
written that the testimony of two people
teaching is from God or whether I am
is true. I bear witness to myself and the
speaking on my own authority.
Father who sent me bears witness to me.

5. Authorized Testimony: Agent Sent From God

8,19

7,18

"Where is your Father?" Jesus answered: Who speaks on his own authority seeks
"You know neither me nor my Father; if his own glory; who seeks the glory of
you knew me, you would know my him who sent him is true and in him
Father also".
there is no falsehood.

821

6. Setting of the Forensic Dispute

8,20a

7,14

These words he spoke in the treasury, as Jesus went up into the temple and
he taught in the temple.
taught.
8,20b

7,30a

But no one arrested him.

They sought to arrest him, but no one

laid hands on him.

8,12-20 is linked with ch 7 not only in terms of Jesus' claims to be the

replacement of the Feast of Tabernacles, but is formally shaped like ch 7
according to elaborate forensic procedure. Put simply, Jesus is the plaintiff and
the assembled Jews are his judges. In both texts, (I) Jesus makes a claim before
the assembly of Israel in its most sacred location, the temple: he is Israel's water
(7,37-39) and its light (8,12). (2) The Jews examine the basis for his claim
primarily in terms of the legitimacy of the claimant: a witness should have firsthand information (8,14) (9) or be informed on the topic to which he witnesses
(7,15). What makes Jesus an apt witness in this instance is that he is truly" in the
know": he knows whence he comes and whither he goes (8,14), while they do not
know (7,27). They might be "in the know", if they were devoted to God (7,17).
Because of his superior knowledge, Jesus' claim and testimony ought to be
acceptable at court. (3) Instructions are given to the judging public to judge justly
and fairly; they should not judge with partiality (10), according to the flesh or
appearances (8,15; 7,24). (4) The testimony of a single witness is not acceptable
in Israel's court (Deut 19,15); yet two witnesses testify to Jesus' claims: Jesus and
the one who sent him (8,16-18; 7,26-28). (5) Jesus claims to be a valid witness,
deputized by the most honorable person as his personal agent (11), and so he
must be received as an acceptable witness (8,19; 7,18.28). In form, then, 8,12-20
resembles the kind of forensic procedure typically found elsewhere in the Fourth
Gospel, in particular 5,30-46 and 7,13-52 (12).
III. A New Trial
If in 8,12-20, Jesus the plaintiff was questioned by his judges about his claims to
be the world's light, this is not the case in 8,21 ff, where the roles are reversed
and Jesus becomes the judge and his audience the plaintiff.
1. 8,21-30 -The New Trial
8,21-30 sets the stage for the new forensic process which will be played out in
8,31-58. Typical of the Fourth Gospel, 8,21 functions on a literary level as the
822

topic statement for the subsequent narrative (13), and consists of three items: (A)
"I go away and you will seek me", (B) "you will die in your sins", and (C) "where
I am going you cannot come".
Topic

A. I go away and you will seek me (8,21a)

B. and you will die in your sins (8,21b)
C. where I am going you cannot come (8,21c).
C'. Then the Jews said: "Will he kill himself, since he says 'Where I
Development
am going you cannot come'?" (8,22).
B'. You will die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you
believe that I AM (8,24).
A'. When you have lifted up the Son of Man then you will know that
I AM (8,28).

The development of these topic items proceeds chiastically (14), starting with the
third item. (C) While the statement, Where I am going you cannot come, sounds
similar to 7,34, the narrator interprets it quite differently in 8,22-23. Of course,
correct knowledge of whence Jesus comes and whither he goes is a major
Johannine theme (15), knowledge of which divides insiders from outsiders. The
audience "judges according to the flesh", when they misunderstand Jesus' remark
as a prediction of his suicide: "Will he kill himself, since he says, 'Where I am
going, you cannot come?'" (8,22). Something is askew, as the audience suspects
Jesus of suicide, an unholy act which would imply that he is evil and not from
God (16). The truth of the matter is just the reverse; inasmuch as Jesus is "going"
back to God, he is going to a world "above ", which is "not this world" (8,23).
You cannot come, then, is a statement of fact that Jesus and his hearers belong
to two different worlds: "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this
world, I am not of this world". This is a damning statement in the Johannine
idiom, a formal forensic charge. Jesus and his listeners belong to irreconcilable,
hostile worlds; he belongs to God's world which they cannot enter, for they are
truly outsiders to God and God's covenant.
(B) You will die in your sins. Jesus pronounces a sentence on the hearers, viz. that
they will die in their sins and never come into God's presence. This is explained
in 8,24 to mean that "unless they believe that I AM" they will be sinners and die
fixed in that sin, thus truly not of the world above which is God's world. 8,24 is
the latest and most exalted of the absolute demands issued in the Fourth Gospel:
3,3 Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
3,5 Unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of
823

God.
6,53 Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no
life in you (17).
Whereas these functioned at one time as formal criteria according to which one is
reckoned an insider, 8,24 becomes the newest and most transcendent forensic
norm of judgment according to which Jesus' listeners will be judged. The
ultimate and fatal sin becomes non-compliance with the demand to acknowledge
Jesus
according
to
the
special
formula,
I
AM.
(A) The original remark of Jesus, I go away and you seek me, again sounds
similar to a remark in 7,33:
8,21
7,33
--------I shall be with you a little longer
I go away
and then I go to him who sent me
and you
will
You will seek me
seek me
and die in your
and not find me;
sins,
for where I am
where I am
going
you
come.

cannot

you cannot come.

But in Johannine logic, 8,21a contains a statement of double meaning (18), the
cryptic significance of which is lost on Jesus' listeners who are from below and of
this world. The narrator finally explains it in 8,28 in terms of Jesus' death. Jesus'"
going away" and their "seeking" him refer to their attempts to kill Jesus:
"When you have lifted up the Son of man. .." 8,21, then, serves as a topic
sentence of three items containing Johannine double-meaning words which are
subsequently explained in 8,22-30.
In terms of forensic procedure, 8,21-30 represents a forensic scenario different
from that found in 8,12-20, as the following diagram indicates:
Forensic
Aspect

8,12-20

8,21-30

assembled
Jesus
Jews
Plaintiff
Jesus
assembled Jews (19)
false claims:
Charge/crime
refusal to believe that Jesus is I AM
water & light
Judge

824

Sentence

-----

die in their sins.

Let us not underestimate the aggressive tone of Jesus' remarks here. He has
absolutely demanded of his audience that they confess him as "I AM", a life-anddeath issue, failure to do which results in "dying in sin". Jesus has, moreover,
accused his hearers of not being of his world: "You are from this world, you
are from below", harsh statements of fact (20)that Jesus, who knows what is in
the human heart (2,25), utters in solemn seriousness.
The audience of Jesus pleads "not guilty" to the charges, for as 8,30 indicates,
"As he spoke, many believed in him". But this is just the issue that must be
investigated (21), inasmuch as it belongs to plaintiffs to plead innocent. The
charge still stands; the testimony of the plaintiff must be tested. The trial, then,
has just begun: are these plaintiffs telling the truth that they are Jesus' disciples?
8,21 functions not only as the topic statement for the subsequent dialogue, but it
heralds the mode of inquiry and the proof which make up the investigation by
Jesus, the judge. The form of 8,21-30 differs from the forensic procedure
described in 8,12-20, for it exemplifies the typical Johannine pattern (22)
of statement/misunderstanding/ explanation. Jesus makes an initial statement in
8,21
containing
a
double-meaning
remark
which
the
hearers misunderstand because they are outsiders and do not grasp the inner,
spiritual meaning of his words (8,22). Jesus then issues an explanation, a further
word (8,23-30), which exposes the extra meaning coded in his original statement,
a pattern found throughout the Fourth Gospel (23), as the following diagram
shows.
Statement
3,3 4,10 4,32 6,41 11,11
Misunderstanding 3,4 4,11 4,33 6,42 11,12
4,34Explanation
3,5 4,12
6,43ff 11,13-15
38

This literary pattern will function in 8,31-58 as the official forensic criterion for
testing the truth of the plaintiffs' claims of innocence to the charge made in 8,2324. Jesus makes this plain in 8,31 when he abruptly establishes a test to see
whether the claim in 8,30 that" they believed in him" is true. He states, " You are
my disciples, if you remain in my word ", that is, if they understand Jesus' words
correctly (24) and agree with them. Their reaction to Jesus' words, then, will
determine whether the protestations of innocence in 8,30 are true. The testimony
of the plaintiffs must be tested, a process which is conducted by means of the
form statement/misunderstanding/explanation which, as the following diagram
indicates, regularly structures the flow of the discourse in 8,31-58.
825

Tests
Statement

1st
2nd
8,32 8,38

3rd 4th
8,41a 8,51
8,52Misunderstanding 8,33 8,39a 8,41b
53
8,34- 8,39b- 8,42- 8,54Explanation
37
40
47
55

5th
8,56
8,56
8,58

The preliminaries of the forensic process are over, and it is time to get on with
the substance of the trial.
2. 8.31-37 -The First Test
This first test of whether the alleged believers "are ..truly my disciples" is crafted
in traditional chiastic form:
A.
If
you remain
in
my
word (32a).
B.
You
will
know
the
truth...set
you free (32b).
C.
We
are
the Seed
of
Abraham (33a).
D.
We
have
never
been slaves (33b).
D'. Everyone who docs sin is a slave to sin; the slave does not remain in the
house
forever,
but
the
son remains forever
(34-35).
C'. I know that you are Seed of Abraham. but you seek to kill me (37a.b).
B'. If the son makes you free, you will be truly free (36).
A'. My word finds no place in you (37c).
The chiastic structure highlights the central issue of the first test: authentic
disciples remain in Jesus' words. This theme is presented in
an inclusio: beginning in v. 32a, Jesus makes a conditional statement about
authentic discipleship (if you "remain in my word"), and in v. 37c, he concludes
by stating that at this point "my word finds no place in you". By v.37, the judge
concludes that the audience has failed the first test. This motif of truly abiding,
moreover, is highlighted in the middle of the passage when Jesus states that
slaves do not remain but sons remain, indicating the overriding concern with
establishing where the hearers truly stand or remain, i.e. discipleship with Jesus
(25).
The rest of this exchange centers around the second issue, the meaning of the
terms free and slave. Jesus' words alone make for authentic freedom; but the
hearers claim that freedom comes by descent from Abraham, indicating by this
that belonging to Abraham is more important to them than belonging to Jesus
(26), which implies at the very least that they are loosely attached to him as
disciples.
826

In terms of uncovering the truth of their claims to be Jesus' disciples, the

probative force of this exchange comes precisely from the form in which the
dialogue is cast, viz.,statement/misunderstanding/explanation. Jesus issues
a statement: "If you remain in my word, you will know the truth". They, of
course, misunderstand his word, insisting that they have "never been slaves " (v.
33), implying that they do not need or want Jesus' truth or words which alone
make for authentic freedom. Jesus then gives an explanation which indicates how
wrong they are, that they are truly slaves, not free: "You seek to kill me" (v. 37),
which must be understood in the Fourth Gospel as the ultimate sin. And, as Jesus
indicates, "Everyone who does sin is a slave of sin and the slave does not remain
in the house" (vv. 34-35). Slaves, therefore, because sinners! The dynamic of
8,31-37, then, is a forensic demonstration that these people who claimed to
believe in Jesus (8,30), are not truly Jesus' disciples:
a) they do not remain in his word because they misunderstand it and reject it;
b) they are not free, but slaves because they are slaves of sin in virtue of their
seeking
to
kill
Jesus;
c) they prefer affinity with Abraham, rather than discipleship with Jesus, to give
them
right
covenant
standing
with
God.
d) they are lying when they say that they believe in Jesus.
The correct understanding of the allusions to Abraham in 8,31-37 greatly aids in
appreciating the forensic thrust of this passage. A distinction is made between
"free" and" slave" and between the son who "remains" and the one who does "not
remain". It would appear that we have allusions here to Abraham's two sons,
Isaac and Ishmael. According to Gen 16, IS, the slave woman, Hagar, bore
Abraham a slave son (Ishmael), whereas in Gen 21,1-8, Sarah bore Abraham a
free son (Isaac). According to Gen 21, 10, however, the slave son did not remain
in Abraham's house, because Sarah demanded, "Cast out this slave woman with
her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac".
Evidently, the free son remained in the house.
This material has a direct bearing on the argument in 8,31-37, where the primary
issue is: who is truly a disciple of Jesus? who is free? and who remains? As the
argument goes, the issue is one of being an authentic member of God's covenant
community. Descent from Abraham, of course, was regularly claimed in postbiblical Judaism as grounds for membership in God's covenant (27). The Qsource passage (Matt 3,9/Luke 3,8) and the discussion in Gal 4,21-31 are
evidence of the importance in the New Testament both of being of Abraham and
of descending from Abraham's true son (28). While the audience claims to be
such when they claim to be Seed of Abraham, such a claim is ambiguous, for
Abraham had two sons, and so testing is needed to discover just how the
827

audience is descended from Abraham and according to which son. Apropos of the
argument in 8,31-58, Jesus would not seem to object if his audience really were
of Abraham, for then they would do what Abraham did (8,39). What Jesus
uncovers, however, is that they are not of Abraham's free son, Isaac, who
remained in the house, but of Ishmael, the slave son, who did not remain.
True Disciples
False Disciples
1. from Isaac
1. from Ishmael
2. free, legitimate 2. slave, illegitimate
3. remained in the 3. did not remain in the
house
house

Claiming to be "Seed of Abraham ", the audience passes itself off as authentic
members of God's covenant, but their claim contains deception. They descend
from Abraham, but through the slave, Ishmael, not through the legitimate and
free son, Isaac.
But what is wrong with being a descendant of Abraham through Ishmael? While
the MT Gen 21,9 only says that Sarah saw Ishmael "playing" with her son Isaac,
this point is elaborately developed in the midrashim. In some streams, Ishmael's
"playing" was interpreted as idolatrous worship, whereby he was seducing the
young Isaac into sin (29); in other places, "Sarah has seen how Ishmael took
arrows and shot, with the intention of killing Isaac (30)," a tradition reflected also
in Gal 4,29. I suggest that this latter understanding of Ishmael-as-murderer might
also be operative in the Johannine argument, for Jesus accuses his hearers of
"seeking to kill him" (8,37; see 8,28.40.44 and 59). In fact, this "seeking" of
Jesus functions precisely as the proof that the audience is not descended from
Abraham through Isaac, but through Ishmael, for they do what Ishmael did, i.e.,
attempt to kill. This means that they are sinners, slaves of sin (8,34b), and so will
not remain in the house. Besides attempted murder, the audience is guilty of
lying, for, while they are "Seed of Abraham", they are descended from Ishmael,
but would pass themselves off as free sons (8,33). Knowing the Abraham
allusions, then, furthers our appreciation of the forensic argument operative in the
passage, how their claim to be "Seed of Abraham" needs to be tested to determine
from which son, Isaac or Ishmael, the audience is descended.
3. 8,38-40 -A Second Test
As in 8,31-37, these verses are also crafted in a chiastic arrangement which
focuses their meaning.

828

A. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard
from your
father (v.
38).
B.
They
answered
him:
"Abraham is
our father"
(v.
39a).
B'. Jesus said to them: "If you were Abraham's children, you would do
what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth
which
I
heard
from
God"
(vv.39b-40).
A'. This is not what Abraham did (v. 40c).
The key issue in this passage concerns doing, either doing what "your father told
you" (v. 38) or doing what Abraham did" (v. 40c), the argument resting on the
presumption that one's pedigree and ancestry are established by doing what one's
ancestor did (a chip off the old block). On this point, the passage is picking up a
point raised in 8,32-37, that Jesus' audience claims to be "Seed of Abraham", a
claim partially disputed by showing that the claimants are descended from the
slave son, Ishmael. But when the audience again claims that "Abraham is our
father", are they truly Abraham's offspring in any sense? Whose offspring are
they?
The forensic importance of 8,38-40 lies in the way the passage is once more
presented in terms of the familiar pattern. Jesus states, "I speak of what I have
seen with my Father and you do what you have heard from your father". Indeed
this is a cryptic remark, open to many interpretations, the correct one of which
only the true disciple will know. The audience misunderstands Jesus' remark
about his father, that he speaks of God, as well as his remark about their father,
who is the Devil. Their claim that Abraham is our father is now shown to be
totally false, because they do not do what their father did.
We must ask, however, what did Abraham do? Traditionally, this has been
interpreted in terms of Abraham's faith, a point clearly made in Rom 4 and Gal 3.
But post-biblical Jewish authors praised Abraham equally for his hospitality (31),
when he received the three heavenly messengers at the oaks of Mamre (Gen 18).
If Abraham were the father of Jesus' present audience, they would do what
Abraham did, viz., show hospitality to the present heavenly visitor who has come
into their midst, even Jesus. But as the text indicates, hospitality is far from their
minds, which are set on murder, but now you seek to kill me (v. 40a).
A second time, then, the judge has probed their testimony and found them not to
be telling the truth. Again they do not understand Jesus' word, so how can they
remain in it? Again, their claim to be legitimate in virtue of descent from
Abraham is challenged and refuted. What remains is the second, insistent charge
from Jesus that they "seek to kill me" (8,37.40). If that is the case, then they
cannot truly be his disciples.
829

4. 8.41-47 -A Third Test

Once again, the passage enjoys a chiastic shape which helps to convey its
argument:
A.
You do what
your father
did (v.
41a).
B. They said to him: "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even
God"
(v.
41b).
B'. Jesus said to them: "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I
proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent
me..."
(vv.42-43).
A'. "You are of your father the devil and your will is to do your father's desires.
He was a murderer from the beginning, because there is no truth in him. When
he lies, he speaks according to his own nature" (v. 44).
The key issue is again doing what one's father did. Linked with 8,39 and the
argument that children prove their ancestry by doing what their fathers did, 8,4144 begins and ends with Jesus' severe statement that his audience does what its
true father did, which in this case means murder and lying. The audience, of
course, claims to be holy and to be children of God, but Jesus successfully refutes
that with his argument that "if God were your father, you would love me ", the
one whom God sent, whom they seek to kill (8,40a), hardly a "loving" act.
I suggest that there are further allusions to Abraham and his sons in 8,41-44,
which have a bearing on the forensic argument here. If we are correct in
describing how Jesus has rebutted the claims of authentic membership in God's
covenant family because the audience, despite their claims to be "Seed of
Abraham", are not descended of Isaac but Ishmael, then we can more easily see
how the audience reacts to this slur on their legitimacy. They counter in 8,41 that
they are not born of fornication, that is, illegitimate "Seed of Abraham" and
bastards (32) to God's covenant. Philo, for one, clearly indicates that Ishmael was
a bastard, not a legitimate son and heir (33). The claim in 8,41, then, is a
disclaimer by the audience, but is it true? The testing of this lies in finding out the
audience's pedigree by examining what theydo, for the principle has been
established in 8,31 IT that sons do what their fathers did. Now what did Ishmael
do?
As noted above, many midrashic texts state that Ishmael tried to kill Isaac. Gen
21,20 indicates that Ishmael was an accomplished archer, a point which is read
back into Gen 21, 10, viz., that Ishmael played with Isaac. He "played with"
Isaac by shooting arrows at him, trying to kill him (34). Gen 16, 12, moreover,
calls Ishmael a "wild ass of a man", which is interpreted to mean that Ishmael
830

lives in constant conflict with family and neighbors: His hand against every man
and every man's hand against him. Some midrash even interpret this as
Ishmael's "plundering lives." (35) Such an understanding of Ishmael will become
an important item when we try to understand the remarks in 8,44 that the
audience is a murderer, thus taking after their father, doing what he did. But more
on this later. Sufficient now to know that Ishmael was considered a bastard son of
Abraham, a son who tried to kill the legitimate son, Isaac. By their deeds you
shall know them!
Again the familiar formal pattern we have observed continues to prove that these
people who claim to be Jesus' disciples do not remain in his word.
Jesus states something, albeit cryptic, but something the inner meaning of which
a true disciple would know: "You do what your father did ". In one sense
they understand part of this statement, for they take offense at the slur implied,
that they are bastard children of Abraham: "We were not born of fornication!"
But they misunderstand the reference to their true father, or rather they attempt to
keep it hidden, for they claim just the opposite. God is our Father, not the devil!
This, of course, is not only incorrect, but a lie. Jesus proves in 8,42-43 that the
audience is not obeying their Father/God as they claim, and so are sinners, a
point he made earlier in 8,34. Of course the Fourth Gospel debates how one
becomes a true child of God. In 1,12-13, it is not those born according to
material, physical and earthly criteria (i.e., right clan, circumcision or adoption)
who are God's children, but those born according to spiritual criteria, such as
belief in Jesus. In 3,3-5, moreover, those who qualify to enter God's kingdom are
those born anothen, not simply "again" (birth in a literal and material sense), but
"from above" (birth by spirit; see 3,6). Having God as Father, then, is a spiritual
claim which, according to 1,12-13 and 3,3-6, means belief in Jesus. Not believing
in Jesus, how can this audience in 8,41 truly claim that God is their Father? They
are perpetrating a lie and deception.
Jesus' explanation is anything but an explanation, for it is an undisguised charge
that the audience is totally evil. Jesus' remarks in 8,44-47 contain the following
four charges:
1)
their
father
is
the
devil,
not
God;
2) he was a murderer and a liar, and so are they;
3) "you do not believe me" (v. 45) and "if I tell you the truth, why do you not
believe
me?
(v.
46);
4) "you are not of God" (v. 47).
Jesus' remarks in 8,45-47 make abundantly clear that this audience is not
"remaining in my word ". Jesus continues to give them the word, but it is clear
831

that they are neither accepting that word nor remaining in it. They cannot, then,
truly be his disciples! They have been lying all along! Jesus the judge, then, has
tested their claims to innocence and shown them to be utterly false.
The judge's cognitio, moreover, leads to specific formal charges against those
being examined. As the trial continues, Jesus formally accuses them of being
enemies of God, offspring of Cain and spawn of the Devil (8,44) (36). "You do
what your father did" (8,41a), a general accusation which includes the specific
charges of murder and lying. Concerning murder, Jesus states, "You are of your
father the devil, and your will is to do his desires. He was a murderer from the
beginning" (8,44b). It is one thing to indicate that their father is the devil and that
he was "a murderer from the beginning"; but that remark also accuses the devil's
offspring of the same crime: "Your will is to do your father's desires ". The
charges of Jesus are, at this point, just that, charges. Proof is needed! If proof is
forthcoming, then the main point of this forensic process, the truth or falsehood
of the claim in 8,30 to be followers of Jesus, would be settled. If this audience is
truly "of the devil" and does what the devil did (murder), then they cannot be
telling the truth in 8,30 and cannot be Jesus' disciples, and so would come under
the sentence enunciated in 8,24.
The progress of the forensic proceeding thus far gives strung support to Jesus'
charge that his audience is plotting murder. This charge explains the cryptic
double meaning in the remark that they were" seeking" Jesus, for while on the
surface it might mean that they were seeking the truth, Jesus proves that their
"seeking" (8,21.28.40) was rather a "seeking to kill" him (8,37). At first Jesus
ambiguously remarks," You will seek me" (8,21), whose sinister meaning is
hinted at in the remark, "When you have lifted up the Son of man" (8,28), but
which is finally exposed for what it really is when Jesus states plainly: "You seek
to kill me" (8,37) and "... but now you seek to kill me" (8,40). Inasmuch as they
actually take up stones to throw at him (8,59), they prove the truth of Jesus'
charge of murder. Like their father, moreover, they were murderers from the
beginning. So much for the charge of murder, but the demonstration of lying will
come up in the next part of this trial in 8,48-55.
5. 8,48-55 -A Fourth Test
The trial which continues in 8,51 is punctuated here with a brief, bitter exchange.
Jesus the judge has accused his hearers of lying and of being offspring of the
devil. Typical of this type of name calling, they accused Jesus of the same thing,
under the rubric "It takes one to know one ". If they are liars, he is an apostate
from Israel, "a Samaritan"; if they are offspring of the devil, then he "has a
demon" (8,48). At the very least, this outburst clearly indicates what the audience
832

really thinks of Jesus, that they could never have been his disciples. Whereas the
audience never attempts to refute Jesus' charge of demonic descent, Jesus offers
as apology to their slurs the fact that he honors his Father, who is God, a fact
completely incompatible with allegiance with the devil. They come from two
different worlds (8,23).
The testing of the audience continues in the form we have come to expect. Jesus
makes another statement: "If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death" (v.
51), which is misunderstood: "Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham
died, as did the prophets; and you say, 'If anyone keeps my word, he will never
taste death'" (v. 52). The misunderstanding lies in the way they repeat Jesus'
word, indicating that they took it in a literal, material fashion:
Jesus' Word
Their Version
If anyone keeps my If anyone keeps my
word,
word,
he will never see he will never taste
death.
death.

Jesus never stated that his disciples would never die, although there is a great
deal of confusion on that point in 21,20-23 and 11,21.37. The probative force of
this exchange rests on the original accusation of Jesus that these people are "of
this world and from below", that is, not of Jesus' world. They, like Nicodemus in
3,6 and 12, are flesh, not spirit, and so cannot understand heavenly or spiritual
things. By taking Jesus' words literally, they demonstrate that they are not
spiritual and that they do not understand spiritual things, thereby proving what
Jesus had charged them with, being "of this world" and "from below".
Their misunderstanding is compounded by their reduction to the state of
questioning in 8,53. Those who ask questions demonstrate that they do not have
answers (37); by asking "Whom do you make yourself? Are you greater than our
Father Abraham?" the audience indicates that they do not know who Jesus is,
even though he told them in 8,24 that he is "I AM". Not knowing even then who
he was (e.g. "They said to him, 'Who are you?'" 8,25), they nevertheless claimed
to believe in him. Now when they ask" Whom do you make yourself?" they
prove that they have never known who he is, neither "greater than Abraham" nor"
I AM". Their questioning proves that they were lying from the beginning when
they claimed to know Jesus and asserted that they were his followers.
Jesus' explanation is not really an explanation as much as an argument proving
the audience's guilt. He indicates how different he is from them, confirming the

833

charge in 8,23 that he is "not of this world" nor "from below", as they are. In
substance, Jesus proves now what he had charged earlier, viz., that they are liars.
As regards lying, Jesus conducts a complicated proof. Of their lying father it was
said: "He has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When
he lies, he speaks according to his nature, for he was a liar and the father of lies"
(8,44). Lying, then, has two aspects: (a) having nothing to do with the truth yet
(b) dissembling that one knows and says the truth. Of the listeners it is argued in
fact that they have nothing to do with the truth; for if they were truly Jesus'
disciples, "they would know the truth and the truth would make them free"
(8,31). They dissemble, moreover, when they claim to be (legitimate)
"descendants of Abraham" (8,32) but are not (38), and boast that they are "sons
of God" (8,41) but are not.
Finally in 8,55, Jesus finishes his argument proving them liars. Speaking of God,
Jesus claims to be the complete opposite of his audience: "You do not know him;
I know him." This judgment of fact serves as the basis for Jesus' next remark: "If
I said I do not know him I should be a liar like you; but I do know him".
Implied in this comparison/contrast is an accusation that they are liars. Were
Jesus to dissemble, he would reverse his statement and say "I do not know him ".
But Jesus speaks the truth when he claims "but I do know him". The liars, on the
contrary, dissemble when they say "I know him (God)", for their judge has
persuasively shown that they do not know God or understand God's words,
despite their dissembling to the contrary (39).
In proving them liars, Jesus demonstrates the forensic purpose of the entire
dialogue in 8,31-58. Recall that Jesus already judged his listeners to be "from
below" and "of this world" (8,23). To paraphrase, "they speak according to their
nature" (8,44), that is, they naturally dissemble and lie when they say that they
believe Jesus (8,30). It belongs to Jesus the judge to ferret out the truth, which in
this case is to demonstrate that like their father they are liars from the
beginning. They always were and will be outsiders to God's word and God's
covenant.
Furthermore, an evident allusion to Abraham in 8,52-53 functions in the forensic
argument. Jesus, of course, has made a claim in his statement that "if one keeps
my word, he will never see death" (8,51); such a claim is easily refuted by the
literal, physical argument that people celebrated in Israel for "hearing" God's
word have all died. Abraham, canonized because he "believed God and it was
credited to him as righteousness" (Gen 15,6), died; the prophets, all of whom
received a word of God, died. Despite Jesus' claim, the literal facts seem to speak
otherwise; and so, the reference to Abraham in 8,52 functions on the part of the
834

hearers as a refutation of Jesus' claim, once more proving that his words do not
find a home in them.
At stake is an important forensic element. As we noted at the beginning of this
study, the social standing or character of a witness or claimant is a pivotal factor
in forensic proceedings for evaluating the truth of a testimony given (40). Jesus is
making extraordinary claims which are not acceptable to others. A factor
inevitably must be Jesus' character. Who is Jesus that anyone should take him
seriously? Jesus dismissed the audience earlier because of its base character: they
are not descended from Abraham through Isaac, but take their lineage through the
illegitimate Ishmael and finally from Cain and the Devil. The appropriate
question now becomes Jesus' own character or standing: "Are you greater than
our rather Abraham? Whom do you make yourself?" (8,53). Abraham is an
uncontested saint and a thoroughly honorable character, whose holiness and
honor exist apart from Jesus' claims. What, then, is Jesus' character that anyone
should listen to him, especially as this character is measured by the standard of
Abraham?
Jesus immediately claims to be a holy and honorable person. He disclaims that he
is vainglorious (41), "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing" (8,54a), and then
goes on to assert his character: "It is my Father who glorifies me, or whom you
say that he is your God" (8,54b). This affirms his character: he is honorable, for
God, who is a prominent person, attests to his honor (42); he is a holy person, for
the attesting person is the Holy One, Blessed be He (43). While Jesus' honorable
character supports his claims in 8,51, the relationship of Abraham and Jesus
remains unexplained, as there is still more to say about them in the rest of the
forensic proceeding.
6. 8,56.59 -A Final Test
Jesus concludes the trial, bringing it back to where it began. In 8,24, he charged
that they would die in their sins if they did not confess him as "I AM". In 8,58-59
a final test demonstrates conclusively that they will not accept him as "I AM", for
they took up stones to throw at him when he affirms once more that "I AM".
8,56-59, then, clinches the argument and proves beyond any shadow of doubt
what the audience really thinks of Jesus.
Jesus makes a final statement, "Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he
saw it and was glad" (8,56). Again, the audience misunderstands Jesus' words:
Jesus' Word
Their Version
Your
father You are not fifty
835

rejoiced
that he was to see
years old, and
my day;
he saw it and was
you have seen Abraham?
glad.

In Jesus' version, he is the prominent figure, the one whom Abraham is privileged
to see, whereas in their version the roles are reversed and Jesus is privileged to
see Abraham. This type of gaffe indicates what they really think of Jesus, as some
minor figure out of the mainstream of things. It proves, moreover, that they are
impervious to Jesus' word which never finds a home in them (8,31), and so they
cannot be his true disciples.
Jesus' finishes the proceedings with the true explanation of his relationship with
Abraham, "Before Abraham was coming to be, I AM" (8,58). In Jesus' version,
his superiority to Abraham is reaffirmed, for his being is "to be" (eimi) and
Abraham's is "to become" (ginesthai). Jesus, moreover, claims that his "being" is
prior to Abraham's "coming to be," a statement of radical precedence (44). Their
question in 8,57 about how a young Jesus could have seen an old Abraham is
simply reversed by Jesus' remark that he is the old, ancient, eternal figure who
"is" before the recent Abraham" came to be ". Not understanding the spiritual
import or Jesus' words, they prove that they are not of his world, but from below.
And their reaction to his word in 8,59 proves that they will not accept him as "I
AM", a figure of another world.
One more reference to Abraham occurs in this forensic context. The honorable
Jesus asserted in 8,56 that "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my
day; he saw it and was glad ". There is considerable debate over which precise
theophany in Genesis might be alluded to here, the Covenant of the Pieces (Gen
15) (45), or the Visit at the Oak at Mamre (Gen 18) (46). Because of the possible
correspondences between Abraham's hospitality in Gen 18 and John 8,39 and
between laughter in Gen 18,12-15 and John 8,56, it seems that the Fourth Gospel
alludes to Gen 18. More importantly, it implies that Abraham received a
christophany in the visit at the Oak of Mamre (47). This is no mere academic
excursus, for according to the argument in 8,56-58, the substance of Jesus'
forensic law in 8,24 and the exposition of his character in 8,52-53 depend on an
allusion to an appearance by the heavenly Jesus to Abraham.
In short, Jesus claims to be a character of extraordinary eminence and holiness
(recall 8,23, "I am from above... I am not of this world"). He claims to be nothing
less than the appearing deity who gave christophanies to Abraham, Isaiah, Moses
etc. (48) He is superior to Abraham, as the argument shows how important it is to
836

get straight whether Jesus saw Abraham (lower status for Jesus) or whether
Abraham saw Jesus (higher status for Jesus). He is superior in that he is "I AM"
(eimi), eternal in the past and imperishable in the future, whereas Abraham has
both a beginning, "coming to be" (ginesthai) and an ending, "Abraham died"
(apethanen), indicating radically contingent being. Jesus' superior character,
moreover, is communicated especially in the sobriquet "I AM", which must be
taken as a reference to the name of the appearing deity of the Hebrew Scriptures
(49). Whereas it might have been conceivable for the audience to fail to
understand the content of Jesus' claim in 8,24, that content is now revealed. And
Jesus as "I AM" is an extraordinary character both in honor and holiness as the
one who bears God's name (see 17,6.11-12.26) and who acts as a deity in giving
christophanies. His character as a trustworthy and acceptable witness is
unimpeachable; his claims, therefore, must be accepted.
The action of the audience in 8,59 indicates many things. By "taking up stones to
throw at him ", they indicate that they now understand the substance of the claim
to be "I AM" (8,24) and the answer given to their question in 8,53, "Are you
greater than our father Abraham? Whom do you make yourself?" They have
heard the answer and understood. But they formally reject the claim by "seeking"
Jesus, that is, seeking to kill him. This action confirms the charge of Jesus
throughout the forensic proceeding that they are murderers, like their father the
devil. The attempt at murder, moreover, proves that Abraham cannot be their
father, who showed only hospitality, not hostility to Jesus. Their attempt to stone
Jesus conclusively proves what Jesus had asserted in 8,23, viz., that they are "of
this world" and "from below", locations which in the context mean that they are
not part of God's world but of the other world, the world of Satan, their father.
The forensic proceeding is now complete; the judge's cognitio has proved
conclusively the charges made in 8,21-29.
IV. Resume, Conclusions, Further Questions
Resume
The Fourth Gospel apparently redacted John 8,21-59 to present the whole
episode as an extended forensic process in which are pre- sent all of the formal
elements of a typical forensic process: a judge, plaintiffs, a norm of judgment or
law, testimony from witnesses, a judge's cognitio, and forensic proof. Judge and
Plaintiff: Although 8,12-20 records the testimony of Jesus as a knowledgeable,
deputized witness 10 his Jewish judges, 8,21-30 portrays a shift in forensic roles
whereby Jesus becomes the judge and his listeners the plaintiffs (50). Norm of
Judgment: As judge, Jesus establishes a most solemn law, complete with
punishment for non-compliance:
837

Law: Unless
you
believe
Punishment: you will die in your sins (8,24).

that

AM

Charge: Along with this, Jesus the judge accuses his hearers of a serious sin,
viz., not belonging to Jesus' world, which is the world of God: "You are from
below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world" (8,23). His
audience pleads "not guilty", alleging belief in him (8,30), which would mean
that they do not come under his judgmental statement in 8,23-24. But is their
protestation of belief true? Judges Cognitio: In 8,31-59, Jesus the judge conducts
a cognitio of his plaintiffs to see whether they are in fact telling the truth that they
are authentic believers (8,31). Testimony of Witnesses: As tile judge speaks to
them, they bear testimony against themselves, proving that they are liars and so
pseudo-believers. In forensic proceedings this is considered to be the best
testimony at a trial, to have unwilling witnesses testify against themselves (51).
As a result of his cognitio, Jesus has discovered that they are really slaves of sin,
bastards of Abraham, murderers, liars and sons of the devil. It turns out that their
character is base. they are bastards, descendants of a slave (Ishmael), and
offspring of the devil. Forensic Proof: The proof that they are not genuine
believers and true disciples comes in the Course of Jesus' cognitio that they do
not remain in his word:
1)
they
misunderstand
2)
they
dispute
his
3) they make false claims.

him
assertions,

constantly,
and

In the Course of his cognitio, Jesus actually discovers that they are murderers and
liars, both of which indicate that they cannot be Jesus' disciples. The clinching
demonstration comes when they take up stones to throw at him for the revelation
that he is "I AM ". The plaintiffs, then, have demonstrated beyond any shadow or
doubt that they do not in fact believe in Jesus as "I AM" and so they stand
condemned to "die in their sins ". The law, which was stated in 8,24, is shown by
8,58-59 to apply to them with devastating effect. They are duly charged, tried,
convicted and sentenced. The importance ofthis recognition of forensic process
can only aid in the proper interpretation of other situations where testimony is
scrutinized, where charges are made and where Jesus acts as judge (3,1-21; 5,1646; 6,24-66; 7,32-52; 8,12-20; 9,13-41; 10,19-39; and 11,45-53).
Conclusion: The Social Significance of Jesus Judgment
If 8,21-59 is presented in the Fourth Gospel in precise, formal forensic terms,
how does this function? What does this suggest about the life and setting of the
838

Johannine community (52)? One way of answering this entails reflection on the
meaning of "judgment" in the Fourth Gospel and other New Testament writings.
What, in fact, goes into "judgment "? On one level, a judge hears charges and
claims, which he tests for validity. Yet in the gospel tradition, judgment also has
to do with separating the good and the bad. For example, Matthew records at
least five parables in which judgment is described as an act of separation:
13,36-43
separation
of
wheat
from
tares
13,47-50
separation
of
good
from
bad
fish
22,11-14 separation of those with from those without wedding garments
25,1-13
separation
of
wise
from
foolish
maidens
25,31-46 separation of sheep from goats.
It belongs to a judge to sift witnesses' testimony so as to know what kind of
character they are. The wicked have no place with the just and must be winnowed
out, as chaff is separated from wheat (see Matt 3,12). Jesus' dialogue with the
pseudo-believers in 8,31-58 generates an elaborate series of dualistic contrasts
which force a separation of (a) true, free sons of Abraham from false, slave sons,
(b) sons of God from Sons of the devil, and c) true disciples from false ones.
A. True Covenant Members
A. Pseudo-Covenant Members
1. free
1. slaves
2. legitimate sons, who remain in
2. slave sons, who do not remain
the house
3. descendants of Abraham,
3. descendants of Abraham, through Ishmael
through Isaac
4. they do what their father did:
4. they do what" their father" did: murder
hospitality
B. Father is God
B. Father is the Devil
1. my father, who is God
1. your father is the devil
2. I told you the truth from my
2. there is no truth in your father
father
C. True Disciples
C. Pseudo- Disciples
1. remain in my word
1. my words find no place in you
2. who is of God hears God's 2. the reason you do not hear them is that you
words
are not of God
3. I honor my Father
3. and you dishonor me
4. I know him
4. you have never known him

839

It follows, then, that Jesus' forensic inquiry in 8,31-58 serves to draw firm
boundary lines between true and false disciples, between authentic offspring of
Abraham and bastard descendants, and between members of God's covenant
community and members of Satan's household. In doing this, Jesus the judge has
conclusively proved his original charge in 8,23, viz., that his audience belonged
to a world totally and completely opposed to his world: he is "from above", while
they are "from below"; he is "not of this world", while they most surely are "of
this world". Failing to belong to Jesus' world, the audience is shown to be of a
cosmos ruled by the Devil. The forensic process, then, serves precisely to
separate the evil from the good, a process necessary in a world of ambiguity,
masquerade and deception. It belongs to the judge to sift testimony, to read
hearts, and to unmask deception, which power is abundantly credited to Jesus in
the Fourth Gospel (see 2,23-25).
Jesus' judgment in 8,21-59, moreover, deserves to be seen in connection with the
larger pattern of judgment of "the World" which develops in the Fourth Gospel.
Although it is not always perceived so negatively (53), "the world" came to be
viewed as a hostile place which rejects Jesus (1,9-10) and hates him (7,"),
precisely because he is not of the world (15,18-19), And so he shifts from being
its savior toits judge (9,36). Probably as a result of the failure of its mission, the
Johannine community came to see "the world" as a totally evil place of deceit
and sin, over which the "ruler of this world" presided. This point of view reflects
the dualistic perspective of a cosmos divided into two worlds, that of God and of
Satan, Since one can only serve one master, one is either a member of God's
world or of Satan's. Jesus' assumption of the role of judge in 8,21-59 inaugurates
in the Fourth Gospel an aggressive stance toward" the world", proclaiming in
8,23 a radical division of the cosmos so that one is either with Jesus in being
"from above" and "not of this world", "for which the reward is holiness and
eternal life, or one belongs "from below" and is part of "this world", for which
the recompense is to "die in sin" (8,24). Jesus' judgment in 8,21- 59, then,
inaugurates a trial with "the world" which has not accepted him as God's agent, a
trial which the Spirit will continue (54). This is hardly an ecumenical perspective,
but reflects the hostile situation of the Johannine community (55).
Other Questions
This inquiry raises fresh questions. What is being signalled, for example, when
Jesus is formally credited with judgmental powers and portrayed exercising
them, when so much of the text insists that he does not judge? I have suggested
elsewhere that the Fourth Gospel credits Jesus with God's full eschatological
power (5,21-29), a key element of which is power to judge (5,22.27), in virtue of
which Jesus is acclaimed "equal to God" (56). Other aspects of Jesus'
840

eschatological power are also discussed and demonstrated in John 8, his "honor
equal to God's" (5,23//8,49-50), his "having life in himself" (5,26//8,24.28.58),
and his ability to "give life" (5,21//8,51-53). A full study of John 8, then, would
try to see Jesus' judgment related to his exercise of God's eschatological power
whereby he is "equal to God".
This inquiry called attention to the mutual accusations or demon possession in
John 8. Jesus accuses them of being offspring of the Devil and doing the deeds of
their father (8,44), while they in turn accuse him of demon possession (8,48.52).
The analysis of John 8 in terms of forensic process cannot deal with such
questions, but invites a consideration of this phenomenon from the viewpoint of
cultural anthropology, which would evaluate such mutual accusations of demon
possession as formal "witchcraft accusations" (57). The focus of such an analysis
would rest on the social dynamic of intense, unbridled competition which tends
to characterize groups who engage in "witchcraft accusations ".
Finally, if this analysis is correct about the intentional ambiguity of 8,30 and its
clarification through the forensic process in 8,31-59, then we must begin to pay
more attention to internal (58) problems among the groups which make up the
community of the Fourth Gospel. Raymond Brown pointed in this direction when
he listed "other christians detectable in the gospel": 1. crypto-Christians still
within the synagogue; 2. Jewish Christian churches of inadequate faith; and 3.
Christians of apostolic churches (59). This analysis suggests that we consider
those who believe in him" in 8,.10 as a Christian group not trusted by the author
of the Fourth Gospel and so severely scrutinized and discredited by him (see
9,22; 12,42).
Forensic trials, moreover, can be fruitfully analyzed in light of sociology.
According to that discipline, trials function as status degradation rituals whereby
an interest group attempts to label someone a "deviant" and to impose censure
and penalties by virtue of a process which publicly defames the alleged "deviant"
(60). This model invites us to examine 8,21-59 as an attempt by some in the
Johannine community to label others (e.g. the alleged "believers") as deviants
and to degrade them within the Johannine circle.
This inquiry into 8,21-59 suggests that a fresh investigation be made of the
history of John 8. We noted the aporia that Jesus does not judge (8,15), yet he
does judge (8,21-29). The forensic process in 8,12-20, moreover, differs radically
from that described in 8,21-59. These phenomena and others in John 8 suggest
that an early story of Jesus' trial by the Jews in connection with the feast of
Tabernacles has been redacted at a later time to carry a different message and
describe a different historical process in the Johannine group.
841

Yet the author's choice of portraying Jesus as judge and his intent to describe
Jesus' dealings with these pseudo-believers in terms of a forensic process are
important foundational considerations which should facilitate a further inquiry
into the christological and social dynamics described in John 8.

NOTES

1. The progymnasmata used in this study are: Aelius Theon of Alexandria

(Spengel II.112.20-115.10; see James R. Butts, The Progymnasmata of Theon. A
New Text with Translation and Commentary[unpublished dissertation:
Claremont, 1986]); Hermogenes of Tarsus (Spengel II.14.8-15.5; see C.S.
Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic [New York: Macmillan, 1928] 23-38);
Menander Rhetor (see D.A. Russell and N.G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor [Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1981]); Aphthonius of Ephesus (Spengel II.42.20-44.19; see
Ray Nadeau, "The Progymnasmata of Aphthonius in translation,"Speech
Monographs 19 [1952] 264-285 and more recently Patricia P. Matsen, Philip
Rollinson
and
Marion
Sousa,
eds., Readings
from
Classical
Rhetoric [Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990] 266-88);
Quintilian, Inst. 3.7.10-18.
2. D. A. Russell, "Progymnasmata," The Oxford Classical Dictionary (2nd ed.;
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980) 883.
3. See Ronald Hock and Edward O'Neill, The Chreia in Ancient
Rhetoric (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); Henry A. Fischel, "Story and History:
Observations on Greco-Roman Rhetoric and Pharisaism,"Essays in GrecoRoman and Related Talmudic Literature (New York: KTAV, 1977) 443-72.
4. See D. A. Russell, "On Reading Plutarch's Lives," Greece and Rome 13
(1966): 150-151; P. A. Stadter, "Plutarch's Comparison of Pericles and Fabius
Maximus," GRBS 16 (1975): 77-85; Abraham J. Malherbe, "Antisthenes and
Odysseus, Paul at War," HTR 76 (1983): 143-73; Christopher Forbes,
"Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul's Boasting and the Conventions of
Hellenistic Rhetoric," NTS 32 (1986): 1-8; Peter Marshall, Enmity at Corinth:
Social Conventions in Paul's Relations with the Corinthians (Tbingen: J.C.B.
Mohr, 1987) 53-56, 325-29, 348-65.
842

5. David L. Balch, "Two Apologetic Encomia: Dionysius on Rome and Josephus

on the Jews," JSJ 13 (1982) 102-22; Philip L. Shuler, A Genre for the Gospels.
The Biographical Character of Matthew. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982;
George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography. Toward a New Understanding. SBLDS
73. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985; his work basically depends on the study of
Theodore Burrows, "Epideictic Literature," Studies in Classical Philology 3
(1902): 89-261; Thomas R. Lee, Studies in the Form of Sirach 44-50 (SBLDS 75;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); see Theodore C. Burgess,Epideictic
Literature (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1987) 118-37; O. Crusius,
"Enkomium," PW 5.2 (1905): 2581-83; T. Payr, "Enkomium," RAC 5 (1962):
331-43.
6. See D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor and James R.
Butts, The "Progymnasmata" of Theon. A New Text and Translation and
Commentary;
Katherine
Thaniel, Quintilian
and
the
Progymnasmata (unpublished thesis, McMaster University, 1973); the
introductory essay in Ronald Hock and Edward O'Neill's The Chreia in Ancient
Rhetoric is excellent; see also Ian H. Henderson, "Quintilian and
the Progymnasmata," Antike und Abendland 37 (1991) 82-99. Older discussions
of progymnasmata are still worth consulting; see E. Jullien, Les Professeurs de
Litterature dans l'ancienne Rome (Paris: Leroux, 1895) 282-331 and W.
Stegemann, "Theon," RE 5A (1934): 2037-54 and "Nicolaus" RE 17 (1937): 42457.
7. C.S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic, 1928, 23-38; Ray Nadeau, "The
Progymnasmata of Aphthonius in translation," 264-285); Stanley F.
Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome (Berkeley CA: University of California
Press, 1977) 250-74; H.I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (Madison
WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982) 196-200; George Kennedy, Greek
Rhetoric Under Christian Emperors (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963)
and Greek Rhetoric Under Christian Emperors (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1983) 54-73; Klaus Berger, "Hellenistiche Gattungen im Neuen
Testament," ANRW II.25.2 1296-98; and Francis Cairns, Generic Composition in
Greek and Roman Poetry (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1972) 73-75
and 89-90.
8. Its counterpart is the speech of vituperation. Praise and blame are natural
rhetorical counterparts, as 1 Cor 11:2 and 17 indicate. The ancient art of praise
and blame became a standard feature of preachers at the papal court in the
Renaissance, when classical rhetoric was rediscovered and flourished; see John
O'Malley, Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome (Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 1979) 36-76.
843

9. In his instructions on the attributes of persons upon which an orator should

comment, Cicero presents a list which is strikingly similar to the formal
categories of the encomium: "We hold the following to be the attributes of
persons: name, nature, manner of life, fortune, habit, feeling, interests, purposes,
achievements, accidents, speeches made" (De Inventione I.xxiv.34).
10. Aristotle describes good birth: "Now good birth in a race or a state means that
its members are indigenous or ancient; that its earliest leaders were distinguished
men, and that from them have sprung many who were distinguished for qualities
that we admire. The good birth of an individual, which may come either from the
male or the female side, implies that both parents are free citizens, and that, as in
the case of the state, the founders of the line have been notable for virtue or
wealth or something else which is highly prized, and that many distinguished
persons belong to the family, men and women, young and old" (Rhet. I.1360b 3138; Richard McKeon, The Basic Works of Aristotle [New York: Random House,
1941]
1340).
See
also
Cicero, De Inventione I.xxiv.34-35
and
Quintilian, Inst. Orat. III.vii.10-11; V.x.24-25. See Christopher Pelling,
"Childhood and Personality in Greek Biography," Characterization and
Individuality in Greek Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) 213-44.
11. This information constituted the basis for ascribed status and is best seen in
terms of the pivotal value of "honor"; see Bruce J. Malina, New Testament
World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology(Atlanta: John Knox, 1981) 25-50
and Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey, The Social World of Luke-Acts (Peabody,
MA: Stephen Hendrickson, Inc. 1991) 25-65.
12. Menander Rhetor advises: "If the city has no distinction, you must inquire
whether his nation as a whole is considered brave and valiant, or is devoted to
literature or the possession of virtues, like the Greek race, or again is
distinguished for law, the Italian, or is courageous, like the Gauls or Paeonians.
You must take a few features from the nation . . . arguing that it is inevitable that
a man from such as [city or] nation should have such characteristics, and that he
stands out among all his praiseworthy compatriots" (Treatise II 369.26-370.12);
Isocrates, Panegyricus 23-25.
13. For example, nation: "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons"
(Titus 1:12); city: "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" (John
1:46); country: "No prophet is to rise from Galilee" (John 7:52); parents: "Is not
this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary?" (Matt 13:55).
14. Menander Rhetor instructs the composer of an encomium to note such
phenomena: "If any divine sign occurred at the time of his birth, either on land or
844

in the heavens or on the sea, compare the circumstances with those of Romulus,
Cyrus, and similar stories, since in these cases also there were miraculous
happenings connected with their birth -- the dream of Cyrus' mother, the suckling
of Romulus by the she-wolf" (Treatise II. 371.5-14). The births of Alexander
(Plutarch, Alex. 2.1-3.2), Plato (Diogenes Laertius III.1-2), Heracles (Diodorus
of Sicily 4.9.1-4.10.4) and Apollonios of Tyana (Philostratus 1.4-5) contain such
notices. See David L. Dungan and David R. Cartlidge, Sourcebook of Texts for
the Comparative Study of the Gospels (SBLSBS 1. Missoula MT: Scholars Press,
1974) 7-49 and Louis Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Saul," HUCA 53 (1982):
60-61.
15. Aphthonius' encomium notes three things in regard to training: "inclination to
study, talent and rules." But Menander Rhetor gives a fuller description: "Next
comes 'nurture'. Was he reared in the palace? Were his swaddling-clothes robes of
purple? Was he from his first growth brought up in the lap of royalty? Or, instead,
was he raised up to be emperor as a young man by some felicitous chance? If he
does not have any distinguished nurture (as Achilles had with Chiron), discuss
his education, observing here: 'In addition to what has been said, I wish to
describe the quality of his mind.' Then you must speak of his love of learning, his
quickness, his enthusiasm for study, his easy grasp of what is taught him. If he
excels in literature, philosophy, and knowledge of letters, you must praise this. If
it was in the practice of war and arms, you must admire him for having been born
luckily, with Fortune to woo the future for him. Again: 'In his education, he stood
out among his contemporaries, like Achilles, like Heracles, like the Dioscuri'"
(Treatise II. 371.17-372.2; see Quintilian, Inst. Orat. V.x.25; Plato, Menex. 238c).
W .C. van Unnik (Tarsus or Jerusalem [London: The Epworth Press, 1962] 1927) identified three verbs in Acts 22:3 which pertain to this topic in the
encomium: gegennmenos (birth), anatethrammenos (rearing),
and pepaideumenos (education) and cited a wealth of literature illustrating just
this encomiastic formula.
16. Again, Menander Rhetor: "'Accomplishments' also will give scope for
discussion ('accomplishments' are qualities of character not involved with real
competitive actions) because they display character. For example: 'He was just
(or temperate) in his youth.' Isocrates used this idea in Evagoras, in the passage
where he shortly goes on to say: 'And when he became a man, all this was
increased, and many other qualities were added.' Similarly, Aristides in
the Panathenaicus shows that Athens was humane (he treats this quality as an
'accomplishment') in harbouring the refugees" (Treatise II. 372.2-13).
17. In his instructions on composing speeches of "praise and blame," Cicero
likewise divided the deeds of a person into these three standard categories:
845

"(Deeds) may be divided into mind, body and external circumstances" (De
Inventione II.lix.177).
18. Butts (The "Progymnasmata" of Theon, 483) identifies "health, strength and
beauty" as a topos stemming from Aristotle (Rhet. I. 1361b.3-27); see Cicero, De
Inventione II.lix.177; Rhet. Herr. III.vi.10; Teles III.17-20; and Louis Feldman,
"Josephus' Portrait of Saul," 62-63.
19. According to Quintilian, "physical and accidental advantages provide a
comparatively unimportant theme" (Inst. Orat. III.7.12); yet when he extols
beauty and strength, he refers to Agamemnon (Il. II.477) and Achilles (Il. II.180);
Tydeus, who was small of stature, was nevertheless a good fighter.
20. Although the four cardinal virtues are characteristic of Stoicism, they are also
part of the common discourse on virtue; see Diogenes Laertius VII.92;
Cicero, De Inventione II.lii.129; Rhet. Herr. III.vi.10; Quintilian, Inst. III.vii.15.
For their place in biographical description, see Louis Feldman, "Josephus'
Portrait of Saul," 63-82; see also Harold W. Attridge, The Interpretation of
Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR 7.
Missoula MT: Scholars Press, 1976) 109-19.
21. See also II.375.24-376.24; 385.8-386.10 and 415.24-417.4. Cicero likewise
discusses virtue to be praised in terms of the four cardinal virtues; see Cicero, De
Inventione II.liii.159-liv.165.
22. See James Butts, The "Progymnasmata" of Theon, 468-69 and H.I. Marrou, A
History of Education in Antiquity, 197.
23. Hermogenes gives a convenient summary of what is meant by the deeds of
Fortune: "Then external resources, such as kin, friends, possessions, household,
fortune, etc. Then from the (topic) time, how long he lived, much or little; for
either gives rise to encomia. Then, too, from the manner of his end, as that he
died fighting for his fatherland . . . You will describe also what was done after his
end, whether funeral games were ordained in his honor, whether there was an
oracle concerning his bones, or whether his children were famous" (C. S.
Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetics, 32; see also Cicero, De
Inventione I.xxiv.35 and II.lix.177). Cicero defines "fortune" as "whether the
person is a slave or free, rich or poor, a private citizen or an official with
authority, and if he is an official, whether he acquired his position justly or
unjustly, whether he is successful, famous, or the opposite; what sort of children
he has" (De Inventione I.xxv.35). See Quintilian, Inst. Orat. III.vii.13 and V.x.26.
846

24. See note 4; Ray Nadeau, "The Progymnasmata of Aphthonius," 276-78;

James Butts, The "Progymnasmata" of Theon, 494-512.
25. Another native model for describing a first-century person is found in the
instructions for a forensic speech in which the character of the accused is
described. See Jerome H. Neyrey, "The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul's Trial
Speeches in Acts 22-26: Form and Function," Luke-Acts. New Perspectives from
the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar (ed. C.H. Talbert; New York:
Crossroad, 1984) 210-24.
26. David Barish ("The Autobiography of Josephus and the Hypothesis of a
Second Edition of His Antiquities," HTR 71[1978] 69) argues convincingly that
the Vita is an appendix to Josephus' Antiquities. If, as I will show, Feldman's
studies of various figures in the Antiquities are basically patterned after the form
of an encomium, then such a form is readily available to Josephus for his account
of himself.
27. Louis Feldman has written a number of articles on "portraits" in
Josephus' Antiquitates. In "Josephus' Portrait of Saul" (HUCA 53 [1982] 52), he
formally calls these various portraits "encomiums." This study draws
considerable strength by comparing Josephus' treatment of himself in
the Vita with Feldman's "portraits" of biblical heroes in the Antiquitates,
especially in the following articles: "Josephus as an Apologist to the GrecoRoman World: His Portrait of Solomon," Aspects of Religious Propaganda in
Judaism and Early Christianity (Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza, ed.; Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1976) 69-98; "Abraham the General in
Josephus," Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of
Samuel Sandmel (Frederick Greenspahn, ed.; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984)
43-49; "Hellenizations in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities: The Portrait of
Abraham," Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Louis Feldman and Gohei Hata,
eds.; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987) 133-53; "Josephus' Version of
Samson," JSJ 19 (1988): 171-214; "Josephus' Portrait of Jacob," JQR 79 (1988):
101-51; "Josephus' Portrait of David," HUCA 60 (1989): 129-74; "Josephus'
Portrait of Hezekiah," JBL 111 (1992) 597-610.
28. See Louis Feldman, "Flavius Josephus Revisited: the Man, His Writings, and
His Significance," ANRW II,21.2 (1984): 763-862.
29. For other examples of this in Josephus, see Feldman, "Portrait of Abraham,"
137-38; "Portrait of Jacob," 106-8; "Portrait of Samson," 173-74; "Portrait of
Saul," 59-62; "Portrait of David," 134-37; for a collection of other important
847

notices by Josephus of good birth, see Feldman, "Portrait of Samson," 173 # 8

and "Portrait of Saul," 60 # 37.
30. The text and translation of Josephus' Vita are that of H. St.J. Thackeray in the
Loeb Classical Library.
31. On the social importance of this, see Josephus, Ap. I.30-31.
32. It was a commonplace in ancient biography to describe the precocity of a
youth's intellectual achievements; Shaye J.D. Cohen documents this in regard to
"Josephus . . . Homer, Aeschines, Apollonius of Rhodes, Nicholas of Damascus,
Ovid, Moses, Jesus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Great, and Augustus"
in Josephus in Galilee and Rome (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979) 105.
33. For example, (1) He was commissioned to destroy a palace of Herod because
it contains representations of animals, which are forbidden by the Law (65); (2)
he criticized John's profiteering on kosher oil (74); (3) he prevents the forcible
circumcision of certain nobles from Trachonitis, which certain Jews demanded as
a condition of residence among them (113); (4) he cites the commandment
against theft (128); and (5) he prohibits soldiering on the Sabbath (159-162).
34. On "physical attractiveness" in Josephus' encomia in his Antiquitates, see
Feldman, "Portrait Jacob," 108; "Version of Samson," 176-77; "Portrait of Saul,"
62-63; "Portrait of David," 137-38; a collection of Josephus' remarks on beauty
and appearance can be found in Feldman's "Portrait of Saul," 62 # 42.
35. It would be interesting to compare the presentation of military commanders
in ancient literature with Josephus' self portrait; Onasander, who wrote a treatise
on The General, devotes only brief introductory remarks to the character of the
military leader, but focusses on his "deeds of the soul": temperance, self-restraint,
vigilance, frugality, hardened to labor, freedom from avarice, etc. (I.1).
36. For a discussion of courage in Josephus, see Carl Holladay, Theios Aner in
Hellenistic Judaism (Missoula MT: Scholars Press, 1977) 69-71; Harold
Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in The Antiquitates Judaicae of
Flavius Josephus, 113-115; and Louis Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Saul," 6672.
37. See, for example, Cicero, Tusc. Disp. IV.22iv.53; Philo, Leg. All. I.68;
Plutarch, Virt. 441A and Stoic. Rep. 1034D.

848

38. See Feldman, "Portrait of Abraham," 139-40; "Portrait of Jacob," 110-12;

"Version of Samson," 179-89; "Portrait of Saul," 66-79; "Portrait of David," 14147.
39. See Feldman, "Portrait of Abraham," 138-39; "Portrait of Jacob," 109-110,
119; "Version of Samson," 177-78; "Portrait of Saul," 64-66; "Portrait of David,"
139-40; "Portrait of Solomon," 85-88; for a collection of instances where wisdom
is credited to Josephus' heroes, see Feldman, "Portrait of Saul," 64 # 44.
40. See, for example, Cicero, Tusc. Disp. III.viii.16; see also egkrateia (Acts
24:25; Gal 5:23; 2 Pet 1:6); Henry Chadwick, "Enkrateia," RAC 5:343-65.
41. See Feldman, "Portrait of Jacob," 112; "Version of Samson," 190; "Portrait of
Saul," 79-82; "Portrait of David," 147-49.
42. See Feldman, "Portrait of Abraham," 140; "Portrait of Jacob," 112-13;
"Version of Samson," 190-92; "Portrait of Saul," 82; "Portrait of David," 150-56;
a summary of this virtue in Josephus' encomia can be found in Feldman, "Portrait
of Saul," 82 # 73.
43. See Feldman, "Portrait of Abraham," 143-44; "Portrait of Jacob," 113;
"Portrait of Saul," 83-90; "Portrait of David," 156-61; "Portrait of Solomon," 7374. See Adolf Bchler, Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety from 70 B.C.E. to 70
C.E. (London: Oxford University Press, 1922) 158-64.
44. See John H. Elliott, "Patronage and Clientism in Early Christian
Society," Forum 3,4 (1987): 39-48; Bruce J. Malina, "Patron and Client. The
Analogy Behind Synoptic Theology," Forum 4,1 (1988): 2-32; and Halvor
Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988) 2247 and "Patron-Client Relations and the New Community of Luke-Acts," The
Social World of Luke-Acts, 241-68.
45. Feldman only gradually came to see this as a regular item in the encomium's
formal structure; see "Portrait of Jacob," 108-9 and "Portrait of David," 138-39.
46. See note 11.
47. See Fredrick W. Danker, Benefactor. Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman
and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, Inc.,
1982).

849

48. On "challenge and riposte" as part of the honor game, see Bruce Malina and
Jerome Neyrey, "Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts," The Social World of LukeActs, 36-38 and 49-52.
49. See Peter Walcott, Envy and the Greeks. A Study of Human
Behaviour (Warminster: Aris and Phillips) 1978; John H. Elliott, "The Fear of the
Leer: The Evil Eye from the Bible to Li'l Abner," Forum4/4 (1988): 42-71.
50. Although the main trust of the "comparison" in Josephus' Vita is between two
writers of history, two cities are likewise compared, Sepphoris and Tiberias, in
terms of their loyalty or revolt. Sepphoris was faithful to its alliances and
remained loyal (345-348), whereas Tiberias epitomizes the spirit of revolt (349352). See Peter Marshall, Enmity at Corinth, 54.
51. On Justus, see Tessa Rajak, "Justus of Tiberias," Classical Bulletin 23 (1977):
345-68 and "Josephus and Justus of Tiberias," Josephus, Judaism and
Christianity (Louis Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds.; Detroit: Wayne State
University Press, 1987) 81-94.
52. Shuler (A Genre for the Gospels, 36-46) argues that the distinction between
history and bioi and history and encomia is one of degree. Encomia, he notes,
contained a high degree of exaggeration or false praise, whereas history must
deal with the truth, that is, the firm basis for the praise. His study reminds us that
we should not drive too sharp a distinction between history and bioi or encomia;
for the aim of all was praise and praise according to certain culturally defined
categories.
53. Shuler (A Genre for the Gospels, 64) notes that several of Isocrates'
encomium are formally labelled "apologia" in the manuscripts; formally, an
apology seeks praise by vitiating the blame charged by others; a polemic heaps
blame or vituperation on another. Even in the progymnasmata, praise and blame
are treated as two aspects of the same form, which extends as well to apology and
polemic.
54. David Balch ("Two Apologetic Encomia: Dionysius on Rome and Josephus
on the Jews," 114) indicates that one of the formal functions of an encomium is
that of an "apologetic" to accusations and to speeches and writings of "invective"
(or
"vituperation").
All
of
Louis
Feldman's
"portraits"
in
Josephus' Antiquitates begin by stressing their apologetic nature; for Feldman
always cites the charge that the Jews failed to produce outstanding people
(Apion 2.135), thus suggesting that apology is a formal aim of encomia.
850

55. David Balch ("Two Apologetic Encomia," 114-21) indicates that Josephus
was using the formal elements of the encomium in his apology for the Jews
in Against Apion. The genre and its contents, then, are familiar to him.
56. See Shaye J.D. Cohen, "History and Historiography in the Against Apion of
Josephus," History and Theory 27 (1988) 1-11.
57. Philip L. Shuler, A Genre for the Gospels, 36-42.
58. One of Shuler's parade pieces is Polybius' "history" of Philopoemen (10.2124). Yet even this is quite clearly in accord with encomiastic categories: (1)
origin and birth (10.22.1); (2) education and nurture (10.22.2-5); (3) deeds and
accomplishments (10.22.6-24.7).
59. We noted earlier that Louis Feldman labelled the portraits in
the Antiquitates as encomia. His wide knowledge of the classics aided him in
regularly identifying many of the individual classifications which we have found
summarized in the encomium: genealogy, birth, educational precocity, the four
cardinal virtues. He notes, moreover, the traditional quality of these items. While
scholars benefit greatly from his articles, one might ask whether Feldman fully
appreciated the full schema of material in the encomia for describing persons. For
example, he seems oblivious of the ancient interest in "deeds of fortune" such as
health, fortune, strength, honor; only twice did he comment on wealth; and never
did he mention a glorious death and how this was assessed by the ancients.
60. See
Arnoldo
Momigliano, The
Development
of
Greek
Biography (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971) 17; see David E. Aune,
"Greco-Roman Biography," Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament.
Selected Forms and Genres (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 109-10; Christopher
Pelling, Character and Individuality in Greek Literature (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1990).
61. The embeddedness of Mediterraneans has been studied by Bruce Malina,
"The First-Century Personality: The Individual and the Group," The New
Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology(Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1981) 51-70 and by Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey, "First-Century
Personality: Dyadic, Not Individualistic," The Social World of Luke-Acts, 6796.
"'My Lord and My God':
The Divinity of Jesus in John's Gospel
Jerome H. Neyrey
851

Weston School of Theology

A disciple of Jesus calls him "Lord and God" (20:28; see 1:1-2), while his
enemies charge that Jesus "makes himself equal to God" (5:18) and "makes
himself God" (10:34). What is the scope of these remarks about Jesus? What
content goes into the confession of Jesus as "Lord and God" and what is meant
by claiming that Jesus is "equal to God"? In what ways is Jesus properly called
"god"?(1)
Investigation of the Johannine high christology (2) should be done in two ways.
First, traditional critical approaches such as literary analysis and history of
religions comparisons can answer in part the question of what it means in this
gospel to call Jesus "Lord and God." The confession, moreover, can and should
be seen in the light of the social and cultural situation in which it developed and
was articulated. This second approach invites the use of a different questions and
methods, in this case the social sciences, in particular the work of anthropologist
Mary Douglas, to assess how such a confession functions as an ideology
replicating the cultural stance of the confessing group. (3) Both approaches will be
employed in this study to investigate the scope of the high christological
confession and its ideological implications.

I.
THE CONTENT OF THE HIGH CHRISTOLOGICAL CONFESSION
(Traditional Methods)

A. Jesus at the Appearing Deity

The gospel absolutely maintains that "no one has ever seen God" (1:18; 6:46)-except the Son, of course. Nor has anyone ever ascended the heaven to see God
or receive revelations (3:13)--except the Son. The Israelites neither saw God's
shape nor heard his voice (5:37). No, neither Abraham, nor Moses, nor Elijah,
nor any of Israel's prophets or visionaries has ever seen God. But since Scripture
says that "God" appeared to them, what are we to think about the theophanies in
the Bible? John's gospel argues in several places that the appearing deity was not
God (whom no one has ever seen) but Jesus.(4)

852

Abraham, for example, saw Jesus' day (8:56). As has been shown, (5) this refers to
an experience of Abraham during his life on earth, such as the theophany at the
Covenant of the Pieces (Gen 15) or his reception of the three heavenly visitors
(Gen 18).(6) Although Abraham is credited with prophetic visions of the future,
John's text is not referring to a vision of Jesus-who-is-to-come-as-the-Messiah,
for the text continues with the extra-ordinary claim that Jesus was not a mere
future figure revealed to Abraham but rather a contemporary of Abraham, nay an
eternal divine figure: "before Abraham came into being, I AM" (8:58). Although
the Johannine text insists that Abraham did not see God, he had theophanies
nonetheless. Abraham then saw Jesus in his visions as the appearing deity, as the
one who bears the name of God, "I AM."
Likewise in John 12:41 it is stated that Isaiah "saw his glory." Although Isaiah
prophesied about future events (see Sirach 48:24-25), it is commonly argued that
John's text refers to a time in the prophet's life when he saw his glory, viz. the
vision in the temple (Isa 6). Isaiah did not see God; but since the theophany was
genuine, he must have seen the heavenly Jesus, the glory of God, the true
Shekinah who pitched his tent there.
A similar argument might be made apropos of 1:51. Jesus promises his disciples
that they will see a heavenly vision; they will look into heaven, even to the throne
of God, and view the Son of Man there with angels ascending and descending
upon him. This verse clearly alludes to Jacob's vision in Gen 28:12, suggesting
that the disciples will see what Jacob saw: a vision of an appearing, heavenly
figure. Jacob never saw God, although he had a genuine theophany; like
Abraham and Isaiah he saw Jesus, the heavenly figure. In one sense the promise
is never literally fulfilled in John's gospel; there is no theophany of
ascending/descending angels. But Thomas, for example, received an apparition
of the risen Jesus and acknowledges that figure to be Kyrios and Theos.
Therefore Abraham, Jacob and Isaiah saw the appearing Jesus in their
theophanies; and just such christophanies will be granted to the church. (7)
The author of the Fourth Gospel was not the first to engage in this type of
exegesis of the Scriptures. Justin Martyr, for example, employed it in
his Dialogue with Trypho, when he argued with his Jewish opponent that it was
Jesus who appeared to the Patriarchs. After systematically demonstrating that
Jesus appeared to Abraham (Dial. 56, 59), to Moses (Dial. 56, 59, 60, 120), and
to Jacob (Dial. 58, 60, 86, 126), Justin summarized his claim to have shown that
. . . neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man, saw the Father and
ineffable Lord of all and of Christ, but (saw) him who was according to his will
his Son, being God, and the Angel because he ministered to his will (Dial. 127).
853

The structure of Justin's argument, moreover, is like that of John: 1) no one has
ever seen God, 2) therefore the Patriarchs, who received genuine theophanies
according to the Scriptures, saw Jesus, c) who is properly called God.
For completely other reasons, Philo likewise argues that the theophanies in the
Hebrew Scriptures were not visions of God (material persons cannot see the
immaterial God). Therefore, they were revelations of God's Logos or of a Power
of God. In Gen 17:1, for example, Abraham did not see God but only a Power of
God (Mut. 15, 17). Despite his request to God to "show me Thyself" (Ex 33:13
LXX), Moses saw only "the back of God," which is one of "the powers that keep
guard around you" (Sp. Leg. I. 45-46). In Gen 28:12, Jacob saw one of the
powers of God (Somn. I. 70). But in another theophany (Gen 31:13), Jacob is told
that the appearing figure is not God but "god who appeared to you in place of
God" (Somn. I. 228). Are there two gods? No, Philo can distinguish between no
theos and theos:
Accordingly the holy word in the present instance has indicated Him who is truly
God by means of the article saying "I am the God" (Gen 31:13) while it omits the
article when mentioning him who is improperly so called, saying "Who appeared
to you in one place" not "of the God," but simply "of God" (Somn. I.229).

The point is, no theos never appears in theophanies according to Philo, for no one
can see God.
The appearing figure is theos, one of God's powers, even the Logos, who is
"improperly called god."(8)
In summary, John considers Jesus as a heavenly, eternal figure in virtue of the
fact that Jesus was active throughout Israel's history, functioning as the one who
gave theophanies(9) to Israel's patriarchs and prophets.

854

B. Jesus is "Equal to God"

In chapter 5 Jesus worked a miracle on the Sabbath (5:1-5), which led to a charge
that he had "violated the Sabbath" (5:16), which charge prompted an apologetic
defense of his action and his person (5:30-47). At a later time in the history of the
Johannine community, a new controversy between church and synagogue
developed over the high christology of the Johannine group, viz. its confession of
Jesus as a divine, heavenly figure. This later controversy is reflected in 5:17-29,
where a new charge is brought against Jesus ("he makes himself equal to God,"
5:18), which charge prompts a new apology (5:19-29).
As the following synopsis shows, the new charge in 5:18 is not simply a doublet
of the old charge in 5:16. The prosecution (10) by the Jews is heightened ("they
sought to kill him") and a new and more cogent reason for this is offered ("he
makes himself equal to God").
Old Charge (5:16) New Charge (5:18)
sinful action: blasphemy:
violation of Sabbath he makes himself
equal to God

Old Apology (5:30-47) New Apology (5:19-29)

series of witnesses, careful explanation
testifying to Jesus' of how Jesus truly is
obedience & sinlessness "equal to God"

The key to understanding the new apology (5:19-29) is to deal critically with the
new charge. Part of it is erroneous and must be rejected ("he makes himself"), but
part of it is true ("equal to God") which requires defense and careful explanation.
855

As regards the charge "he makes himself," in 5:19 Jesus disowns acting
independently of God, much less contrary to God's law, for "of himself the Son
can do nothing." Rather he does "what he sees the Father doing," which does not
mean that he spies on God and steals heavenly secrets (cf. Prometheus). On the
contrary, "the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he does" (5:20). Thus
the charge is untrue that Jesus arrogantly assumes power or status (". . . making
himself"); for as the defense argues, God loves the Son and God shows the Son
what he does. That is, God makes him equal. But as regards the second part of the
charge, Jesus' equality with God is clearly maintained: "what the Father does, the
Son does likewise" (5:19b) and the Father shows him "all that he himself does"
(5:20a).
In 5:21-29, the gospel again denies the first part of the charge, while affirming
the second. First it is argued that Jesus has not arrogated to himself any power,
for whatever powers he enjoys have been given him by God:
5:22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment tot he Son.
5:26 As the Father has life in himself, so he has given the Son also to have life in
himself.
5:27 . . . and has given him authority to execute judgment.

Again, it is not true that Jesus "makes himself" anything.

Second, 5:21-29 indicate quite clearly in what sense Jesus is "equal to God," viz.,
Jesus has God's full eschatologial power:
1. make alive: As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son makes
alive whom he wills (5:21);
2. judgment: The Father has given all judgment to the Son (5:22);
3. honor: . . . that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father (5:23);
4. dear hear & live: The dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those
who hear will live (5:25);

856

5. life in himself: As the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also
to have life in himself (5:26);
6. judgment: . . . and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is
the Son of Man (5:27);
7. dead raised & judged: All in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth,
those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done
evil to the resurrection of judgment (5:28-29).

Since Jesus enjoys the same honor as God, the same authority, and the same
extraordinary powers, he is undeniably "equal to God." And this equality with
God is not Jesus' vainglorious self-extension; rather it is God's will that he be so
recognized and honored.
In summary, the claim that Jesus "makes himself" anything is rejected. God loves
him, shows him all he does. God gave him al judgment, to have life in himself, to
exercise power to raise the dead and judge them. And God wills that he be
honored equally with him. Contrary to the charge in 5:18, the proper statement
should be "God makes him equal to Himself." Equality with God, however, is
emphatically maintained by showing how Jesus has God's two basic powers,
creative and judgmental power.
5:19-29 attributes to Jesus two different powers. (11) Raising the dead, judging, and
having life in oneself refer to God's eschatological power. If the eschatological
character of the power ascribed to Jesus in 5:21-29 is clear, what can be said of
the power credited to him in 5:19-20? It would not seem to refer to either
executive leadership or eschatological power. I suggest that 5:19-20 refers to
God's grant to creative power to Jesus.
In 5:17 Jesus claimed that "my Father is working still and I am working." That
statement functions as an apology for not resting on the Sabbath; it implies that
God did not stop creating on the seventh day but continued working. (12) Apropos
of the healing in 5:1-9, Jesus defends himself by claiming two things: a) God
continues to work on the Sabbath, hence Jesus is imitating God's continued
creative work by his healing on the Sabbath, and b) God shows him all that he
does, empowering him for works of creation and providence. And all of God's
deeds of creation/providence Jesus does likewise. The gospel has already
857

attributed all creation to the Logos (1:1-3) and we should see 5:1-9 and 17-20 as
the continuation of that theme. Jesus has God's full creative power, just as he has
God's complete eschatological power.
What is the significance of insisting that Jesus has God's two powers? Jewish
discussions of God focused on God's two measures (middoth) of kindness and
justice (see Ex 34:6-8).(13) All theology dealt with God's operations in the world,
these two measures encompassing all of God's actions in the world. The same is
true of Hellenistic theology, where the deity is fundamentally described in terms
of his providence (kindness/justice) which is manifested by creation/maintenance
of the world and by justice.(14) Philo expresses this most clearly in his exposition
of God's two powers: dynamis poietik anddynamis basilik.(15) Through
the dynamis poietik God "creates and operates the world" (Q. Gen. IV.2); and by
the dynamis basilik is described in terms of "goodness, mercy, beneficence," as
well as creation; alternately the dynamis basilik is "authority, legislation,
punishment," as well as governance. The same dual aspect of God's total powers
may also be found in Rom 4:17 where Abraham's great faith was belief in God
who a) called being out of non-being (creative power) and b) made the dead alive
(eschatological power).(16) Creation and eschatology, then, describe all of God's
actions. John's gospel, moreover, reflects just this tradition of God's two basic
powers in 5:19-29 when it attributes creative (5:19-20) and eschatological (5:2129) power to Jesus.(17)
In Philo and the Rabbis, moreover, the two powers of God are associated
respectively with God's two names.(18) For Philo, the beneficent, creative power
(dynamis poietik) is called Theos (the equivalent of Elohim in the LXX) and the
royal, punishing power (dynamis basilik) is called Kyrios (the equivalent of the
tetragrammaton in the LXX). For example, in explaining the Cherubim (Exod
25:18), Philo identifies the two powers of the Deity and names them accordingly:
I should myself say that they (the Cherubim) are allegorically representations of
the two most August and highest potencies (dynameis) of Him that is, the creative
and the kingly. His creative potency is called God (Theos), because through it He
placed and made and ordered this universe, and the kingly is called Lord
(Kyrios), being that with which He governs what has come into being and rules it
steadfastly with justice (Mos. II.99).(19)

858

The Rabbis likewise associated the two powers with God's two names, although
for them the creative power was linked with the tetragrammaton and judgment
with Elohim.(20) But the tradition is clear that God's two powers are linked
respectively with God's two names. Is this true in John?
In the gospel prologue, where Jesus is credited with creative power, he is
called Theos (1:1-3). Chapter 5 also deals with Jesus' creative "working," in
which context Jesus is alleged to be "equal to God" (ison t the, 5:18). Theos, then,
is the appropriate name for Jesus when he exercises creative power. Kyrios,
however, is much more difficult to deal with; for while Jesus is often
acclaimed Kyrios in John, this title is constantly open to the minimalist
interpretation of "sir" or "master." There is, however, one climactic confession in
the gospel in which Jesus is acclaimed "My Lord (Kyrios) and my God (Theos)"
(20:28). Surely at this point Kyrios should be treated as a cultic title, its full force
acclaiming Jesus as a divine figure.(21) But what is intended by acclaiming Jesus
as Kyriois after his resurrection? Is his exercise of a certain power implied and
acknowledged?
Creative power is not only claimed but demonstrated (1:1-18; 5:1-9, 19-20) and
so Jesus is rightly called Theos. Eschatological power is initially only claimed in
5:18, 21-29, and its demonstration remains the task of the rest of the gospel,
especially the next several chapters. As is characteristic of the Fourth Gospel, a
sentence or statement is frequently made which serves as the text, topic or agenda
of subsequent discussion. 5:18, 21-29 is just such a topic statement. (22) As the
following chart shows, the seven items contained in 5:18-29 are formally
explained and treated in chs 8, 10 and 11.(23)

Eschatological Power John 8 John 10 John 11

1. equal to God
"he makes himself 8:24b, 10:30, 11:25a
equal to God" 8:28,58 10:33,38

859

2. make alive
"as the Father raises ------ 10:28 11:38-44
the dead and gives them
life, so the Son makes
alive whom he wills"

3. judgment
"The Father has given 8:21-30 10:26 -----all judgment to the
Son . . . authority 8:31-59 ------ -----to execute judgment

4. honor
"all may honor the Son the name: 10:31 -----even as they the Father" "I AM" 10:39

5. dead hear & live

860

"The dead will hear the 8:51 (10:3-4) 11:43-44

voice of the Son of God,
& those who hear will live"

6. life in himself
"As the Father has life 8:24, 10:17-18 11:25a
in himself, so he has 28, 58 10:34-36
given the Son also to
have life in himself"

7. dead raised and judged

"All who are in the tombs ------ ------ 11:25
will hear his voice & come
forth . . . to a resurrection of
life (or) to judgment"

What was claimed in 5:21-29, then, is formally discussed and even demonstrated,
the greatest demonstration surely being Jesus' self-resurrection, his proof that he
"has life in himself." It is after this demonstration that the evangelist records that
the title Kyrios is properly given to Jesus, "My Lord and my God" (20:28),
indicating that by then Jesus has demonstrated that he has God's eschatological
power and may be called by the name associated with that power, Kyrios.
861

From this investigation to Chapter 5, we draw the following conclusions:

1) Jesus is properly called "equal to God," because
2) he has God's two basic powers (creative/eschatological);
3) he is properly called Theos in virtue of having God's creative power,
and Kyrios in virtue of God's executive or eschatological power.
4) Jesus does not falsely "makes himiself" anything, for
5) God gave him these powers and so wants Jesus to be honored even as God is
honored.

C. Jesus Eternal and Imperishable

It has often been remarked that according to 17:6 and 11-12, "the name" which
God gave Jesus is not "God" or "Lord," but "I AM." (24) When we turn to 8:24, 28
and 58, where Jesus manifests that name, we must continue to ask what is
understood by this name, "I AM." It is a commonplace of Johannine scholarship
to indicate that "I AM" reflects the usage of LXX Isaiah, indicating that it is a
condensed version of the name manifested to Moses at the burning bush in Exod
3:14.(25) As important as this observation is, we continue to ask haw "I AM" was
popularly interpreted in contemporary Jewish materials such as LXX, Philo, and
the targums? First, the LXX interpreted the name of God in Exod 3:14 to mean
"the Existent One," already understanding that name in reference to a divine
mode of being:

Exod 3:14 (MT) Exod 3:14 (LXX)

God said to Moses: God said to Moses:
"I AM WHO I AM." "I AM THE EXISTENT ONE"
862

(ego eimi ho on)

And he said: And he said:
"Say this to the "Say this to the
children of Israel: Children of Israel:
'I AM 'THE EXISTENT ONE(no on)
has sent me to you.'" Has sent me to you.'"

Secondly, Philo repeats the LXX interpretation of "I AM" as "the Existent One,"
always drawing a distinction between God's genuine existence and that of
creatures which exist in semblance only.(26) Yet as Martin Hengel(27) has observed,
a genuine Hellenistic influence is already introduced into the interpretation of the
sacred name, in which non-contingent being is contrasted with contingent being,
and eternal with termporal existence.
Tgs. Yer. I, II and Neof., moreover, all interpret the "I AM" of Exod 3:14 in ways
which bring out a sense of God's past and future eternity, as the following chart
indicates:(28)
Tg. Yer. I Tg. Yer. II Tg. Neof.
And the Lord And the Memra of And the Lord
said to Moses: the Lord said to said to Moses:
Moses:
"He who spoke & "He who said to the "I AM WHO I AM"
the world was; who world, 'Be!' and

863

spoke and all things it was; and who

were." Shall yet say to it
'Be!' and it will be."
And he said: And he said: And he said:
"Say this to the "Say this to the "Say this to the
children of Israel: children of Israel: children of Israel:
'I AM has sent me 'I AM HE WHO IS & 'He who spoke &
to you." WHO WILL BE has sent the world was
me to you.'" from the beginning & shall
say again to it "Be!" & it
shall be'--he has sent me to
you.'"

A cursory examination of these texts suggests two lines of interpretation. All of

the targums undestand "I AM" to refer to a special quality of God's being, viz.,
God's past and future eternity. And they all link the special name with God's
actions or powers: creation in the past and eschatological new creation in the
future. And so, the "I AM" of Exod 3:14 was popularly understood to contain
remarks about God's two powers as well as God's eternity both past and future.
Stepping aside from Jewish sources, considerable light can be shed on this
material from comparable discussions about the nature of a true deity in GraecoRoman literature. For example, Sextus Empiricus records the popular idea about
god as "eternal (aidion) and imperishable (aphtharton) and perfect in
happiness."(29) Diogenes Laertius, in reporting Stoic doctrine about god, notes that
the deity must be "everlasting (aidion) and the artificer of each thing throughout
the whole extent of matter." Later he remarks that as the deity is a principle, it
belongs to principles to be "without generation (agentous) or destruction
864

(aphthartous).(30) Occasionally we find formal discussions of the attributes of a

true deity by which they are compared and contratted with heroic mortals who
were apotheosized at their death, (31)which discussions have a direct bearing on the
point of this inquiry. Examples of this discussion may be found in Plutarch,
(32)
although the clearest illustration of this topos comes from Diodosus of Sicily:
As regards the gods, men of ancient times have handed down to later generations
two different conceptions: Certain of the gods, they say, are eternal and
imperishable (aidious kai aphthartous) . . . for each of these genesis and duration
are from everlasting to everlasting. But the other gods, we are told, were
terrestrial beings who attained immortal honors and fame because of their
benefactions to mankind, such as Heracles, Dionysus, Aristaeus, and the others
who were like them.(33)

From this rapid survey of Graeco-Roman god talk, certain patterns emerge: (1) a
true deity must be genuinely eternal, without beginning (aidios) or end
(aphthartos); (2) a true deity, then, becomes responsible for creation, (3) but will
survive the necessary corruption of all finite creation.
There are definite points of contact between the notion of God in the targums to
Exod 3:14 and popular discussions of true deity in Graeco-Roman literature. True
deity must be: (a) eternal in past (aidios) and imperishable in the future
(aphthartos); and (b) uncreated creator who is different in being from created,
perishable beings. This is what it means to be a true deity for Jew and Greek
alike.
This range of material, I am suggesting, has a direct bearing on the meaning of "I
AM" in John 8:24, 28 and 58. First, in 8:28, "I AM" is linked with survival of
death: "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, you will know that I AM."
Death (being "lifted up") is not the last word for Jesus; in fact his death will be a
revelation precisely that he is "I AM," a death-overcoming figure whose future
existence is unlimited and incorruptible. And in 8:58, "I AM" is linked both with
eternal existence in the past and with imperishable existence in the future.
Concerning the latter focus, a contrast is made between Jesus and Abraham, a
point that has occupied the discussion in 8:51-58. First, it is asked if Jesus is
"greater than our father Abraham who died" (8:53), a remark in response to Jesus'
claim that those who keep his word "never die." Jesus is contrasted with
Abraham who died and with the prophets who died; and so, being "greater than . .
865

." implies that if Jesus were indeed greater than Israel's patriarchs and prophets,
his greatness will lie in not dying. Second, Jesus goes on to describe how, in fact,
he is greater than Abraham, indicating that he existed already prior to Abraham
and that his mode of being is different from that of Abraham, for he is (eimi)
whereas Abraham came into being (ginesthai). 8:58, then, suggests that Jesus is
both ancient, even eternal, in the past and eternal and imperishable in the future.
It hints that Jesus is uncreated (eimi) in contrast to beings who are created
(ginesthai). Together, the "I AM" statements in 8:28 and 58 reflect the content
given to God's name in the Jewish understandings of Exod 3:14, as well as the
substance of the discussions about true deity in Hellenistic literature, i.e. eternal
and ungenerated existence in the past, imperishable existence in the future--such
is the nature of Israel's God and any true deity.
This discussion of the content of "I AM" correlates with other aspects of the high
christology in the Fourth Gospel.
1) "I AM" of course, is the name of he appearing deity in the Scriptures.
Inasmuch as Jesus is proclaimed as having appeared to patriarchs and prophets,
he was also truly functioning as "I AM."
2) Jesus has God's two powers, creative and eschatological. Inasmuch as he
"was" in the beginning,(34) he was not created but is the creator of all in virtue of
God's creative power. He is truly eternal-in-the-past. And inasmuch as he has
"life in himself" (5:26; 10:17-18), he is imperishable in virtue of the fullness of
eschatological power which he enjoys. He is truly eternal-in-the-future.
The content of "I AM" in John 8, then, meshes integrally with the other aspects of
Jesus' "equality with God" according to the exposition of the Fourth Gospel.

D. Apologetic Aspects of the High-Christological Confession

This exalted confession was indisputably controversial, which probably led the
community to explain it in more apologetic terms.
1) Johannine Christians are monotheists: this gospel does not claim that Jesus is
Yahweh or that he replaces God. Jesus himself would seem to be endorsing
monotheism, echoing the Shema (Deut 6:4-5), when he addresses Israel's deity,

866

"This is eternal life, that they know Thee, the only true God . . ." (17:3). Yet the
Johannine community is also calling Jesus "god."
2) Jesus is not blaspheming when he claims to be "equal to God." It is God who
"makes him" what he is: a) God commissioned him to reveal his name; b) God
gave him his two powers; and c) God sent him into the world as his apostle and
agent, equal to himself.(35)
3) Jesus is not a rival of Yahweh, a pretender to the throne. All that he says and
does is done in obedience to the will of Him who sent (see 5:23; 7:16-18; 8:38;
17:4).
4) Jesus is not a recent invention of Christian imagination; he is not a new figure
in cosmic or national history. He was face to face with God in the beginning,
before anything was created. Although in glory, he was continuously active in
Israel's salvation history: he created the cosmos, and he gave theophanies to
Israel's patriarchs.(36) Therefore his current appearance in our midst is continuous
with his past activity.
The exalted confession of Jesus, then, was born in controversy and came to
maturity as a point of conflict. It was never a neutral dogma, but served
continually as a formal boundary line distinguishing elite, Johannine christians
from synagogue members and certain apostolic christians as well (see 8:24).

II
THE HIGH CHRISTOLOGY IN SOCIAL SCIENCE PESPECTIVE
(Social Science Methods)
The quest for the content of the high christological confession has been done thus
far in an a-historical mode, without regard for the history, culture and social
location of the community which so formulated it. It is the purpose of this second
part of the essay to sketch the Sitz im Leben of the author and investigate how
this confession functioned for him as an ideology.(37)

A. Jesus, the Docetic Alien

867

Two powerful voices have contributed greatly to this enterprise, Ernst

Ksemann(38) described the high christology the Gospel of John as "naive
docetism," pointing out by this label the radical depreciation of things earthly,
fleshly and material. Although many have criticized Ksemann's use of the term
"docetism," as well as his contention that the whole gospel displays this
perspective,(39) he forced us to look at some hard data in the text whose point of
view celebrates things heavenly over earthly and things spiritual over material or
fleshly.
In an essay which marked his entry into the world of social science analysis of
the New Testament, Wayne Meeks argued that the high christology contained an
ideology which reflects a state of alienation from both the synagogue and from
certain Christian groups as well. (40) Jesus is radically the man from heaven, from
another world; he is out of place here below where he meets only hostility,
rejection and excommunication. He looks back nostalgically to the glory which
he had with God before the creation of the world, a glory he is eager to reassume
(17:5, 13:1-3). The high christology, then, comes to express the identity of the
alien one who is truly of heaven, from above and of another world. (41)

B. Christology Replicates Cosmology

These two studies urge us to reconsider the Johannine group which confesses
Jesus as "Lord and God" as a group excommunicated from the synagogue and in
revolt against certain apostolic churches. (42)The ideological implications of the
high christology in the Fourth Gospel become clearer when we examine two
passages where the gospel's christology replicates its cosmology, 6:62-63 and
8:23-24. In 6:63 the sweeping statement is made: "The spirit gives life, the flesh
is of no avail." The verse belongs to a passage containing reactions to the Bread
of Life Discourse, reactions first of unbelief and apostasy by former followers of
Jesus (6:60-61), and then Jesus' reactions to them (6:62-64). They found his
bread "stale," and dropped out of his group. Jesus responds to this defection with
a remark that describes him primarily as a heavenly, not earthly figure: "What if
you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?" (6:62).
(43)
Jesus, then, is a spiritual or heavenly figure from another world who meets
only alienation and rejection from those of this material or fleshly world (see 3:6,
12). He goes on to make an unqualified value assertion which has a bearing on
the christology of the gospel: "The spirit gives life; the flesh is of no avail"
(6:63). Whatever is of this world (earth, flesh, matter) is "of no avail." 6:62-62,
868

then, makes several redundant statements. 6:62 suggests that in the face of
alienation and rejection here on earth, Jesus all the more affirms his otherness,
viz., that he is truly and primarily "not of this world," but is a heavenly figure
who is out of place here below. 6:63 begins to connect christology and
cosmology: Jesus draws a radical boundary line which distinguishes the cosmos
into two spheres, spirit vs. flesh. All value is found in "spirit," the heavenly world
where Jesus originally was, whereas "flesh," the place of exile of Jesus and his
followers, is completely valueless, "of no avail." Life, moreover, is no longer
attached to Jesus' flesh (6:53) so to anything earthly or material; rather "my
word" is spirit and life. As has been shown, this "word" is none other than the
christological confession of the Johannine church, in particular the view in 6:62
of Jesus as a uniquely heavenly figure.(44) As the cosmos is dichotomized into a
world of value (heaven) and a world of no value (earth), so christology reflects
this value structure, celebrating "spirit" and Jesus' heavenly otherness, while
devaluing bread, flesh, and all things earthly or material. Christology reflects
cosmology.
In 8:23-24, christology is again linked with cosmology. Like 6:62-63, 8:23-24 is
addressed to followers of Jesus, at least seeming followers (see 8:30). In the
context, Jesus establishes a new criterion for determining who is a genuine
follower. "Unless you believe that 'I AM,' you will die in your sins." This
criterion stands in stark contrast to other criteria for authentic membership,
criteria which had to do with material, fleshly rites (see 3:3,5 and 6:53). We
noted, moreover, that "I AM" is a coded phrase containing the high christological
confession of Jesus both as appearing deity and as eternal, imperishable deity.
According to 8:24, this spiritual confession alone is lifegiving.
This confession-criterion, moreover, is articulated vis-a-vis a cosmology similar
to that expressed in 6:63.
You are from below; I am from above;
you are of this world; I am not of this world (8:23).

Christology replicates cosmology: as "I AM," Jesus is not of this world, nor is he
"from below." What is "from below" and "of this world" is sinful, hopelessly
obtuse, and under the control of the Evil One. (45) Those who confess Jesus as "I
AM" belong to his world; they have spirit and life, whereas those who do not
869

confess him as such are "from below," a realm which has no value whatsoever in
it.
6:62-63 and 8:23-24, therefore, are redundant passages which convey the same
basic message. 1. Both are addressed to would-be or pseudo disciples, who have
inadequate faith.(46) 2. Both emphasize that Jesus is primarily, even exclusively, a
heavenly figure who is of another world, definitely "not of this world." 3. Both
imply that the christological emphasis on Jesus' being from above and not of this
world is in harmony with a larger perception of the cosmos divided into
dichotomous realms: heaven/earth, spirit/flesh, from above/from below, and not
of this world/of this world. 4. Both function as new criteria for authentic
membership, criteria which radically surpass all other requirement, especially
material rites (see 3:3,5; 6:53). 5. Value is found only on the side of heaven,
spirit, and "from above"; what is "from below, fleshly and earthly is absolutely
valueless, "of no avail." It is in this sense that I am arguing that the high
christology is an ideology: it replicates cosmology even as cosmology shapes it.

C. Cosmology and Social World

Students of the Fourth Gospel are no strangers to Johannine dualistic
patterns(47) but let us focus in more closely on the patterns of redundant
dichotomies which contrast spirit/flesh, heaven/earth, etc., for these patterns are
indications of the cosmology and social world which is reflected in the
christology of the group.

Redundant Dichotomies in John

1. Spirit vs. Flesh

3:6 what is born of flesh is flesh;
what is born of spirit is spirit
870

6:63 the spirit gives life; the flesh is of no avail

7:24) do not judge according to the flesh
8:15) " " "

2. Spirit vs. Matter

2:21 physical temple vs. risen body
4:21-24 worship God in spirit and truth

3. Heaven vs. Earth

3:12 if you do not believe earthly things,
how can I tell you heavenly things

4. Heavenly World vs. This World

8:23 you are of this world, I am not of this world
1:9-10 )
7:7 ) hatred of this world for Jesus because
15:18-19 ) he is not of this world
17:15 )

871

5. From Above vs. From Below

8:23 you are from below, I am from above

6:62-63 epitomizes a persistent cosmological perspective in the gospel, but one

which takes the old dualisms one step further. Only what is spirit, heavenly,
"from above" and "not of this world" has any value; the flesh and all that is
earthly, material, "from below" and "of this world" is "of no avail." Johannine
dualistic remarks did not suddenly appear with the emergence of the high
christology. Although they have always been part of the community's way of
contrasting true with false, "in" with "out," holy with sinful, that is, functioning
as boundary markers between the Johannine community and all others, they did
not always deny value to things fleshly, earthly and material. For example,
Christian rites and cultic objects are superior to those of the synagogue; only
those who practice Christian initiation rites can truly enter God's kingdom
(3:3,5).(48) 6:62-63, however, takes the argument one step further by devaluing
absolutely everything earthly, fleshly and material, including (superior) Christian
rites and sacraments. But does this new, radical perspective extend to the
christological confession of the group as well?
The pattern of redundant dichotomies is no mere literary nicety but a value
statement, an ideology. As such, it functions as a clue to the posture of revolt
against synagogue and apostolic churches by some of the Johannine christians, a
revolt which is so comprehensive in its scope that much of what formerly
characterized the Johannine group is now "of no avail," which includes attitudes
to the cross, leadership, sacraments etc. 6:62-63 is, in fact, an ideology, a
condensed code of values of the Johannine group. As such, it affects the way
everything in the cosmos comes to be perceived and evaluated, a process we shall
briefly observe in regard to only four topics, but which extends across the board
to other elements and topics discussed by this group (e.g. spirit, freedom, sin,
ethics, etc.).

872

Cross & Death. Although at one point the death of Jesus on the cross was seen in
sacrificial terms, both as the fulfillment of prophecies and as the replacement of
synagogue passover objects (19:26-27),(49)that perpective was replaced by a later
view of Jesus' death as his exodus from this alien land, as his exaltation (3:14) or
return to the glory which he had with God before the creation of the world (17:5;
13:1-3). His death, moreover, becomes a formal demonstration of his
eschatological power to lay down his life and take it again (10:17-18). The new
perspective on Jesus' death, then, replicates the stance found in the redundant
dichotomies that Jesus is really "from above" and "not of this world," for it serves
to accentuate his alienation, his heavenliness, even his equality with God.

Leadership. 1 Jn 1:1-4 clearly values leadership based on eyewitness criteria,

even physical experience of Jesus" "what we saw, heard, and touched." But this
text clearly contrasts the type of leadership which the author values with another
type which he considers false (see 4:1-3; 2 Jn 7). In the Fourth Gospel, we find a
comparable contrast between two leaders, Peter and the Beloved Disciple, which
is a contrast between two types of leadership. Peter, the traditional leader whose
role is ascribed to him by the earthly Jesus, is always being put in "second place":
1) he is evangelized second (1:41); in that sequence Nathanael has the best lines
(1:50), lines which are traditionally reserved for Peter (cf. Mk. 8:29); 2) he denies
Jesus (13:36-38; 18:25-27), thus showing cowardice which is condemned in the
gospel (9:22; 12:42); 3) he lacks critical information (13:24), which was not the
case in the synoptics(50); 4) in the race to Jesus' tomb he comes in second (20:4)
and remains unbelieving there (20:6-10). In contrast, the Beloved Disciple, a
leader who demonstrates his leadership by achievement rather than by ascription,
is always first, smarter, courageous: 1) he knows the traitor (13:25-26); 2) he
follows Jesus, both at his arrest (18:15) and to the cross (19:25-27); 3) he arrives
first at the tomb and believes (20:8). On the basis of performance, this
charismatic figure is superior to the appointed apostle. And on the level of
symbolic characters in John's gospel,(51) the Beloved Disciple illustrates once
more the dichotomy of values encoded in 6:63. Spirit is superior to flesh, for the
achieved leadership of the Beloved Disciple rests on spiritual performance rather
than on the fleshly tradition of Peter, the eyewitness who was given an ascribed
role by the earthly Jesus.(52) The spiritual Jesus makes the spiritual disciple the
head of the community (19:25-27), especially since the fleshly leader has fallen
away. The perspective of 6:62-63 and 8:23-24 extends even to the value given to
types of leadership.
873

Sacraments. It was affirmed in an earlier stage of the Johannine experience that

"Unless one is born anothen" (3:3,5) and "Unless one eats the flesh of the Son of
Man and drinks his blood" (6:53), one has no life and no entrance into God's
kingdom. But with the phenomenon of dropouts (6:61-65), (53) all such sacamental
or earthly rituals of entrance and membership rapidly lose their value. It cannot
be that those who now walk away, who were born of water and the spirit and who
at the bread of life, really entered the kingdom of God and truly received eternal
life. The experience of these dropouts calls into question the efficiacy of those
material rites, for Jesus declares: "The flesh is of no avail" (6:63). In 8:23-24, all
fleshly rites are replaced by a new demand, "Unless you believe that I AM," a
demand which makes spiritual criteria (the revelation of Jesus as a heavenly
figure) superior to all material criteria. The dualism in 6:63, which proclaims the
superiority of spirit over matter, also insists on the superiority of Jesus' heavenly
identity over his earthly deeds.

World. At one poiont, "this world" is the object of God's benevolent mission
(3:16-17; 12:47). Jesus appears glad to "come int the world" (6:32; 11:27), for he
gives his flesh for the life of this world (6:51), as well as he is its light (8:12, 9:5;
12:46). Yet this world did not receive him (1:9-10), surely an understatement as
Jesus goes on to emphasize how this world positively hated him (7:7), a hatred
springing precisely from the fact that he is not of the world (15:18-19). And so
the gospel begins to tell us that Jesus came for the world's judgment (9:36, 8:2129), a judgment which will be continued by the Spirit (16:8-11). (54) In this vein,
we come to learn that Jesus (who is equal to God) is "not of this world" or "from
below," but is radically alien in this world of flesh and demons (12:31; 14:30;
16:11), as are his disciples (17:14, 16). Heaven (which is "not of this world") is
clearly superior to earth and "from above," to "from below."
These brief summaries of cross, leadership, sacraments and world indicate how
the redundant dichotomies noted above pervade the value system of the Fourth
Gospel. They are the concrete expressions of the superiority of things spiritual
and heavenly over things earthly and material. Yet they are evidence as well of
the cultural and social context in which the confession of Jesus as "Lord and
God" was articulated. That confession, I maintain, reflects the redundant
874

dichotomies by which the cosmos is perceived, even as it replicates the

perspective and value encoded in them. The spirit is what gives life; the flesh is
of no avail. As Meeks would say, the high christology symbolizes the alienation
of Jesus and his followers from synagogue and church alike; or as Ksemann
would say, Jesus appears ina docetic mode as "God walking on the face of the
earth."(55) All value, then, is put in heaven, not on earth, in spirit, not in matter.
This gospel, moreover, does not merely proclaim Jesus as "equal to God" and as
"Lord and God"; it positively exalts him as a unique heavenly figure who is out
of place here below because he is "not of this world" (6:63; 8:23). Whatever good
can be said of Jesus comes to be lodged in the perception that he is
radically not from below, that he is superior to "this world," as heaven is to earth
and spirit is to flesh. The high christological confession, then, must be seen also
in its social and cultural context as an expression of ideology.

D. Dualism Christology
We are all indebted to Raymond Brown for pointing out in regard to 1 Jn 4:1-3
and 5:6-8 the interrelated character of the high christology with other key issues
in the group's cosmology.(56) As Brown noted, the assertion that Jesus "did not
come in the flesh" is not a denial of his flesh but a rejection of any value given to
it, a denial of value that would extend to his cross, to apostolic leadership, to
sacraments, etc.(57) In short, the assertion that there is no value in his flesh (1 Jn
4:1-3; 2 Jn 7) is what I am arguing is encoded in the programmatic value
statement in Jn 6:63. Confession of Jesus' heavenliness and divinity, then, is a
value statement, an ideological position.
What value and what ideology, however, are encoded in the proclamation of
spirit over matter and heaven over earth? In a seminal essay, Mary Douglas
warned that the anthropologist can never assume that the chosen symbols of
differentiation are arbitrary inasmuch as they are used to discriminate contended
positions, they are likely to express something of the social situation. (58) If a
social group emphatically distinguishes itself from others on the basis of spirit vs.
flesh or heaven vs. earth, we are advised to pay close attention to these redundant
dichotomies as important clues to the cultural location of the group being studied.
In Douglas' investigation, "the relationship of spirit to matter or mind to body
(can) be interpreted as exchanges of condensed statements about the relation of

875

society to the individual.(59) Body, flesh and matter represent society; mind and
spirit represent the individual. The gist of her theory may be succinctly stated:
To insist on the superiority of spiritual over material elements is to insist on the
liberties of the individual and to imply a political program for freeing him from
social constraints. In the contrary view to declare that spirit works through
matter, that spiritual values are made effective through material acts, that body
and mind are separate but intimately united, all this emphasis on the necessary
mingling of spirit and matter implies that the individual is by nature subordinate
to society and finds his freedom within its forms.(60)

Douglas sees that a movement to exalt spirit over matter will necessarily lead one
"to adopt the philosophical attitude which, following durkheim's insight, is
appropriate to detachment from or revolt against the established social
forms."(61) Furthermore, Douglas notes, "anyone whose social position is one of
withdrawal from the dominant form of social control will tend to see himself in
relation to society in terms of a spirit/flesh dichotomy."
Douglas' remarks do not suffer from the anachronisms of describing the
Johannine group as a sect (Meeks) or as naive docetism (Ksemann). They
represent a cross-cultural perspective, which in connection with her basic
modeling of cultures, can serve as a model which can be tested, and refined if
needed. Her remarks about revolt/conformity and spirit/matter may be
summarized apropos of the high christology of the Fourth Gospel.

Weak Social Control Strong Social Control

(the Johannine group) (the apostolic churches)

1. identity: 1. identity:
876

individualistic(62) group, dyadic

2. ritual activity: 2. ritual activity:
ecstatic forms ritualistic forms

3. symbol: 3. symbol:
spirit vs. matter spirit in/with matter
heaven vs. earth heaven and earth joined
4. christology: 4. christology:
descending, heavenly the human Jesus
figure who is "equal who is prophet
to God," "Lord & God" king, Messiah;
but who is alien in even the Word who
a hostile world becomes flesh
5. strategy: 5. strategy:
revolt conformity

A discussion of the genesis and the process which ultimately led to the
articulation of the Johannine high christology lies beyond the scope of this study.
(63)
What we have come to know are the social circumstances of the group which
confessed that confession: it was a group excommunicated from the synagogue
(9:22; 12:42; 16:1-2) and from which former members dropped out (6:61-65).
There is even evidence of tension within the group, as certain members are
considered to have inadequate faith. This group saw itself not just in conflict with
877

the synagogue and certain apostolic churches but in revolt against them; in short,
it perceived itself as "out of place" in this hopelessly obtuse, hostile world. Yet
this is precisely the group which exalts in confessing the heavenliness of Jesus,
who was hated by this world but who is incomparably superior to all that is here
below. This Jesus is none other than the divine Jesus, who is equal to God and
who is rightly acknowledged as Lord and God. The heavenliness of Jesus comes
to embody and replicate the redundant dualisms we have seen to be characteristic
of the perspective of the Johannine community. Christology replicates
cosmology.
In the statement that "the spirit gives life," value is put primarily on the
confession of Jesus as heavenly and divine (6:62; 8:24). The correlative value
statement, "the flesh is of no avail," can only lead to a revolt against all that is
fleshly, viz., more traditional notions of Jesus' death on the cross, apostolic
leadership, sacraments, and the like. The Johannine community may be described
accurately in Douglas' categories as a group (1) in high revolt against attitudes
and things which it formerly valued (i.e. rites such as 3:3,5; 6:53), (2) strongly
individualistic, not brooking social control either from synagogue or apostolic
chuches, (3) favoring ecstatic forms over ritualistic modes of expression, and (4)
expressing itself in redundant dichotomous patterns of spirit over matter. It is
within this context that the confession of Jesus as "equal to God" and as "Lord
and God" should finally be interpreted, as it replicates once more the
cosmological, dichotomous perspective of a group in revolt.

CONCLUSION
We can now spell out in detail the content of the high christological confession of
the Johannine community: (1) Jesus is truly and fully "equal to God" because he
has God's two basic and comprehensive powers, creative and eschatological. (2)
Jesus is correctly called "God" because he exercises creative power, and "Lord"
because he has full eschatological power. (3) Jesus validly bears the name "I
AM," that is, the name of the appearing deity of the Scriptures. (4) As "I AM,"
Jesus shares the two attributes of a genuine deity, for he is eternal-in-the-past and
imperishable-in-the-future. (5) God demands, moreover, that Jesus receive honor
equal to that accorded God himself. (6) Jesus, moreover, is a unique and heavenly
figure: he is face to face with God (1:1-2), is in the bosom of God (1:18) and sits
on God's throne (1:51).

878

Yet this confession developed and came to maturity as the creed of a group
distinguishing itself from synagogue and church, even in revolt against the
obtuseness and hostility found in these groups. The confession itself became a
distinguishing criterion (8:24) which separated authentic Johannine christians
from all other people, a distinguishing perception according to which the world
itself was divided into two spheres, heaven/earth and spirit/flesh. All value and
life is found only in what is heavenly or spirit, whereas what is earthly and
fleshly "is of no avail" whatever. The high christological confession replicates
this perspective and becomes the chief expression of this ideology of revolt.
1. This paper contains a precis of a monograph which I am completing on the
high christology of the Fourth Gospel. Because of its intent to give a broad
overview of the contents of the confession in 1:1-2; 5:17; 20:28 etc., it cannot
engage in extended exegesis of texts, for which readers must turn to the standard
commentaries.
2. This essay is building on the distinction made by J. Louis Martyn, "Glimpses
into the History of the Johannine Community," L'Evangile de Jean: Sources,
rdaction, et thologie (ed. M. de Jonge, BETL 44; Gembloux: Duculot, 1977)
149-175.
3. See Mary Douglas, "Social Preconditions of Enthusiasm and
Heterodoxy," Forms of Symbolic Action (Proceedings of the 1969 Annual Spring
Meeting of the American Ethnological Society, ed. Robert Spenser; Seattle: U of
Washington Press, 1969) 69-80 which material is also found in her Natural
Symbols (New York: Pantheon, 1982) 156-67; and more recently Lucien Richard,
"Anthropology and Theology: The Emergence of Incarnational Faith According
to Mary Douglas," Eglise et Thologie 15 (1984) 131-54.
4. For a full exegetical exposition of this argument, see my article "The Jacob
Allusions in John 1:51," CBQ44 (1982) 589-94.
5. See Nils Dahl, "The Johannine Church and History," Jesus in the Memory of
the Early Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976) 108-109.
6. In a recent article, L. Urban and P. Henry ("'Before Abraham Was I AM,' Does
Philo Explain John 8:56-58?" Studia Philonica 6 [1979-80] 166-193) argued on
the basis of 8:56 ("Abraham rejoiced") for Gen 17 and the theophany to Abraham
concerning the birth of Isaac. But the issue in Gen 18 of Abraham's hospitality to
the heavenly visitor (see John 8:38) seems equally likely.

879

7. One should probably include in this discussion the claims that when one sees
Jesus one sees God (see 14:9) or the assertion that Jesus alone sees God and
makes God known (1:18).
8. Once again, my article "Jacob Allusions in John 1:51," 592-93.
9. In the next section we will discuss the name "I AM," which has been the
traditional scriptural name of the appearing diety (see Exod 3:14); inasmuch as
Jesus bears this name and manifests it, the very presence of "I AM" as a sobriquet
for Jesus reinforces the present argument that he functions as the appearing deity
of Israel's past.
10. See A.E. Harvey, Jesus on Trial (Atlanta: John Knox, 1976) 50-51.
11. C. H. Dodd (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: University
Press, 1968] 322-23) argued that two powers are alluded to, but he described
them inaccurately as zoopiein and krinein; comparably, R. Schnackenburg, The
Gospel According to St. John (New York: Crossroad, 1982) II.106. These studies
should need to be corrected in the light of the present discussion of God's two
powers, creative and eschatological.
12. See Philo Cher. 88-89; Leg. All. I.5; Gen. R. 11.10 and Ex. R. 30.6.
13. See A. Marmorstein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God (New York: KTAV,
1969) 41-53; E. E. Urbach, The Sages (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975) 448-61.
14. This, of course, resembles the doctrine of God's providence as this is
discussed in Graeco-Roman philosophy; see my dissertation, "The Form and
Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter" (unpublished, Yale University, 1977) 179208.
15. See Leg. All. II.68; Cher. 27-28; Sac. 59; Plant. 86-87; Heres 166; Fuga 95,
100; Somn. I.159-163; Abr. 124-125; Mos. II.99; Leg. 4 & 6; Q. Ex. II.62, 64-66,
68. See also Harry Wolfson, Philo(Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1948) I.218225 and Erwin R. Goodenough, By Light, Light (New Haven: Yale U. Press,
1935) 24-29.
16. See Halvor Moxnes, Theology in Conflict: Studies in Paul's Understanding
of God in Romans (Supp NT 53; Leiden: Brill, 1980) 231-82.
17. It should be noted that whereas Philo and the rabbis speak of God's
"executive" power (dynamis basilik), John has already broadened this category to
880

include eschatological issues, such as ressurection, judgment and "having life in

himself," and so the second power of God is perceived as eschatological power.
18. The study by Alan Segal and Nils Dahl ("Philo and the Rabbis on the Names
of God," JSJ 9 [1978] 1-28) presents a contemporary discussion of this material;
see also A. Marmorstein, "Philo and the Names of God," JQR 22 (1931-32) 295306.
19. For other places in Philo where the two powers of God are called by God's
two names respectively, see Plant. 86-87, Abr. 124-125, Somn. I.160, 163 and Q.
Ex. II.62.
20. For a summary of the differences between Philo and the Rabbis, see Segal
and Dahl, "Philo and the Rabbis on the Names of God," 1-3.
21. See Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971)
695.
22. See my article "John III--A Debate oves Johannine Epistemology and
Christology," NT 23 (1981) 115-117.
23. It would be interesting to include the remarks in the Bread of Life Discourse
in this discussion; there are three strange statements in that discourse which seem
to be saying something more than that Jesus' bread gives life. In 6:39, 44 & 54
Jesus claims that he will "raise up on the last day" those who eat his Bread of
Life, which might be further evidence of a new and special claim to have
eschatological power, such as was made in 5:28-29.
24. See R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB 29A; Garden City:
Doubleday, 1970) 756.
25. For a survey of the issues and evidence, see Philip Harner, The "I AM" of the
Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970); see also R. E. Brown, The Gospel
According John, 533-38 and R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St.
John (New York: Crossroad, 1982) 79-89.
26. See Det. 160; Mut. 11; Somn. I.230-31; Mos. I.66, 74-76; see also Harry
Wolfson, Philo, 210.
27. I am presupposing a background for the LXX understanding of God's name
like Hengel's "The 'Interpretatio Graeca' of Judaism" in his Judaism and
Hellenism Volume One (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 255-67; on this issue, see
881

also Morton Smith, "The Image of God, Notes on the Hellenization of Judaism
with Especial Reference to Goodenough's Work on Jewish Symbols," BJRL 40
(1957-58) 473-512.
28. I am indebted here for the collection of these texts, their translation and
interpretation to Martin McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian
Targum to the Pentateuch (AnB 27; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1966) 97-112.
29. Against the Physicians I.46.
30. Diogenes Laertius, Zeno VII.134; see comparable discussions in Cicero, De
Natura Deorum I.x.25 and xxiv.68.
31. See Charles H. Talbert, What is Gospel? (Philadelphia: Fortresss, 1977) 2552.
32. On the Malice of Herodotus 857D and Pelopidas 16.
33. Library of History VI.1.2; see also I.12.10-13.1.
34. It is probably revelant to include here the references to Jesus
"being before John" in 1:15 & 30.
35. See Peder Borgen,"God's Agent in the Fourth Gospel," Religions in
Antiquity (ed. Jacob Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 137-47.
36. For comparable assertions of Jesus' activity in Israel's past history, see 1 Cor
10:4; 1 Peter 1:14 and Jude 5.
37. I have tried to keep this investigation of the high christology sufficiently free
of competing discussions of the history and development of the Johannine
community. A survey of these models of development may be found in Raymond
E. Brown, "Recent Reconstructions of Johannine Community History," The
Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979) 171-82; my
own initial attempt at sorting out the stages of development may be found
in Christ is Community (Wilmington, Del: Glazier, 1985) 142-83.
38. The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter
17 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968).
39. See the review of Ksemann by Wayne Meeks in USQR 24 (1969) 414-20;
see
also
Gnther
Bornkamm,
"Zur
Interpretation
des
Johannesevangeliums," EvT 28 (1968) 8-25.
882

40. "The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism," JBL 91 (1972) 44-72.
41. Meeks' remark ("Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism," 70) is
appropriate here: "One of the primary functions of the book (the Fourth Gospel),
therefore, must have been to provide a reinforcement for the community's social
identity, which appears to have been largely negative. It provides a symbolic
universe which gave religious legitimacy, a theodicy, to the groups's actual
isolation from the larger society."
42. See Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 81-88.
43. This echoes an earlier remark in 3:13 that "no one has ever ascended to
heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man"; as Meeks has
pointed out, this describes Jesus as a person "out of place" in this world.
44. See Kikuo Matsunaga, "Is John's Gospel Anti-Sacramental?--A New Solution
in the Light of the Evangelist's Milieu," NTS 27 (1980-81) 518.
45. See 12:31; 13:2, 27; 14:30 and 16:11.
46. The phrase "christians of inadequate faith" was coined by Raymond
Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 73-81.
47. A convenient summary of recent discussion of these patterns may be found in
Robert Kysar, The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1975), 131-137.
48. I have described this as a strategy of "replacement" first in "Jacob Traditions
and the Interpretation of John 4:10-26," CBQ 41 (1979) 419-37, esp. 436-37
and Christ is Community, 151-58.
49. See, for example, J. Massingberd Ford, "Mingled Blood' from the Side of
Christ (John XIX.34)," NTS 15 (1968/69) 337-338.
50. For example, Peter is given special epiphanies (Mk (5:37-43; 9:2-8; 13:3-37
and 14:33-42), special revelations (Mt 16:17; 17:24-27), special instruction (Lk
12:41-48); see also 2 Peter 1:16-21.
51. See R. F. Collins, "Representative Figures in the Fourth Gospel" Downside
Review 94 (1976) 126-32.
52. In this regard, see David Hawkin, "The Function of the Beloved Disciple in
the Johannine Redaction," LTP 33 (1977) 135-50.
883

53. Truly fresh ground has been broken on the question of sacraments in the
Fourth Gospel by Kikuo Matsunaga, "Is John's Gospel Anti-Sacramental?--A
New Solution in the Light of the Evangelist's Milieu, cited above.
54. See D. A. Carson, "The Function of the Paraclete in John 16:7-11," JBL
98 (1979) 547-66.
55. The Testament of Jesus, 75.
56. The Epistles of John (AB 30; Garden City: Doubleday, 1982) 73-79; see
my Christ is Community, 189-92.
57. See Raymond Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, 109-44.
58. "Social Preconditions of Enthusiasm and Heterodoxy," 70.
59. Ibid., 69.
60. Ibid., 69.
61. Ibid., 70.
62. It is frequently noted that John has "no ecclesiology," a theological statement
which reflects an anthropological sense of weak social organization and social
control.
63. Some very interesting suggestions are offered along this line by Wayne
Meeks, "The Man From Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism," 70-71.

Jacob Traditions and the Interpretation of John 4:10-26

JEROME H. NEYREY, S.J.
Weston School of Theology

THE WOMAN at the well asks Jesus "Are you greater than our father Jacob?"
Previous discussions of John 4 have not dealt specifically with this question and
what such a comparison might mean for the interpretation of the passage.
Important contributions, of course, have been made to the understanding of John
884

4 which have sometimes been allegorical in nature [1] or symbolic. [2] Recent debate
on the historical background of John's gospel has led to discussion about
Samaritan religion, a Samaritan mission in the early church, and other such
issues. [3] 3 But the question in John 4:12 seems rarely to have been studied in
terms of what specific Jacob materials are operative in the comparing of Jesus
and Jacob. [4]
Since John's text is explicit about Jacob at this point (4:5,6) and pointedly asks if
Jesus is "greater than Jacob" (4:12), a systematic inquiry into the Jewish
materials concerning Jacob seems warranted. The very question of the woman
presupposes that Jacob is a well-known person, such that the points of
comparison between Jesus and Jacob would be evident to the audience, both
from its knowledge of the biblical text and from interpretations of that text found
in
sources
such
as
targum
and
midrash.
It
is
precisely this material which I propose to investigate: what is presupposed by the
author to make "greater than Jacob" an intelligible statement and what
importance does this comparison have for the understanding of the passage?
Although many of the sources of information about Jacob come from writings
transcribed considerably later than John's Gospel, it will be shown that many of
the Jacob traditions in them are presupposed by the argument in John 4, which
fact presents evidence that these traditions certainly existed prior to John. Even
when specific traditions, such as Jacob's visions of a future, restored temple,
cannot be dated as early as John, nevertheless there seems to be evidence
suggesting that Jacob texts were already loci for such expansion and that such
lines
of
expansion
were
well
under
way
in
the
first
century. John's text, therefore, may prove to be an important relay station in the
development of certain Jacob traditions even as it witnesses to a frequency which
will soon bear greater traffic of legendary expansion.
The question asked in John 4:12, "Are you greater than our father Jacob?"
formally resembles the one put to Jesus in 8:53, "Are you greater than our father
Abraham?" [5] Together the two questions belong to a theme in the Gospel which
asserts Jesus' superiority to the founding fathers of traditional Jewish religion
(see 1:17-18; 5:38; 6:32). [6] The thrust of the questions, as we shall see, suggests
that Jesus not only replaces Jacob, [7] Abraham, and Moses vis--vis God's
revelation,
but
that
an
absolute
claim
is
made on his behalf: he is greater than these, he supplants them with new
revelation, a new cult and a new covenant.
The question in 4:12, moreover, should be seen in relation to other statements in
the Gospel which proclaim the distinctiveness of Jesus vis--vis Israel's past
885

experiences and personages. Jesus is the true vine, the true light (1:9; 6:32; 15:1);
he is contrasted with the old or false. Even in the use of the "I am" formulae,
Jesus is linked in an exclusive manner with certain events or elements. [8] Often in
the Gospel the demonstrative haute or houtos is used apropros of Jesus to
underscore his uniqueness or superiority. [9] The question in 4:12, then, belongs to
a mode of discourse in the Gospel which both asserts the superiority of Jesus
over Israel's patriarchs and makes an absolute claim on his behalf. [10]
Jacob's Well and Jacob the Supplanter (4:10-15)
Because it is the clearest point of comparison, let us begin with the question in
4:12, Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this well? The
Genesis accounts do not record that Jacob even dug a well, much less that he
gave it to any of his sons; the text, however, does mention that Jacob bought and
then gave Shechem to Joseph (Gen 33:19; 48:22), which is the locale of Jacob's
well (see John 4:1).[11]
The trend of some traditions was not to associate Jacob with any particular well,
but to link him with the traveling well tradition (see 1 Cor 10:4): "Jacob was
seventy-seven years old when he went forth from his father's house, and the well
went with him." [12] And this same source also tells us that at one point Jacob left
this traveling well at Bethel: "there he left the well." [13] The legend of the
traveling well should, of course, be linked primarily with Miriam's well in.
Numbers 21. [14] But as the targums on Numbers 21 indicate, Miriam's well was
itself simply the old patriarchal well which had been lost and was only then
rediscovered:
And from thence was given them the living well, the well concerning which the
Lord said to Moses, assemble the people and give them water. Then,
behold, Israel sang the thanksgiving of this song, at the time that the well which
had been hidden was restored to them through the spirit of Miriam: Spring up, 0
well, spring up, 0 well! sang they to it, and it sprang up: the well which the
fathers of the world, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, digged; the princes who were of
old digged it, the chiefs of the people, Moses and Aaron, the scribes of Israel,
found it with their rods; and from the desert it was given to them for a gift. [15]
It is presumably this very well which was said to have been one of the ten things
created before the world's founding. [16] Hence, while there is nothing in the
legends to suggest why Jacob specifically should be associated with a given well
at Bethel or Shechem, he is linked to the general well tradition. The well in John
4: 12 might be called Jacob's well simply because it lies in Jacob country, at
Shechem.
886

A second item in the discourse seems to presuppose more specific knowledge of

Jacob legends. Jesus remarked that the woman should ask him for water (4:10),
to which she replied, "You don't have a bucket and the well is deep; how do you
get this living water?" (v 11). In the legends about Jacob mention is made of a
miracle whereby water would automatically surge to the top of Jacob's well and
overflow,
a
phenomenon
wellattested in the targums of Genesis 28 and in other midrashic accounts: "Five
miracles were wrought for our father Jacob at the time that he went forth from
Beersheba ...The fourth sign: the well overflowed, and the water rose to the edge
of it, and continued to overflow all the time he was in Haran." [17] The woman's
remarks to Jesus that he has no bucket and that the well is deep set the stage to
ask how Jesus expects to draw water from the well. Without a bucket, the only
alternate way to get the water would be to perform a miracle like Jacob's. Jacob's
miraculous drawing of water, therefore, seems to be presupposed in the dialogue
in 4:11.
A third item in the discourse that might allude to Jacob material is the remark by
Jesus in 4:10. If only the woman knew "the gift of God and who it is that speaks
to you," then she would ask and he would "give you living water." Jacob is
known as a crafty person who stealthily achieved his designs, but the pertinent
allusion may lie in the interpretation of the well itself as "gift." [18]
The text of Num 21:16 indicates that when the Israelites arrived at Beer, God
promised Moses, "I will give them water." After finding a well in this place, the
Israelites traveled on to Mattanah, Nahaliel, Bamoth, and Moab (21: 18-20). The
point is that the place name, Mattanah, is interpreted in targumic expansions
according to its perceived root (ntn) as "gift." The interpretation, of course,
would logically be understood in the light of Num 21:16c ("I will give them
water"). Whereas the MT on Num 21:18c reads "And from the wilderness they
went on to Mattanah," it was changed in the LXX to kai apo phreatos eis
Manthanain; and finally in the targums to Num 21:18, "Mattanah" is read, not as
a place name, but as "gift." [19]
Tg. Neof
Tg. Yer.
Tg. Yer. II

And from the wilderness it was given to them as a gift

And from the desert it was given to them
And from the desert it was given to them as a gift

This reading is also found in a midrash on this passage as well: "And from the
Wilderness at Mattanah. This implies that it was given (nittena) to them in the
wilderness to serve their needs." [20]

887

The midrashic interpretation of the place name as "gift" is still more evident in
the targumic reworkings of Num 21:19. Whereas the MT reads only place names
(from Mattanah to Nahaliel and from Nahaliel to Bamoth ...), all of the targums
expand on the gift quality of the well.
Tg. Neof
Tg. Onq.
Tg. Yer. I

and after the well had been given to them as a gift. ..

and from thence it was given to them. ..
and from thence it was given to them at Mattanah

Thus the miraculous well was interpreted as "gift of God."

Now when Jesus told the woman, "if only you knew the gift of God," on one
level the "gift" might be the general recognition of the true well of Israel's history
which God gave the people (see Num 21:16). But Jesus qualifies the statement so
that the allusion is not simply to the well but to himself: "If only you knew the
gift of God and who it is who says to you 'Give me a drink.' " Thus the person of
Jesus is equated with the true "gift of God," the true well of Israel. Jesus' giving
of special waters is developed later in the gospel (see 7:37-39; 19:34).
Thus far the comparison of Jesus and Jacob seems to presuppose knowledge of
two items: a miraculous welling up of water and designation of the well as a gift.
The point of the comparison, of course, has been to show that Jesus is certainly
"greater than our father Jacob;" and Jesus' superiority is explained in response in
4:13-14, whereby an absolute claim is made on his behalf.
Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again,
but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never thirst.
The form of the response is significant because it represents a pattern of
antithetical statements that characterizes Jesus' mode of discourse in the Gospel
and that claims superiority for him or asserts his absolute importance. [21] The
assertion made here especially resembles the statement of manna and bread from
heaven (see 6:49-51), especially in its claim to produce and eternal result (eis ton
aiona).
The response of Jesus in 4: 13-14 claims that he is not just a latter-day Jacob or
even that Jacob was a type of Christ. A more radical claim is made: Jesus
supplants/replaces Jacob. The woman's question in 4:12 seems to contain a pun,
implying that Jesus is supplanting Jacob, the Supplanter, thus doing to Jacob
what he did to Esau.

888

According to Gen 25:26, Jacob's name means "to grab by the heel" or "to
supplant"; Jacob is so proficient at being "jacob," that he supplants Esau in birth
(25:26), birthright (25:34), and blessing (27:36). In one sense, he is just one more
example of the traditional experience in Israel of the younger son supplanting the
elder, a pattern found in the case of Isaac-Ishmael, Jacob-Esau, Joseph-his
brethren, Ephraim-Menasseh, David-his brethren and Solomon-other siblings,
and which is later applied by Paul to Gentile Christians vis-a-vis the Jews (Rom
11 :7-12). [22] But in a writer like Philo, Jacob's sobriquet is, as his name suggests,
"the Supplanter" pternistes). [23] Hence in the first century, Jacob was still known
as "jacob," the supplanter. [24]
If Jesus is supplanting Jacob, in what does the replacement consist? Since the
thrust of the dialogue is to assert that absolute quality of Jesus and his gift, the
comparison with Jacob is not simply to suggest that Jesus does greater miracles
than Jacob, nor to have Jesus give a better well.
Jacob's Courtship at the Well (4:16-18)
Is there an allusion to Jacob in 4: 16-18? The OT background suggests a parallel
between the courtship meetings at a well of Abraham's servant and Rebekah (Gen
24:1ff.), Jacob and Rachel (Gen 29:1-14), Moses and Sipporah (Ex 2:1522) [25] and Jesus and the Samaritan woman. In Josephus' account of these well
encounters, only the Jacob-Rachel story contains a story of a tender and elaborate
courtship(Ant. 1.286-292). Justin was quick to see Jacob's marriages as types of
what Christ was to accomplish: Leah was the synagogue who was replaced by
Rachel, the Church (Dial. 134). Any matrimonial allusions in John 4: 16-18,
therefore, would seem to cast Jesus in the role of groom and the woman
(Samaritan church?) as the bride. [26]
Using allegorical methods of interpretation, critics have attempted to identify the
five husbands (4: 18) with the five books of the Samaritan Pentateuch [27] or with
the five gods (baal as husband/god) which the Samaritans were said to
worship, [28] but such interpretations have fallen into disfavor. [29] The thrust of such
investigations has been primarily in terms of Samaritan traditions, whereas our
focus is the Jacob traditions.
If there is a Jacob allusion operating here, it would be primarily in terms of
courtship at a well. Courtship would imply that Jesus replaces the former
"husbands" of the woman with the true baal, viz., himself. Since the woman is
portrayed as accepting Jesus as Messiah (4:39), he effectively becomes
her baal; and he replaces Samaritan expectations when they too confess him as
"Savior of the world" (4:42). The Jacob matrimonial allusions then seem to lie in
889

Jesus' becoming the husband/lord of these new converts, even his replacement of
their former allegiances.
Such implications are realistic options here. In the language of the Gospel, John
the Baptizer has already acknowledged that Jesus, who has the bride, is the
bridegroom (3:29). Jesus, moreover, has attended a marriage feast (2:1-11) where
he replaced the waters of purification with his own superb wine. Thus in
matrimonial imagery Jesus has been proclaimed as winning the allegiance of new
followers and as supplanting previous persons and rituals in Jewish religion.
The Right Place to Worship and Visions of the Future (4:19-20)
The woman's response in 4:19-20 reflects a shift in the dialogue: "Sir, I perceive
that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain; and you say that
in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship." The operative images
turn from well and water to the topic of worship, especially knowledge pertinent
to worship. Jesus' remark to the woman about her many husbands indicates that
he is indeed knowledgeable enough to warrant the title' 'Prophet," that is, one
who perhaps has access to knowledge, especially about the right place of
worship. [30] The knowledge of Jesus, therefore, seems to function as the mediating
link between the two halves of the discourse. [31] It distinguishes him from the
woman who does not know (4:10) and it looks forward to his identification as
Messiah who knows all (4:25, 39). But does the second half of the dialogue (vv
19-26)
allude to or presuppose allusions to Jacob? If not to specific Jacob legends, then
might Jesus continue to "supplant" older traditions, i.e., does he still function as
"jacob"?
In acclaiming Jesus as "a prophet," the woman expects him to settle a theological
issue: she poses the question of the right place of worship, an obvious difference
between Samaritans and Jews. Northern and Samaritan traditions did not
accept Jerusalem as "the place where I will put my name." [32] The most obvious
evidence of this disagreement with Jerusalem was the erection of the golden calf
at Bethel in the days of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 12:28-29). The deuteronomic redactor
was likewise reluctant to localize God in anyone place, especially Jerusalem (see
Deut 12:5,11,14,18,21,26), a polemic which is found also in the redaction of 1
Kgs 8:28ff.
Besides this general orientation of non-Judah tribes, [33] there are passages in the
Jacob stories which could be read in support of an alternate site to Jerusalem as
the legitimate place of worship. Jacob experienced a vision of a ladder stretching
from heaven to earth; when he awoke he designated the spot of the vision as "the
890

place": "Surely the Lord is in this place; and I did not know it ...how awesome is
this place! This is none other than the house of God and the gate of heaven" (Gen
28:16-18). Samaritan traditions which supported worship on Mt. Gerizim
interpreted
Jacob's
vision
as
[34]
occurring on that mountain. Also supporting the Samaritan claim is Gen 33:
19-20, Jacob's building of an altar at Shechem. Thus Jacob is certainly a factor in
a northern and Samaritan tradition which asserted that Mt. Gerizim is the
legitimate place of worship.
Recent archaeological research on Mt. Gerizim has uncovered a massive building
under a Roman temple to Zeus, a building which has subsequently been
identified as the Samaritan temple. [35] Moreover, in an important article on
Samaritan traditions of the temple's "hidden vessels," M. Collins has shown that
in the first century there was strong expectation that an eschatological prophet
would recover the hidden vessels on Mt. Gerizim and thus restore true worship
there as the rightful place. [36] Collins' article has shown that Josephus' account of
Samaritan attempts to meet on Mt. Gerizim in the first century (see Ant. 18.8587) reflects a live religious issue, an issue which focuses attention on the
woman's question in John 4: 19-20, especially to her remarks about a prophet. [37]
Beyond general acceptance of Jacob as part of the legitimation of Samaritan
traditions of Mt. Gerizim as the place of worship, Jacob's vision (Gen 28:16-18)
was alternately used in Jewish sources as validation of their own claims for Mt.
Zion. Gen. Rab. 69:7 notes that the spot of Jacob's ladder was the very site of the
temple; Tg. Yer. I Gen 28:17 explicitly connects Jacob's site with Jerusalem:
"This place is not profane but the holy house of the name of the Lord, the proper
spot
for
prayer,
set
forth
before
[38]
the gate of heaven, founded beneath the throne of Glory." The essentials of this
reading are found also in two variant readings of Tg. Neof. Gen
28:17. [39] Although such targumic expansion may be of later date, inasmuch as it
reflects a period after the fall of the temple in 70 A.D. when sacrifice would be
replaced by prayer, nevertheless, the use of Jacob's vision to validate a particular
spot is clearly very old. Proof of this claim comes from a passage in Jubilees
which, dealing with Jacob's vision of the ladder, emphatically restrains him from
consecrating Bethel as the legitimate place of worship. The insistence that the
dream sit e is "not the place"
Do not build this place.
Do not make
Do not dwell here;

it

an

891

eternal

sanctuary;

this is not the place (Jub 32:22)

presupposes that Gen 28:16-18 was used as early as Jubilees to legitimate the
sacred place of worship.
Thus Jacob traditions were generally operative in the scheme of locating the
place of worship. But as "greater than Jacob," Jesus is hailed as a prophet with
special knowledge, one aspect of which prophetic knowledge was to settle the
disputed location of Jacob's vision vis-a-vis the legitimate place of worship.
Hence Jesus' knowledge may be said to be greater at this point than Jacob's
vision.
Just as Jacob was linked to a specific place of worship in virtue of Gen 28:16-18,
he is likewise treated as a visionary according to midrashic developments of
several other Jacob texts in Genesis. The passage from Jubilees, which we just
examined, expands the vision of Jacob's ladder in the direction of his receiving
heavenly secrets about the future of Israel. Gen 28:12-15 tells only of a vision of
a
ladder
and
of
the
Lord
promising
to
establish a covenant on the land with Jacob and sons, but the retelling of this
vision in Jub 32:21-24 supplements the divine oracle with a messenger angel
bringing seven tablets of heavenly secrets for Jacob to read: "And he read them
and knew that all that was written therein which would befall him and his sons
throughout the ages" (v 21). And the text continues with the angel commanding
Jacob to record his special revelations: "do thou write down everything as thou
hast seen and read" (v 24). Thus in virtue of Gen 28:12-15, Jacob was considered
privy to heavenly revelations and the purveyor of them as well (see Jub 32:26). [40]
Another Jacob text (Genesis 49) also became the occasion for claiming that Jacob
possesses special heavenly knowledge. The MT of Gen 49:1 describes the dying
Jacob gathering his sons together "that I may tell you what shall befall you in the
days to come." The LXX puts a different nuance to the text by translating
"following days" as ep eschaton ton hemeron. This verse became the locus of
considerable expansion in targum and midrash [41] as Jacob was credited with
visions of the eschatological future, typical of which expansion is Tg. Neof. Gen
49:1: I will tell you the concealed secrets, the hidden ends, the giving of rewards
of the just and the punishment of the wicked and what the happiness of Eden
is. [42]
J. M. Allegro published a text from Qumran (4QpGn 49) which contains Jacob's
visionary blessing of Judah (Gen 49: 10) interpreted as a messianic
prophecy. [43] In the passage, Jacob foresees the coming messiah ("a ruler from the
892

tribe of Judah") who, it appears, will be associated with the "Interpreter of the
Law" for the sectarian community. Allegro argued from 4Q Flor that this
"Interpreter
of
the
Law"
in
4QpGn49
is
himself
a
messianic figure, citing the Flor, as evidence: "He is the Shoot of David, who
will arise with the Interpreter of the Law." [44] Granting the Qumran doctrine of a
royal as well as a priestly messiah, [45] we have clear pre-Christian evidence of
Jacob's vision (Genesis 49) functioning as the locus of speculation concerning a
royal messiah as well as an official interpreter of Jewish law and worship.
Other Jacob texts link him with special revelations, especially knowledge
concerning the future place of worship. Attached to Isaac's blessing of Jacob
(Gen 27:27) we find the following midrash:
This verse teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him (Jacob)
the Temple built, destroyed, and rebuilt. Thus: See the smell of my son is
an allusion to the Temple built, as in the verse, "a sweet smell unto Me
shall ye observe" (Num 28:2). As the smell of the field suggests it when
destroyed, as in the verse, "Zion shall be ploughed as a field" (Mic 3:12);
which the Lord hath blessed- this hints at it being rebuilt and perfected
in the Messianic future, as it is said, "For there the Lord commanded the
blessing, even life for ever" (Ps 133:3). [46]
Although such traditions speak of a period after the fall of the temple in 70 A.D.,
nevertheless the ease with which they are attached to Jacob texts suggest a prior
readiness to attribute such materials to the patriarch.
Other sources say that Jacob revealed the history of Judah until, but not
including, the coming of the Messiah, who would then know and tell everything:
The tribe of Judah-the wise and great among them-possessed a tradition from our
father Jacob as to all that would befall the whole tribe until the days of the
Messiah. Everyone of the tribes similarly possessed such traditions from their
father Jacob as to what would happen to them until the days of the Messiah. [47]
Thus Jacob, while credited with special revelations as well as visions, was
expected to be supplanted in turn by the Messiah when he came, which tradition
seems pertinent to understanding the woman's remark in 4:25: "I know that the
Messiah, when he comes, will show us all things." There seems, therefore, to be a
foundation for proclaiming that Jesus, as prophet and Messiah, would have
greater knowledge than Jacob.

893

But the dialogue in John 4:21-24 does not consider Jesus as a latter-day Jacob
whose visions decide long-standing disputes as to the right place of worship.
Jesus supplants that entire discussion by invalidating Jacob's visions of the ladder
as the place (". ..neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. .."). [48] And Jesus
supplants Jacob's revelations of the future of Israel and its worship by declaring a
new time ("the hour is coming. ..and is now here") and a new cult ("true
worshippers
will
worship
in
spirit
and
truth").
Worship in Spirit and Truth (4:21-24)
Jesus' first response in the second half of the discourse (v 21) categorically
rejects Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Zion as "the place where one must worship." His
subsequent remarks may allude to other Jacob traditions. In Gen 28:16-18, when
Jacob awoke from his dream-vision he exclaimed: "The Lord is in this spot and I
did not know it." In 4:22 Jesus tells the woman, "You worship what you do not
know, we worship what we know."
The question is: did Jacob know or did he not?
According to some Samaritan traditions, Mt. Gerizim was "the place"; and in
certain strands of that literature it is positively asserted that "Jacob knew it,"
probably a corrective apology to rival Jewish readings of Gen 28:16, "I did not
know it." [49] But in this context, in which John's community asserts both the
superiority of Jewish to Samaritan traditions as well as Christian superiority to
both, the remark "you do not know" undercuts all previous claims, Samaritan and
Jewish, by reasserting Jacob's statement that "I did not know." And it affirms the
replacement of Jacob's concern with the "place of God" with Christian claims
concerning true worship, viz., "what we know." The thrust of the replacement,
moreover, is again in the direction of an absolute claim on behalf of Jesus and his
community's practice. [50]
Another item in Jesus' response presses forward the absolute claim made on
behalf of the new community: "true worshippers worship the Father in spirit and
truth" (v 23a). The dialectical language continues the contrasts of vv 21-22; when
the woman asked about the correct "place," Jesus denied in principle that there is
such a place; previous claims to know were invalidated by the charge that' 'you
do not know," whereas' 'we know." Now former eras are negated in favor of a
new time, "the hour is coming and is now here." False or incomplete cultic
actions presently give way to "true worshippers" and the old mode of worship is
supplanted by "worshipping in spirit and truth." Indeed nothing of the old
tradition remains; it is totally supplanted. [51]
894

But is there a specific Jacob allusion in 4:23? Is the operative factor still the
supplanting of Jacob by Jesus? Or is there a possible link between the two halves
of the discourse, such that well/water (4:10-14) tend to be linked with spirit and
revelation (4:21-24) in Jewish literature? In general it can be said that spirit was
metaphorically linked with water in the OT, especially in phrases such as "pour
out my spirit" (Isa 32:15; Joel 2:28). In Ezek 36:25-27, the water which purifies
is associated with a new spirit of God: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and
you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from your idols I will cleanse
you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will
take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will
put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to
observe all my ordinances [52] Spirit, water and purification are linked in lQS
4:21. Thus there was a solid basis in Jewish symbols for associating well/water
with spirit and purification, which is just the link that John seems to have made.
Although the dating of the tradition concerning Jacob's well in the following
midrash on Gen 29: 1 may be problematic, it reflects the tradition we have seen
which associates well/water with spirit and worship, in this case cultic festivals.
Concerning the well of Jacob we read:
Another interpretation: And behold a well in the field symbolizes Zion,' And lo
three flocks of sheep-the three Festivals (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles); For
out of that well they watered the flocks -from there they imbibed the divine
spirit; And the stone. ..was great-this alludes to the rejoicing of the place of the
water drawing. R. Hoshaya said: Why was it called the rejoicing of the place of
drawing water? Because from there they imbibed the divine spirit. And thither
were ail the flocks gathered-they all came, "from the entrance of Hamath unto the
Brook of Egypt" (1 Kgs 8:66). And they rolled the stone from the well's mouth in
its place: it was lying for the next Festival. [53]
As well and water are associated with spirit and worship, the same complex
imagery is also linked with special knowledge and revelation. There are passages
from Enoch which speak of "fountains of wisdom" (1 Enoch 48:1) or of "wisdom
poured out like water" (1 Enoch 49:1). [54]
The Damascus Document is another important key, for it links well and
instruction. In their context, well and teaching are perceived as an exclusive
interpretation of Jewish practice which the community to which the Damascus
Document belonged would see as supplanting the corrupt practices of Jerusalem.
According to the document, holiness and purity are found only in the sect; of old,
God "revealed hidden things" to the holy remnant about "holy Sabbaths, glorious
feasts, testimony of righteousness and ways of truth" (3: 14-15), which revelation
895

is expressed in the metaphor of a well: "He opened (this) before them and they
dug a well of abundant waters and whoever despises these waters shall not live"
(3:16-17). The sect recognized that one aspect of their exclusive claim to holiness
was the accurate knowledge of who the true priests were (4: 1-6), and who had
defiled the sanctuary (4: 18; 5:6-7). The authentic tradition of Torah was
attributed to the teachers of the sect, who dug a well from which they drew their
teaching of truth:
And God remembered the covenant of the Patriarchs
and raised out of Aaron men of understanding
and out of Israel sages,
and He caused them to hear (His voice) and they dug the well:
The well which the princes dug,
Which the nobles of the people delved with a rod.
The well is the Law,
and those who dug it are the converts of Israel
who went out from the land of Judah
and were exiled in the land of Damascus (6:2-5).
The general symbolic linkage between well/water and special knowledge is
found in Philo, who explicitly ties these associations to Jacob's well (Gen 29:1).
The spring is divine wisdom (Fug. 195-196; Post.138) or God himself, as in Jer
2:13 (Pug. 197),
from
whence
come
ever-flowing
waters (Fug. 197; Post. 136; Som. I.11) so that whoever drinks the waters of the
divine spring gains ultimate knowledge and understanding (Fug. 195196; Post. 136, 138). God's waters, moreover, are waters of life, even of
immortality (Fug. 198-199). The "wise ones," Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, dug
the wells of divine wisdom(Fug. 200); Moses likewise witnesses to the "wisdom
of the well" in Num 21 (Ebr. 112); but it is Rebecca, the figure of Sophia, who
gives the waters of the wisdom of God to those who would learn from
her (Post. 136; Q.G. IV. 98-108). For Philo, a well is often a "symbol of
education and knowledge" (Q.G. IV. 191; Som. I.6; II.271).

896

Before explaining Jacob's dream of the ladder in Gen 28:12,15, Philo insisted on
investigating three items: 1. the well of the oath, 2. Haran, and 3. "the
place" (Som. I.5). The well symbolized knowledge(Som. I.6,11); Haran,
according to the epistemological allegory, represents the' 'mother city of the
senses," which even the wise man depends upon. The reprehensible thing is to
live
always
on
the
sense
level,
like
Laban;
Jacob,
like
Abraham, only spends a brief time on the sense level before fleeing it for realms
of true knowledge (Som. I.41-47). The "place" mentioned in Gen 28:11 cannot
mean the "place of God," for God who contains all things cannot be contained in
"a place"; according to Philo, "place," when it appears in statements like Gen
22:3 and 28:11, must refer to the logos (Som. I.61-64). When Jacob encountered
"the place," he was in contact with ". ..the Word of God, showing, as it does, the
way to the things that are best, teaching, as it does, such lessons as the varying
occasions require" (Som. I.68). In Philo, then, we find the same general
identification of well and water with divine teaching as was observed in the OT
and targumic material, and even a specific linkage of such material with our
father Jacob.
We have shown that the images of well/water were not taken at their face value
but frequently associated with spirit, worship, and knowledge. Moreover, we
have pointed to complex evidence which suggests that there was a trajectory
which associated the Jacob texts from Genesis with spirit, cult, and knowledge.
The dating of many of these midrashic texts remains problematic for firmly
establishing the background of John's discourse about Jacob. The ease, however,
with which such ideas as worship and knowledge are attached to Jacob texts
suggests an existing foundation for a developing tradition whereby Jacob, the
premier patriarch associated with worship, was linked with special knowledge,
cult and spirit, especially through his association with the well (Gen 29:1). If
Jacob's well is itself the cipher for knowledge, cult and spirit, then we think that
John's dialogue in chap. 4 intends the reader to link the well part of the discourse
with
the
subsequent material on worship. Jesus, who supplants Jacob's well and water,
replaces the reality for which well/water are symbols. As "greater than Jacob" he
supplants the old traditions of spirit, cult and knowledge which were associated
with Jacob's well.
THE SYSTEMATIC examination of Jacob traditions has thrown light on several
statements in John 4: 10-26. (1) The text was shown to presuppose allusions to
Jacob's miracle of automatically rising well water and to the identification of the
well as God's gift. The primary Jacob allusion, however, seems to be the
etymological appreciation of Jacob as "supplanter." Hence, the fundamental point
of 4: 12 is to assert that Jesus supplants Jacob and all the traditions associated
897

with Jacob, in particular Jacob's legitimation of a correct place of worship and

eschatological knowledge. Being "greater" means in fact that Jesus supplants
Jacob in an absolute way. He gives water such that the one who drinks it will
never thirst (4:14), for the new water will well up to "eternal life." (2) In 4:16-18
it seems that the revelation of the woman's confusing matrimonial situation is
calculated to evoke echoes of courtship meetings at wells in Genesis, especially
Jacob's meeting with Rachel. The point of this allusion seems to be tied to an
aspect of marriage as covenant/worship. Jesus' knowledge of her confused
matrimonial state leads to questions of worship and finally to the resolution of
marital allegiance in 4:42 when Jesus is acknowledged as "Savior of the world"
by the Samaritans. (3) The background of 4:19-20 would seem to include
allusions to Jacob both in terms of his vision (Genesis 28), and possibly in terms
of his knowledge (Genesis 49). Jacob's vision, which was part of the legitimating
process for both Mts. Gerizim and Zion, is supplanted by the revelations from the
eschatological prophet, Jesus. (4) In 4:21-24 there seems to be an allusion to
Jacob's remark in Gen 28: 16 ("I did not know"), whereby Jesus supplants Jacob's
vision and knowledge by "what we do know." The discussion of 4:23-24 showed
that well and water are frequent ciphers for Torah, spirit and knowledge of
worship and that these symbols are indeed tied to Jacob's well, as the midrash on
Gen 29:1 indicated. Thus the two halves of the discourse are consistent in their
presentation of Jesus' new water which is deciphered as the new teaching on
"worshipping in spirit and truth." Even in the second half of the discourse at the
well (4:19-26), the fundamental allusion to Jacob is still that of supplanter. The
sectarian Johannine community is not simply claiming that Jesus is supplanting
Jacob's well; rather Jesus as the supplanter is invalidating all previous cui tic
places and rites and is replacing them with a worship centered in Jesus' own
person (4:42). Thus it is not a question of comparision between Jesus' and Jacob's
waters which is at issue (4: 12-15); absolute claims are made by the Johannine
community on behalf of Jesus, claims which deal with no less than "true
worship" of God. (5) Why Jacob? Of all the OT patriarchs, Jacob is most closely
associated with cult, either the place of worship or knowledge about worship
(Gen 28: 11-17). This association is utilized by John as he systematically asserts
the superiority of Jesus to Moses, Abraham and other founding fathers of Jewish
religion. In the apology for the correctness and even the superiority of Christian
worship, Jacob was an apt foil to Jesus for legitimizing Christian practices in
John's community. (6) Finally, since the primary thrust of the question in 4: 12
was to present Jesus as supplanting Jacob and traditions associated with him, a
summary of the worship replacement motif in the Gospel might be in order. The
Jewish waters of purification are supplanted by Christian purificatory rites, only
one
of
which
seems
to
be
baptism (see 13:5-10). Moreover, what constitutes impurity seems to be redefined
898

in John's community; Jesus was in no way contaminated by the Samaritan

woman [55] but rather became the source of purification for her and her and her
fellow Samaritans, thus suggesting a supplanting of Jewish notions of what is
unclean. The old well of Torah is supplanted by a new font of revelation, Jesus
himself. The superiority of the new rites and the new Torah lies in their effecting
satisfaction "forever" (cf. 4: 13-14). The old places of worship are invalidated
and replaced with a new time, a new place, and a new mode of worship.
Although Jesus is greater than Jacob, he does not replace God in the community's
worship. But confession of him as prophet, Messiah, and Savior of the world and
even as equal to God becomes part of the true worship of God who stands behind
Jesus ("the Father seeks such to worship him" Jn 4:24). To this summary one
might add the replacement of manna with the bread of life, the supplanting of
Jewish feasts with Christian feasts which celebrate Jesus as the new lamb, the
light, the water, etc. [56] Understanding how the Jacob allusions function invites us
further to reinvestigate the worship of the Johannine community, especially in its
dialectical conflict with supplanted Jewish rites.

[1]

A survey of the allegorical interpretations of John 4 may be conveniently found in B. Olsson, Structure and
Meaning in the Fourth Gospel (Lund: C. W.K. Gleerup, 1974)120-121.
[2]

H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel (Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell, 1929); although Odeberg is presenting the
general Jewish background to specific items in John 4, his operative concept is the explanation of the
"symbolic sense" of these items, which aim is evident in his summaries, see 168-169, 170-174; see
Olsson, Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel, 162-172.
[3]

Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel, 174-190; O. Cullmann, "Samaria and the Origins of the Christian
Mission," The
Early
Church (London:
SCM,
1956)
185-192
and The
Johannine
Circle (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975); J. Bowman, "Samaritan Studies," BJRL 40 (1958) 298-327;
E. D. Freed, "Did John write his Gospel to win Samaritan converts," NT 12 (1970) 241-256; W. Meeks, The
Prophet-King (Leiden: Brill, 1967); G. W. Buchanan, "The Samaritan Origin of the Fourth
Gospel," Religions in Antiquity (ed. J. Neusner; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 149-175; R. J. Coggins, Samaritans and
Jews (Oxford: Blackwell, 1975) 138-148.
[4]

Recent commentaries have all but ignored the Jewish background about Jacob
implied in the question; see R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (New York: Herder &
Herder, 1968) 429; B. Lindars, The Gospel of John (London: Oliphants, 1972) 182; R. Brown (The Gospel
According to St. John [AB 29; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966] 1.170) cited the article of J. Ramon Diaz
("Palestinian Targum and the New Testament," NT 6 [1963] 76-77); even in his recent book, C. K.
Barrett (The Gospel of John and Judaism [London: SPCK, 1975]) takes no note of John 4: 12 or the Jacob
material.
[5]

B. Olsson, Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel, 162-173.

899

[6]

Two recent studies from Yale University have examined respectively the Jesus-Moses
and Jesus-Abraham material in John; see W. Meeks, The Prophet-King and B. Schein, Our Father
Abraham (unpublished Yale Dissertation, 1973).
[7]

In Luke 11:31 and Matt 12:41-42, Jesus is clearly proclaimed as "greater than Solomon." The allusions to
Jacob in John 1:47-51 belong to a different theme in John than the one under consideration here. Just as
Abraham's and Moses' visions were in fact visions of Jesus, so Jesus promises Nathaniel, the true Israelite (i.e.
the new Jacob) that he would see a vision similar to that of Jacob at Bethel, viz., Jesus himself enthroned in
heaven; see N. A. Dahl, "The Johannine Church and History," Current Issues in New Testament
Interpretation (eds. W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder; New York: Harper, 1962) 134,136.
[8]

R. Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1.534; see John 6:35,51; 8:12; 10:7,9,11, 14; 11:25; 14:6 and
15:1.
[9]

John 1:30, 33, 34; 3:19; 4:42; 6:14, 50, 58; see 1 John 1:5; 2:25; 3:11,23; 5:3, 4, 9,11, 14; 2 John 6.

[10]

Yet in the gospel, it is still maintained that the Father is "greater than" Jesus (see John 10:29; 14:26); see W.
Thusing, "Die johanneische Theologie als Verkundigung der Grosse Gottes," TTZ 74 (1965) 321-331.
[11]

In Gen 29:1-12, however, Jacob is associated with a specific well, not his own but Laban's. Here he meets
Rachel, waters her flock and woos her. Tg. Yer. I Gen 29:1 indicated that Jacob worked a miracle here by
having the water automatically flow from the well; see note 17 below.
[12]

Pirqe R. E1.35 (trans. G. Friedlander [London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1916] 263).

[13]

Pirqe R. E1.35 (Friedlander, 267).

[14]

See 1 Cor 10:4; Ps Philo, Biblical Antiquities 10:7; 11: 15; 20:8; E. Earle Ellis, "A Note on First
Corinthians 10:4," JBL 76 (1957) 53-56; R. Le Deaut, "Miryam, soeur de Moise, et Marie, mere du
Messie," Bib 45 (1964) 209-213; H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 166, n. 25.
[15]

Tg. Yer. I Num 21:17-18.

[16]

Tg. Yer. I Num 23:31; see Pirqe Abot 5:9, Num. Rab. 19.25.

[17]

Tgs. Yer. I, II and Neof. Gen 28:10. The targums to Gen 29:10 and 12 actually describe the miracle
happening at Laban's well when Jacob meets Rachel there and waters her flocks; on this miracle, see Pirqe R.
E1. 36 (Friedlander, 268); Midr. Pss. 91,7. This Jacob legend was noted by J. R. Diaz, "Palestinian Targum
and the New Testament," 76-77.
[18]

H. Odeberg (The Fourth Gospel, 149-152) cites numerous midrashic parallels which speak primarily of
Torah, not the well, as "gift."
[19]

A. Diez Macho, Neophyti I (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1974) IV,
Numeros, 581, n. 13; see R, Le Deaut, "Miryam, soeur de Moise, et Marie, mere du Messie," 211.
[20]

Num. Rab. 19.26.

[21]

See John 3:6,12,20-21,36; 6:49-51; 11:9-10; also 1 John 2:23; 3:8-9,14-15; 4:2-3 and 7-8.

[22]

See R. N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative (London: SPCK, 1968) 10-55.

900

[23]

Philo, Cher. 67; L.A. I.61; II.89; III.15, 93, 180; Mut. 81; Q.G. IV. 163; Som. I. 171.

[24]

Despite the deviousness ascribed to Jacob in Genesis, in the first century the figure of Jacob was
considerably restored and polished; his lies and deceptions are allegorically explained away (Philo, Q. G. IV.
172, 201, 206). Wisdom, not craftiness, comes to him (Wis 10: 10; Sir 24:8; 1 Baruch 3:36-37); and he
heralds the beginning of the eschatological age (4 Ezra 6:7-10). According to Philo, Jacob is the archetypal
"practiser" of virtue (Sac. 17; L.A. III. 18,22,93; Mut, 214; Mig,153, 200; Som. 1.46,68, 150, 159, 166, 171;
11.19) who supplants passion (L.A. 111.93, 190; Sac. 42; Mut. 81; Her. 252-253); he is the true lover of
virtue (Som. 1.45, 69,127,159), first in virtue (L.A. 111.192), acquiring virtue with great toil (L.A.III.
15; Som. I. 170), and living full of wisdom in a house of virtue (L.A. 111.2). In Pesiq. R. 26.1, Jacob is a
"perfect man," one of the four "supremely perfect creatures whom God Himself had formed." In the
Samaritan literature Jacob belongs to the triad of perfect ones (Memar Marqah I. 2; IV .8); he is not devious
but righteous (Memar Marqah II. 11; V. 2, 4; IV. 4); for all his ways are justice (IV. 3). The vehicle for this
rehabilitation seems to be tied to a fresh reading of Gen 25 :27, where the word tam is no longer translated as
"quiet," but as "perfect."
[25]

The link between the well and matrimonial imagery is well attested not only in biblical texts but in later
midrash as well; see Song of Songs Rab. 4. 12.3 "Thy God will one day make thee like a park of
pomegranates (Song 4: 13) in the Messianic era. What is that? The well [of Miriam]. Whence did the
Israelites procure wine for drink offerings all the forty years that they spent in the wilderness? R. Johanan
said: From the well." Song Rob. 4. 14.1: "Whence did the Daughters of Israel obtain wherewith to deck
themselves and gladden their husbands all the forty years that they were in the wilderness? R. Johanan said:
From the well; and so it says A fountain of Gardens, a well of living waters.
[26]

In only one rabbinic text is any patriarch called a bridegroom; after Isaac blesses Jacob, his leaving is
described:
"When
Jacob
went
forth
from
the
presence
of
his
father
Isaac,
he went forth crowned like a bridegroom, like a bride in her adornment" (Pirqe R. E1. 32
(Friedlander, 238)]. The problem with this is not only its late date, but the fact that Jacob is called both groom
and bride; nor has it anything to do with a well or Rachel.
[27]

Origen, In Johannem 13.8 (GCS 10,232).

[28]

See 2 Kgs 17:29-34; b. Yeb. 64b; Josephus, Ant. 9. 288; Philo. Mig. 188-206; see R. Brown, The Gospel
According to John, 1.171, n.18.
[29]

Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, 433; B Lindars, The Gospel of John, 185-187; R.
Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1. 171, n. 18.
[30]

See 1 Macc 4:46 and 14:41.

[31]

Lindars, The Gospel of John, 186

[32]

It is customary to associate Stephen's speech in Acts 7 with Jesus' remarks in John 4, the link being a
Samaritan
anti-temple
bias;
see
W.
F.
Albright
and
C.
S.
Mann,
"Stephen's
Samaritan Background," The Acts of the Apostles (ed. J. Munck; AB 31 [Garden City:
Doubleday, 1967] 285-300; O. Cullmann, "L'Opposition contre le temple de Jerusalem, motif commun de la
theologie johannique et du monde ambiant," NTS 5 (1958-59) 157-173 and more recently in The Johannine
Circle, 16, 39-53. Also relevant to this discussion is the expansion of the Tenth Commandment in the
Samaritan Decalogue; see John Bowman, "Samaritan Decalogue Inscriptions," BJRL 33 (/950-51) 228-229,
and Moses Gaster, The Samaritans (London: Oxford, 1925) 185-190.
[33]

R. E. Clements, "Deuteronomy and the Jerusalem Cult: Tradition," VT 15 (1965) 303-308; see 2 Macc 5:
19.

901

[34]

See John Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964) 327-333;
Josephus Ant. 18.85-87; Hans Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1971) 258-259,263;
see Mernar Marqah II.10.
[35]

The literary evidence for the Samaritan temple may be found in Josephus, Ant. 11, 322; 13, 254; see H. H.
Rowley, "Sanballat and the Samaritan Temple," Men of God (London: Nelson, 1963) 246-276; H.
Kippenberg, Garizim und Synagoge, 48-59, 188-200. Archeological evidence may be found in R, J. Bull "The
Excavation of Tell er Ras {Mt. Gerizim)," RASOR 190 (1968) 11-18 and "An Archeological
Footnote. .." NTS 23 (1976- 77) 460-462. Further information on the excavations at Tell er Ras may be found
in Eleanor K. Vogel, Bibliography of Holy Land Sites (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute
of Religion, 1974) 62-63.
[36]

M. F. Collins, "The Hidden Vessels in Samaritan Traditions," JSS 3 (1972) 97-116.

[37]

Collins, "The Hidden Vessels in Samaritan Traditions," 110-112, 115-116.

[38]

Tg. Yer. [Gen 28:11 commented that Jacob "prayed in the place of the house of the sanctuary," Pirqe
R. El. 35 (Friedlander, 266) linked Gen 28: 12 explicitly to Jerusalem: "Hence thou canst learn that everyone
who prays at Jerusalem is (reckoned) as though he had prayed before the Throne of Glory, for the gate of
heaven is there and it is open to hear the prayers of Israel, as it is said 'And this is the gate of heaven' (Gen 28:
17)."
[39]

A. Diez Macho, Neophyti 1, I. Genesis, 181.

[40]

The targums to Gen 28:12 tell of a different sort of expansion of the Jacob story. Jacob himself is revealed
to the angels in heaven as the one "whose likeness is engraved on the throne of Glory, and whom you (angels)
have so greatly desired to see" (Tgs. Yer. I and II, Neof. Gen 28:12). In these passages, however, Jacob seems
to be linked with strains of merkabah mysticism.
[41]

The targums to Gen 29:1-2 contain a confusion over whether Jacob actually revealed mysteries and
secrets. Tgs. Yer. I and Neof. Gen 49:1-2 both record that important mysteries were withheld from Jacob; for
example, Tg. Neof. records: "when the mystery was revealed to him, it was closed to him." Tg. Yer. I Gen
49:1-2, however, while attributing some revelations to Jacob, insists that others were "hidden from him";
see b. Pesah. 56a; Gen. Rab. 93.3; see Moses Aberbach and Bernard Grossfeld, Targum Ongelos on
Genesis 49 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976). The fact that later traditions seem to emphatically
circumscribe Jacob's knowledge suggests that they are reacting to other traditions which do so credit Jacob
with heavenly revelations.
[42]

The proper background of Jacobs death-bed revelations is the somewhat loose genre of testimonies and
farewell addresses; see E. Stauffer, Abschiedsreden, RAC I. 29-35; Johannes Munck, Discours dadieu
dans le Nouveau Testament et dans le literature biblique, Aux Sources de la Tradition Chretienne (Neuchatel:
Delachaux et Niestle, 1950) 150-170; Aelred Lacomara, Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse (John
13:31-16:33), CBQ 36 (1974) 65-84; and Anitra Kolenkow, The Genre Testament and Forecasts of the
Future in Hellensitic Jewish Milieu, JSJ 6 (1975) 57-71.
[43]

J. M. Allegro, "Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature," JBL 75 (1956) 174-175; for further
literature on this text, see J. Fitzmyer, "A Bibliographical Aid to the Study of the Qumran Cave IV Texts 158186," CBQ 31 (1969) 71.
[44]

J. M. Allegro, "Further Messianic References," 176.

902

[45]

See J. Starcky, "Les quatres etapes du messianisme a Qumran," RB 70 (1963) 481-505; J. Fitzmyer, "The
Aramaic 'Elect of God' Text from Qumran Cave 4," CBQ 27 (1965) 348-372, and R. E. Brown, "J. Starcky's
Theory of Qumran Messianic Development," CBQ 28 (1966) 51-57.
[46]

Gen. Rab. 65.23. Several of the targums to Gen 27:27 record another form of this association of Jacob with
worship, but omit the mention of the temple destroyed. With slight differences, Tgs. Neof. and Yer. I both
describe the smell of Jacob ''as the smell of incense of good perfumes which will be offered upon the altar of
the mountain of the sanctuary." These developments of Gen 27:27 seem to be earlier than the midrash cited
above because they are less complete in the allegorical interpretation of the total verse and because they omit
reference to the destroyed and rebuilt temple. They witness, however, to the trajectory of linking Jacob with
worship, even revelations of worship, Other midrashim which associated Jacob with visions of the temple
include: Pesiq. R. 30.3; 17.2; Midr. Pss. 78,6; Sipre Num 119. The same vision is not always credited
to Jacob; see Gen. Rab. 2.5; Pirqe R. 1. 51; it is even ascribed to Abraham in Gen. Rab. 56.10.
[47]

Num. Rab 13.14.

[48]

Besides Jub 32:22, further evidence of a polemic against Samaritan worship can be found in Ps Philo 25.
10, where it is noted that seven idols were found at Shechem, suggesting that that area was always considered
as a place of false worship (see 1 Kgs. 12:25-29). See Raymond Brown, "Johannine Ecclesiology-the
Community's Origins," Int 31 (1977) 389.
[49]

In praise of Mt. Gerizim, Memar Marqah 11.10 echoes Gen 28:17 in commenting that "Isaac saw it
(Mt. Gerizim), Jacob knew it, Joseph possessed it."
[50]

The thrust of the argument in John 4:21-23 is not simply the denial that God can be localized or contained
in space, but the supplanting of older traditions of cult and worship; on God as "place," see J. A.
Montgomery, "The 'Place' as an Appellation of Deity," JBL 24 (1905) 17-26.
[51]

It is worth noting that at this point in the gospel Jesus has already offered a replacement for Jewish
purificatory rites (2:6-11 and 3:25-30); in fact his water-made-wine is clearly said to be superior to what was
previously used (2: 10). TheTemple is likewise replaced (2:13-22) by Jesus' own body. Later in the gospel
Jesus' death as the passover Lamb will replace the old ritual; see A. Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish
Worship (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960) 58-68, 154-166; R. Brown, The Gospel According to John 2. 953-956; C.
H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1968) 233, 424; and W. Meeks, The ProphetKing, 76-78, 91ff.
[52]

B. Olsson, Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel, 215 and H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel, 153.

[53]

Gen. Rab. 79.8.

[54]

H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel, 152-156, 158-160; B. Olsson, Structure and Meaning in the Fourth
Gospel, 214. Tg. Isaiah records several changes of the MT which are relevant here: (1) at 12:3 "draw water
from the well" (MT) becomes "receive a new teaching from the chosen"; (2) and at 55:1,' 'let everyone who
thirsts come to the waters" was changed to "everyone who would learn let him come"
[55]

See D. Daube, "The Samaritan Woman," JBL 69(1950) 137-14

Carta de pedro

The Social Location of Paul: Education as the Key

903

Jerome H. Neyrey
University of Notre Dame

1.0 Focus, Model and Hypothesis

Vernon Robbins will surely be remembered for imagining and creating a complex series of
exegetical methods for the interpretation of biblical texts. My contribution in honoring him
entails borrowing from his article The Social Location of the Implied Author of LukeActs. [i] In that study Robbins defined what he means by social location:
A social location is a position in a social system which reflects a world view, or what
Peter Berger calls a socially constructed province of meaning: a perception of how things
work, what is real, where things belong, and how they fit together. [ii]
This article will expand his definition by focusing on the status of Paul in regard to an
anthropological system of social stratification. Whereas Robbins asked what the author of
Luke-Acts knew, which provides data for assessing where on the social pyramid this author
fits, our focus is Pauls undisputed letters. Literary abilities and special knowledge should
indicate that a certain person is an educated, urbane, high-status individual, whether Paul
himself or Luke. This study adapts Robbins model to the figure of Paul and to the issue of
his education, and thus his likely social location.
In order to come to grips with the social location of Paul, we borrow from Robbins the
categories of what an author knows [iii] and what this might tell us. Moreover, we will rely
on the works of Gerhard Lenski to provide a discriminating model of social stratification
within which to locate Paul. The link between the catalogue of what Paul as author can do
and his social location is the important consideration of status-specific education in
antiquity. Thus our project has three steps: 1. a model of the social stratification of
904

advanced agrarian societies; 2. a catalogue of what Paul knows and what he can write; and
3. the significance of Pauls literacy in light of status-specification education in the GrecoRoman world.
The works of Gerhard Lenski [iv] provide a useful tool for gaining a sense of the radical
stratification of the social world of antiquity. [v] The part of Lenski's work pertinent here is
his model of advanced agrarian societies, which describes at a macro level the Roman
empire of the time of Paul. Such societies are characterized by "marked social
inequality . . . pronounced differences in power, privilege and honor. [vi] Thus Lenski sets
out to describe eight levels of social status, beginning with the imperial and urban elite at
the top of the pyramid and concluding with artisans, untouchables and expendables at the
bottom. Paul obviously is an urban, [vii] not agrarian person; he is surely not a peasant
artisan.
Briefly, then, Lenski description of the social stratification of an advanced agrarian society
consists of eight levels.
(1) Ruler. At the top was the ruler, [viii] who might have been a Seleucid, a Ptolemy, or a
Caesar. Each enjoyed vast power and so vast wealth. Roman armies pillaged the East and
all that wealth and newly acquired lands made Caesar the ultimate elite figure in the
world. [ix]

Numerous client kings in the East held their positions through imperial

patronage.
(2) Governing Class. This small majority [x] of aristocrats [xi] served as the officers and
advisors of the ruler. [xii] They might be civic as well as military figures. Most held their
appointments directly from the ruler. [xiii] They tended to have vast grants of land, which
supported their elite lifestyle and facilitated their civic responsibilities. [xiv]

905

(3) Retainer Class. The governing class maintained in their service "a small army of
officials, professional soldiers, household servants and personal retainers." [xv] They
mediated relationships between the governing elites and the common people. [xvi] If the
governing class was small (1-2%), retainers constituted another 5% of the population.
(4) Merchants. Although this society was basically agrarian, and wealth came from land
and farming, yet there was a modest amount of trade and commerce. Merchants [xvii] could
be quite wealthy, especially those dealing with luxury goods, [xviii] but generally the majority
were poor. Wealthy entrepreneurs were not despised, since elites used them to increase their
own wealth, [xix] whereas smaller scale merchants were held in contempt.
(5) Priests. In the Greco-Roman world many famous temples and shrines were associated
with important cities. These "political" structures were maintained by a priestly
class, [xx] whose food, clothing, shelter, etc. were provided by taxes from the land or
benefactions from the elite. Their buildings were often richly endowed and frequently
served as repositories of wealth. Priests could perform the role of clerk and diplomat,
depending on their literacy and social standing.
(6) Peasants. The subsistence farmers who worked the land and produced the agricultural
surplus constituted the bulk of the population. [xxi]
(7) Artisans. Because they had no land and thus no status or means of making advantageous
marriages, the artisans of the city are ranked below peasants. [xxii] In most agrarian societies,
this stratum was recruited from the ranks of landless peasants, either dispossessed or noninheriting ones. Their ranks were continually replenished from migrants from the
countryside. While the urban population represented perhaps 10% of the total population of
the empire, the artisan class constituted most of that. [xxiii]

906

(8) Unclean, Degraded and Expendables. At the very bottom of the social scale were the
untouchables, who lived just outside the city. Below them were the expendables, such as
petty criminals, outlaws, beggars, itinerant workers, and those who lived by charity or their
wits. [xxiv]
Where, then, to locate Paul in terms of this model of social stratification? Much of the
answer to this depends on our making as detailed and accurate survey of what Paul knows
and what he can write. Then we will ask what stratum of the social pyramid of Lenski does
Paul belong to in virtue of his literacy. It is our hypothesis that Paul was a very literate
person, who knew rhetoric and even some philosophy; this level of literacy was available
only to urban persons of a retainer class and higher. Now let us catalogue what Paul knew
how to write and what he knows.
2.0 Letters. Spearheaded by Deissmans analysis of papyri, scholars of Pauline letters
reached a plateau in the 1970s with the SBLs seminar on Pauline epistolography, and their
work informs this analysis. Let us consider first the types of letters known to the ancients
and then the specific types represented by the Pauline corpus. Demetrius of Phalerum
classified the following types of letters:
1. friendly (o), 2. commendatory (o), 3. blaming (o), 4. reproachful
(vo), 5. consoling o), 6. censorious (o), 7. admonishing
(voo), 8. threatening (o), 9. vituperative (o), 10. praising
(vo), 11. advising (oo), 12. supplicatory (oo), 13. inquiring
(o), 14. responding ovo), 15. allegorical (ooo), 16.
accounting (ooo), 17. accusing oo), 18. apologetic ooo), 19.
congratulatory (o), 20. ironic (vo), 21. thankful (o).
One appropriate taxonomy for classifying these letters depends upon the three kinds of
rhetoric discussed in the handbooks, namely, forensic, deliberative, and epideictic. Thus
according to the formal aim of epideictic rhetoric, letters of praise include commendatory,
congratulatory, and thanksgiving letters; letters of blame embrace reproachful, censorious,
907

vituperative, admonishing, accusatory and ironic letters. In keeping with the aims of
forensic rhetoric, we include accusatory letters as well as apologetic ones. Deliberative
rhetoric encompasses [xxv] the aims of consoling, admonishing, and advising. The following
list attempts to identify letter types employed by Paul, either the whole letter or distinct part
of them. We have collapsed collapsed Pseudo-Demetrius categories according to he norm
of three types of rhetoric: forensic, deliberative, and epideictic.
Epideictic letter types; praise, commendation, congratulations, and thanksgiving
- Commendation (o): See mention of letters of recommendation in 2 Cor
3; 10:1-12:21

and Rom 1:8-15; 15:22-33; 16:1-2

- Praise (vo): The praise in 1 Cor 11:2 is balanced by blame in 11:17.

- Congratulations (o): One is tempted to put Pauls epistolary thanksgivings

here.

- Thanksgiving (o): In Phil 4:14-20 Paul thanks the church of Philippi as the
only one who supported him, also his frequent doxologies

Forensic letter types: blame, reproach, censor, vituperative, admonition, accusatory and
irony; also letters of accusation and apology.
- Blaming (o)
- Reproach (vo): Reproach of someone whom we had earlier benefitted, see Gal
4:12-20
-Censure (o): In 1 Cor 5 Paul censures the church for tolerating the sinful man.
-Threat (o): See threat in 1 Cor 4:18-21; see also 1 Cor 6:9-11 that those who
do evil will not inherit the kingdom of God and Gal 5:1-12 that those who are
circumcised are cut off from Christ.
-Vituperation (o): See the condemnation of bad character in 2 Cor 10-12 and the
rebuke of Peter in Gal 2:11-14
- Accusing (oo): If this means accusation of things beyond the bounds of
propriety, the sin in 1 Cor 5 belongs here.
- Ironic (vo): If irony encompasses sarcasm, then Galatians exemplifies this. [xxvi]

908

- Apologetic (ooo): Paul occasionally begins a section of a letter with oo, for
example, 1 Cor 9:3; Phil 1:7-26; sections of other letters seem to respond to criticism, 1
Thess 2:1-12, and so seem apologetic in tone

Deliberative letters: consolation, admonition and advice

- Admonishing (voo): This means instilling the person admonished with a sense
of what should and should not be done: e.g., lists of virtues and vices in Rom 12-13,
1Cor 6:9-11, Gal 5-6, as well as rehearsals of baptismal transition from darkness to
light, as in 1 Thess 5:1-11.
- Consolation (o): In 1 Thess 4:13-18Paul offers a scenario of the end time to
those who grieve.
-Advising
(oo):
The
parts
of
Pauls
letters
that
begin
with or generally function as advising and exhorting sections: Rom
12:1; 1 Cor 1-4; 2 Cor 10:1; Phil 4:2; 1 Thess 4-5.
- Supplicatory (oo): Requests, supplications, entreaties , petitions; e.g.,
Philemon [xxvii]

John White, who compared Demetrius letter types with those of the papyrus letter
tradition, made the following observation which is important for proper assessment of
Pauls sophistication in letter writing: About half of Pseudo Demetrius twenty-one sample
letter descriptions are more appropriate to the literary letter tradition than to the
documentary papyrus letter tradition. [xxviii] Thus it would seem that we can distinguish
those who write literary letters from those skilled in strictly scribal correspondence. Thus,
our cursory labeling of Pauls letters and parts of letters suggests that Paul was educated to
write literary letters of many types, which was not the education of a scribe.
3.0 Rhetorical Arrangement.
Aware that the many types of letters may be classified according to the taxonomy of the
three types of ancient rhetoric, we take a further step in examining them in terms of the
typical parts of a well crafted speech, as described in ancient rhetorical handbooks.
Although some scholars find it profitable to classify various letters of Paul or parts of a
letter in terms of rhetorical purpose: 1) forensic (apologetic, accusatory , 2) deliberative
909

(persuasion), and 3) epideictic (praising and blaming), by far the most bold attempts at
reading Paul in terms of rhetoric have come through scholarly effort in analyzing the
contents and structure of the letters in terms of arrangement. Virtually all authentic letters
have been analyzed in this light, but with differing degrees of success. First, let us be clear
about the meaning of arrangement, and then we can sample some of the better examples
of this type of analysis.
Aristotle maintained that a speech had two elements, thesis and proof (Rhet. 3.13.1). Yet
later he conceded that speeches might have four parts, prooemium (introduction), prothesis
(statement), pistis (proof) and epilogue (Rhet. 3.13.4). With the later addition of diegesis
(narrative), this list survived down into Latin oratory and into rhetorical handbooks. As a
careful survey of extant Greek and Latin speeches show, this theory of arrangement can
serve as a useful tool to compose or follow a speakers argument because there is a genetic
connection between an orators learning of this theory and his praxis.
3.1 Galatians as Rhetoric. Hans Dieter Betzs commentary on Galatians ranks as one of the
pioneer works of assessing letters in terms of rhetoric. [xxix] According to Betz, its
composition goes as follows:
I. Exordium (1:6-11)
II. Narratio (1:12-2:14)
III. Propositio (2:15-21)
IV. Probatio (3:1-4:31)
V. Exhortatio (5:1-6:10)
VI. Epistolary Postscript (Conclusio) (6:11-18) [xxx]
In addition, he classified Galatians as an example of the apologetic letter
genre. [xxxi] Inevitably parts of his analysis were given hard scrutiny, the letter genre hotly
910

debated, and alternative arrangements proposed. [xxxii] Even if scholars subsequently

challenge this or that part of Betzs arrangement, they only prove that the initial insight was
right.
3.2 1 Corinthians as Rhetoric. Similarly, Margaret Mitchells analysis of 1 Corinthians
argues that the letter is deliberative rhetoric, which is seen to have the following
arrangement.
1. Epistolary Prescript (1:1-3)
2. Epistolary Thanksgiving/Rhetorical ooov (1:4-9)
3. Epistolary Body (1:10-15:58)
Thesis Statement/o (1:10)
Statement of Facts / (1:11-17)
Proofs/ (1:18-15:57)
First Proof: Factionalism (1:18-4:21)
Second Proof: Integrity of the Community against Defilement (5:1-11:1)
Third Proof: Manifestations of Factionalism (11:2-14:40)
Fourth Proof: The Resurrection as the Final Goal (15:1-57)
4. Epistolary Closing (16:1-24). [xxxiii]
Mitchells rhetorical analysis takes full cognizance of epistolary structure and conventions,
and stands up well against other arrangements. Her proposal has the benefit of arguing that
Paul understands the situation in political terms, namely, topoi aimed at quelling political
factions.
3.3 Romans as Rhetoric. Pauls letter to the Romans has been subjected to vigorous debate
over its arrangement. Although most commentators label the rhetorical aim of Romans as
911

deliberative rhetoric,[xxxiv] they disagree on the rhetorical shape of the document. Robert
Jewetts analysis of Romans commands a modest consensus, for which reason we sketch it
here.
I. Exordium (Introduction, 1:1-12)
II. Narratio (Narration, 1:13-15)
III. Propositio (Thesis Statement, 1:16-17)
IV. Probatio (Proof, 1:18-15:13)
First Proof: Confirmatio (Confirmation, 1:19-4:25)
Second Proof: Exornatio (Elaboration, 5:1-8:39)
Third Proof: Comparatio (Comparison, 9:1-11:36)
Fourth Proof: Exhortatio (Exhortation, 12:1-15:13)
V. Peroratio (Conclusion, 15:14-16:27) [xxxv]
Like Betz work on Galatians, Jewetts analysis of Romans takes clear account of the
logical argument of the document and special investigation of the modes of argumentation
taught in the handbooks (Herenn. 2.18.28 and 4.43.56; Hermogenes, On the Chreia, 7.108.10). His sensitivity to rhetorical argumentation provides a depth of insight into the proofs
of Romans.
It is well at this point to identify the rhetorical analyses of other Pauline and New
Testament letters, if only to indicate the scholarly interest in reading Paul in this way. In
addition to Romans, Robert Jewett has presented a rhetorical analysis of both Thessalonian
letters. [xxxvi] In addition, we have very careful rhetorical analyses of Philippians by D. F.
Watson [xxxvii] and L. G. Bloomquist. [xxxviii] A recent study of the argument in 2 Corinthians
10-13 examines the use of ethos, pathos and logos. [xxxix] Indeed there has been a solid body
of scholarly material published on the use of rhetoric to interpret Pauls letters.
912

3.4 1 Cor 12-14 as Rhetoric. Not only have scholars read entire letters in terms of
rhetorical arrangement and genre, but discrete parts of letters are analyzed as well. For
example, in a series of articles, Joop Smit has given critical attention to 1 Cor 1214. [xl] Building on the consensus that 1 Cor 12-14 is a distinct unit in the letter, he offers the
following rhetorical reading:
Exordium (12:1-3)
Partitio (12:4-6)
Argumentatio (12:4-30)
Thesis One: Various Charisma from the Same Spirit (12:7-11)
Thesis Two: Various Services from the Same Lord (12:12-26)
Thesis Three: Various Workings of the Same God (12:27-30)
Digressio (12:31-13:13)
Comparison through antithesis between charismata and love
Speech of praise and blame
Partitio (14:1-5)
Argumentatio (14:1-33a)
Thesis One: Glossolalia does not build up the church community (14:6-19)
Thesis Two: Prophecy positively builds up the community (14:20-25)
Thesis Three: Prophecy takes precedence over glossolalia (13:26-33a)
Peroratio (14:37-40)
Smit labels the two blocks of argumentation (12:4-30; 14:1-33) as deliberative rhetoric,
whereas the encomium to love is epideictic rhetoric which praises love but blames
charismatic gifts. This brief outline omits the wealth of secondary detail which Smit
913

identifies according to rhetorical categories, which serve to make this a most accurate and
satisfying reading of these chapters.
3.5 1 Corinthians 15 as Rhetoric. Duane Watsons analysis of 1 Corinthians 15 builds on
those of previous scholars and seems to account for the argument more completely than his
predecessors. [xli]Watson states that 1 Cor 15 contains many features of deliberative rhetoric
and is best classified as such. [xlii] In terms of the arrangement of the argument in 1 Cor
15, he suggests the following:
I. Exordium (15:1-2)
II. Narratio (15:3-11)
III. Refutatio and Confirmatio (15:12-57)
A. First Unity of Refutatio and Confirmatio (15:12-34)
Refutatio (15:12-19)
Confirmatio (15:20-28)
Peroratio (15:29-34)
B. Second Unity of Refutatio and Confirmatio (15:35-57)
Refutatio (15:35-44a)
Confirmatio (15:44b-49)
Confirmatio (15:50-57)
IV. Peroratio (15:58).
The persuasiveness of Watsons analysis lies in his ability to use rhetorical categories for
describing the logical structure of 1 Cor 15 as a unit, and also his care in pointing out other
rhetorical features such as the use of examples in vv 21-22, 36-38 and 42-44a, the
argumentative topos of the lesser-greater in vv 35-49, and comparisons in vv 46-49. And

914

it so happens that Watsons reading corresponds closely with the logical outlines of the
materials by non-rhetoric scholars.
But what may we conclude from this study of rhetorical arrangement in Pauls letters?
Stanley Porter, in his comprehensive essay in the Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the
Hellenistic Period, [xliii]raised four cautions about the very materials we have surveyed
above. 1. Rhetorical interpretations yield dissimilar results as to the genre of rhetoric of a
document and its arrangement. 2. Scholars alternately use Roman and/or Greek rhetorical
theorists according to which yields opportunistic results. 3. Wide divergence exists
concerning the amount and kind of epistolary material put within a rhetorical category by
this or that scholar. 4. A stumbling block catches most interpreters because of the
supposed relationship of rhetorical and epistolary structures. [xliv] As one who wishes to use
this material, let me respond. Not all analyses are the same because some scholars
command more resources than others and have finer trained sight for rhetorical analysis.
Second, would that all of Pauls letters were as succinct and focused as Philemon, a
petitionary letter. But Pauls other letters address complex situations which warrant within
the same communication a recommendation, an argument for unity and not partisanship, an
encomium for a particular virtue, and an apology for the author, and so forth. Thus, various
parts of Pauls letters contain exhortation, praise and/or blame, apology, i.e., all three types
of rhetoric. This phenomenon, I think, cautions a rhetorical reader to expect diverse sorts of
arrangement. Third, does it really matter if an scholar focuses on Roman as opposed to
Greek rhetoric? Surely to historians, for they are often concerned with precise literary
influence of one author on another. But inasmuch as Greek rhetoric found its way into
Roman authors such as Rhetoric to Herennius, Cicero and Quintilian, it would seem that in
the first century of the common era, rhetoric was itself eclectic; rhetoric, however, tended to
be quite traditional and stereotypical. Finally, Demetrius letter classification system, even
though it postdates Pauls letters, proves that one rhetoric-minded exponent of letter types
915

thought that the marriage of rhetoric and letter was possible and worth while. Demetrius
may be the earliest extant author of this type of analysis, but that does not preclude that
there were similar figures earlier.
What then do we know now? While not all rhetorical analyses are of equal acuity or
accuracy, we find ample data in the examples surveyed in this section to warrant the
conclusion that the author of the letters we are examining knew sophisticated rhetorical
theory, both in terms of the three types of rhetoric (e.g., epideictic rhetoric of praise and
blame, 1 Cor 11:2, 17) and arrangement (e.g., the works of Mitchell, Smit and Watson on
1 Cor). [xlv]
4.0 The Progymnasmata.
In general, students who advanced beyond the mere ability to read then studied a
curriculum known to us as progymnastic education, in which they learned to write. The
progymnasmata are handbooks which contained a series of exercises for learning culturespecific genres thought essential to composing speeches deemed necessary for entry into
the civic arena. The genres learned were considered the building-blocks of composition and
speech, and embody in their rules and instructions the values of that world (especially
honor) and the underlying assumptions about character and emotion. Progymnastic
education, then, should be considered status-specific, for only those of high status would
have the resources, the social need, and leisure for this form of writing.
The following figure lists the various genres found in the four major progymnasmata which
have survived. [xlvi]

Theon

1. Chreia

Quintilian

1. Narrative

Hermogenes

1. Myth

916

Aphthonius

1. Fable

2. Fable

2.
Refuting
Confirming

3. Narrative

3. Commonplaces

3. Chreia

3. Chreia

4. Commonplace

4. Theses

4. Proverb/Gnome

4. Gnome

5. Description

5. Laws: praise
denunciation

6. Speech-in-character 6.
kind
(2.4.26)

7. Encomium

&2. Tale (Fable)

or5.
Refutation
Confirmation

of chreia6. Commonplace

7.
Praise
Denunciation

and7. Encomium

2. Narrative

and5. Refutation

6. Confirmation

7. Commonplace

9. Comparison

8. Comparison

8. Encomium

10. Thesis

9. Speech-in-character 9. Invective

11. Law

10. Description

10. Comparison

11. Thesis

11.
character

Speech-in-

12. Introducing a Law 12. Description

13. Thesis

14. Introduction of a
Law

917

Students of the synoptic gospels are quite familiar with the chreia, a genre according to
which most of the sayings and deeds of Jesus are crafted. [xlvii] Yet little attention has been
payed to Pauls use of the chreia, probably because it functions better in narrative than
exhortation, and it is narrated by another, and not the speaker talking about himself. Some
of the relevant examples of progymnastic genres in Paul include the following.
4.1 Comparison. Comparison has long been appreciated as a standard piece of Pauline
rhetoric. [xlviii] The most thorough and persuasive examination of this progymnastic exercise
was done by Christopher Forbes in his study of 2 Cor 10-12. [xlix] After reconstructing the
situation at Corinth in which opponents label Paul as inconsistent, insincere, a flatterer, and
an eiron, Forbes describes how Paul constructs a comparison of himself with his opponents,
but an ironic parody of self-praise. Forbes observes that the form of the comparison is very
much like that described in the progymnasmata, that is, Paul compares himself with his
rivals crisply point-for-point, and not lengthily quality-for-quality. [l] Forbes briefly
mentions the precise sequence of topics which constitute Pauls comparison, which deserve
fuller attention, for they are taught in the progymnastic rules for an encomium. [li]
But to make clear how Paul constantly employs the progymnastic genre of comparison, we
offer the following extensive, but by no means complete, list:
1 Corinthians
3:1-3, 5-15 (Apollos vs Paul);
4:8-13 (rich and wise elite vs poor and foolish Paul);
6:12-19 (body vs temple);
8:1-3 (knowledge vs love);
9:1ff (true apostles with rights vs Paul and his rights);
9:24-27 (athletes vs Paul);
918

10:1-4 (exodus and baptism);

13:1-3 (tongues, prophecy and powers vs love);
14:1ff (tongues vs prophecy);
15:20-28 (first Adam and second Adam;
15:35-49 (earthy vs heavenly glory; Adam of dust vs Adam of spirit).
2 Corinthians
3:5-6 (old vs new covenant)
3:7-11 (fading vs lasting glory)
3:12-18 (veiled vs unveiled face)
Galatians
3:6-12 (covenant of faith/promise vs covenant of works)
4:20-32 (Hagar and Sarah as symbols of two contrasting covenants)
4.2 Encomium. The encomium served as one of the chief vehicles for learning epideictic
rhetoric, i.e., the rhetoric of praise. It taught the student to draw praise from stereotypical
categories universally viewed as the primary sources of honor. [lii] A typical encomium
contains the following categories: 1. Origin (ethnos, polis, ancestors and parents),
and Birth (phenomena at birth: stars, visions, etc.); 2.Nurture and Training (education,
teachers, arts, skills, laws learned); 3. Accomplishments and Deeds (deeds of the body:
beauty, strength, agility, might, health: deeds of the soul: justice, wisdom , temperance,
courage; deeds of fortune: power, wealth, friends, children, fame, fortune, length of life,
happy death) and 4. Comparison. As anthropologist teach us, honor has two sources:
ascribed or achieved. Ascribed honor is that which is bestowed on someone by a higher
ranking person. Ones family, for example, has a certain rating in the village or city, and all
children born into that family as credited with family status. Thus noting that someones
parents were ancient and noble confers worth on the latest member. Noble cities produce
919

noble citizens; noble ethnoi (i.e., Greeks) stand higher than barbaroi. The brilliance of a
pupil is pegged directly to the honor level of the teacher (i.e., nurture and training). It
might be the case that God or some god favored a child at its conception, birth and beyond,
thus indicating honor to this person. On the other hand, the ancients achieved honor though
prowess, either military, athletic or aesthetic achievements., which explains the categories
of deeds of the body and deeds of the soul.

In comparisons individuals were compared and contrasted according to these very

categories of the encomium. Thus it is no surprise that in 2 Cor 11-12 Paul first compares
himself [liii] with his rivals in terms of origin, that is, Hebrew and Israelite and seed
of Abraham. [liv] Skipping nurture and training for the time being, Paul takes up deeds
of the body and deeds of the soul: evidently he must be strong to endure the
chastisement by enemies (11:23-26a), dangers from city, wilderness and sea (11:26b), and
hardships of toil, hunger and exposure (11:27). Contrary to custom, Paul boasts of
weakness, not strength (11:29-30). Now he takes up the matter of nurture and training by
indicating the source of knowledge, namely, the visions and revelations which he had
(12:1-5); his education, then, is conducted by God. Yet he tells us that a thorn was given
him to condition him for weakness, not strength (12:7-10). In terms of deeds of the soul,
11:23-31 display courage in the face of constant adversity. As Fitzgerald notes about this
material, facing crises and enduring hardships typically demonstrate courage. [lv] Pauls
comparison, then, highlights the categories in the encomium from which an author would
draw praise. This comparison depends on their being known precisely as the chief,
stereotypical sources of honor. Where did Paul learn this Greek convention? What kind of
education includes this?

920

Scholars have also examined Pauls comparison of himself with the Judaizers in Philippians
3. Capitalizing on the fleshly claims of the Judaizing preachers, Paul too claims
confidence in the flesh, by which he means the encomiastic categories origins/birth:
of the people Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews (3:5). Thus we
know his land of origin (Israel), his ethnos (Hebrews) and his family or clan
(Benjamin) -- honorable credentials indeed. Thus if any profit is derived by a thoroughly
Israelite pedigree, Paul enjoys it. He had superior ascribed honor. Then he describes his
nurture/ training: besides telling us that he was circumcised on the eighth day -- an
indication that he was raised in a law-abiding family -- he claims as to the Law a Pharisee.
. .as to righteousness under the Law blameless (3:6). In other words, as regards education
and mode of life, he was a perfect disciple of a group dedicated to the full keeping of Torah.
These data also tell us that Paul claims as one of the deeds of the soul justice or
righteousness (ov 3:6). Shortly he redefines it in 3:9-10 as not having a
righteousness of my own, based on the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the
righteousness from God that depends on faith. [lvi] Thus he was perfectly virtuous as a
Pharisee (i.e., righteousness under the law), but as a disciple of Jesus he enjoys similar
perfection, but now by a different means (righteousness of faith). The main thrust of the
comparison is to build up his honor claims by excelling his rivals according to conventional
categories as embodied in the progymnastic exercise known as the encomium.
The clearest place to view Pauls use of the encomium is in the so-called narratio in Gal
1:10-2:14. George Lyons offers a fresh way of reading this material as Pauls autobiography
in the light of the conventions of biography. [lvii]
I. Opening (prooimion) 1:10-12
II. Lifestyle (anastrophe) 1:13-17
A. 1:13-14

Pauls divine gospel

Pauls ethos

As persecutor of the Church

921

B. 1:15-17

As preacher of the gospel

III. Deeds (praxeis) 1:18-2:10 Pauls conduct

A. 1:18-20 In Jerusalem
B. 1:21-24 In Syria and Cilicia
C. 2:1-10

In Jerusalem

IV. Comparison (synkrisis) 2:11-21

Paul and Cephas

A. 2:11-14 Incidental: in Antioch

B. 2:15-21 General: Paul and Judean Messianists
V. Conclusion (epilogos) 2:21 Paul and divine favor
Lyons encomiastic analysis can be refined on several points. First, we observe that the
sequence of topics in Gal 1-2 does not strictly follow the list enumerated in the encomium.
Typically one would begin with mention of origins/birth, which Paul takes up only in
1:15 when he tells us that he who set me apart before I was born. . . His origin was noble
because from birth God had ascribed to him the honor of a prophet. Nurture/training
looms large here because Paul needs to assert that he both knew and practiced what is urged
on the Galatians and found it wanting. In Pauls former life (vo) he was trained
in the Judean political religion and advanced in it beyond many of my own age among my
people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers (1:13-14). But new
knowledge was given Paul, which replaced his former nurture and training: When he
[God] was pleased to reveal his son to me. . . (1:15). Paul claims that he did not receive
any training from the existing groups of disciples: I did not confer with flesh and blood,
nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me (1:17, see 1:1, 11). But
with God as his teacher, Paul is a noble prophet and teacher. His immediate departure for
Arabia and Damascus distances Paul from Jerusalem and its eye-witness sources of the
gospel. Thus the first part of Galatians serves to highlight Pauls nurture/training: as he
922

said earlier the gospel which was preached by me was not mans, nor did I receive it from
man, nor was I taught it. It came through a revelation of Jesus Christ (1:11-12).
What then of Pauls accomplishments/deeds? Rhetorical handbooks advise authors to
highlight a persons virtues illustrated by his deeds. In Pauls case, we have his narrative of
his apostolic labors, all of which illustrate some aspect of the virtue of righteousness or
justice. As all know, justice (ov) consists of fulfilling ones duties to God or the
gods, ones polis and family. [lviii] Faithful to the commissioning he received from God, Paul
displayed great loyalty by laboring for Gods gospel first in Arabia and Damascus, then in
Syria and Cilicia -- labors which lasted at least seventeen years. Loyalty to God is
demonstrated by Pauls laying his gospel before the elders in Jerusalem (2:2) so as not to
have run in vain, that is, misrepresent God. Finally, Paul is acknowledged by the Jerusalem
elite as one to whom God has ascribed special honor. Thus Gods benefaction to Paul
creates a duty whereby Paul owes God faithfulness and loyal labors.
Paul appeals to another virtue, courage, in describing two incidents. [lix] He boldly went to
Jerusalem with the uncircumcised Titus, the living symbol of his gospel, who has not
compelled to be circumcised (2:3). By his account he had many enemies there, false
brethren who slipped in to spy on us (2:4). But to those who would have urged
circumcision and other practices, we did not yield submission even for a moment (2:5).
Pauls description of the chilly reception he received extends to his meeting with the three
pillars of the church. Evidently his boldness and steadfastness won their admiration and
also their acknowledgment of his role and status. Finally, courage was displayed when Paul
confronted Peter at Antioch over Peters withdrawing from the shared table (2:11-14).
This last piece of Pauls narrative should be read as a comparison (), which is
often listed as a final element of the encomium. As Paul describes the scene, Peter (Apostle
to the Circumcised) and Paul (Apostle to the Uncircumcised) were eating at the common
923

table of the disciples in Antioch. Upon the arrival of brethren from Jerusalem, Peter left the
common table and ate with disciples who kept dietary and other such rules; he is, after all,
the apostle to the circumcised. Paul then engages in praise and blame, which is often
described in the rules for a comparison. Peter is blamed as Paul opposed him to his face
(2:11) and charged him with insincerity and not being straightforward about the gospel.
Peter, moreover, was guilty of scandal, as his behavior affected the rest of the Jews and
Barnabas. In contrast, Paul spoke such that he deserves high praise for his sincerity, truth
and courage, the very things Peter lacked. [lx]
4.3 Speech-in-Character. Recently Stanley Stowers has argued that Paul also employs
speech-in-character (ooo) [lxi] . He favors Quintilian, the Roman rhetorician, in
his exposition of the background of this rhetorical genre, an example of which goes as
follows:
A bolder form of figure. . .is fictiones personarum, or ooo. . .By this means we
display the inner thoughts of our adversaries as though they were talking with
themselves. . .Or we may introduce conversations between ourselves and others, or of
others among themselves, and put words of advice, reproach, complaint, praise or pity into
the mouths of appropriate persons (Inst. Orat. 9.2.30-33).
Stowers appropriation of the rhetoric leads him to identify different forms of speech-incharacter in Romans: (a) first-person speech in Rom 7; (b) apostrophe in 2:1-16 and 2:1729; and (c) dialogue in 3:1-9 and 3:27-4:2. [lxii] Turning to Romans 7:7-25, Stowers observes
in v. 7 an abrupt change of voice, following a rhetorical question that serves as a transition
from Pauls authorial voice. [lxiii] This change of voice, found in the handbooks, advised
ancient readers to look for v, a difference in characterization from the former
speaker. The new speaker in 7:7-25 speaks with great personal pathos of coming under the
law at some point, learning about his desire and sin, and being unable to do what he wants
to do because of enslavement to sin and flesh. [lxiv] The passage presents a coherent and
distinctive ethos in a particular situation in life. The speaker speaks not only of his happy
924

past (7:7-9), but of his present misery and future plight (7:24). Stowers successfully
persuades the modern reader of Paul that the apostle was indeed educated in progymnastic
learning to write the way he does.
What then do we know at this point? We quickly surveyed Pauls use of three genres taught
through the use of progymnastic handbooks: (1) comparison (1 & 2 Cor, Gal, Phil); (2)
encomium (2 Cor 11-12; Phil 3; Gal 1-2); and (3) speech-in-character (Rom). Inasmuch as
education was status-specific, neither slaves nor scribes would be taught these
progymnastic exercises, but a citizen or high-status person would. Scribes learned
functional literacy, but hardly the ability to engage, as Paul does, in praise and blame, the
aim of epideictic rhetoric. To return to the distinction of John White, slaves and scribes
might write documentary letters, but not the literary letters of Paul. Those of high social
status would be educated in progymnastic exercises with refined rhetorical sensibilities.
5.0 The Diatribe.
All contemporary study of the diatribe in Paul begins with the dissertation of Stanley
Stowers. [lxv] After his comparative survey of the classical authors who employ the diatribe,
he offers the following summary:
The diatribe is not the technical instruction in logic, physics, etc., but discourses and
discussions in the school where the teacher employed the Socratic method of censure and
protreptic. The goal of this part of the instruction was not simply to impart knowledge, but
to transform the students, to point out error and to cure it. [lxvi]
The diatribe, Stowers states, has two major forms: 1. address to an interlocutor and 2.
objections from an interlocutor. In regard to the first form, he itemizes five characteristic
features found in the apostrophes in Rom 2:1-5; 2:17-24; 9:19-21 and 11:17-24. 1.
Typically there is a sudden turning to a fictitious interlocutor, 2. which frequently follows a
preceding objection. 3. The first part of this turning aside begins with either a rhetorical

925

question (either one or a series of questions), an indicting statement or an imperative. 4.

Two types of questions are asked of the interlocutor: either expressions indicative of a lack
of perception or ones which highlight wrong opinions or erroneous logic. 5. All of this is
followed by lists of vices. [lxvii]
Similarly, the second form of a diatribe contains objections or false conclusions raised by
an interlocutor, typically consisting of five elements. 1. It is introduced with an
exclamation, such as you will say to me. . . 2. Both objections and false conclusions are
cast in the form of questions. 3. The speaker reacts to these with a resounding No! Not at
all!, or a counter question. 4. The answer might contain an example or chreia to illustrate
the argument. 5. Finally, the speaker might employ analogies or comparisons, quotations or
sayings of some sage. [lxviii] Pauls conventional use of both types of diatribal style noted
above is beyond dispute. But what does this imply about his social location?
Stowers concludes his presentation by stating that the diatribe is a type of discourse
employed in philosophical schools. [lxix] It was, moreover, a conscious and intentional choice
by Paul, which argues that he styled himself as teacher to his Roman pupils. [lxx] Stowerss
work necessarily involves comparison of Paul with others who composed diatribes, all of
whom can be classified as philosophers: Epictetus, Musonius Rufus, Dio of Prusa, Plutarch,
Maximus of Tyre and Seneca. Thus, Pauls adept use of diatribal style indicates an
education beyond that of progymnastic rhetoric, even some training in popular philosophy,
that is, non-technical philosophy. [lxxi] The social status of those who learned philosophy is
that of wealthy elites or the retainer class. But let continue and examine what evidence
there is that Paul studied philosophy and not just a formal argumentative style such as the
diatribe.
6.0 Evidence of Possible Philosophical Training

926

In Acts 17:18-34 Luke narrates that Paul spoke to Epicureans and Stoics while at Athens.
This, of course, comes from Luke, not Paul. But Acts raises an important question: whether
and to what extent Pauls writings provide evidence of philosophical training, that is,
formal schooling. We propose to examine literary material which may derive from such a
formal education: 1. lists of virtues and vices, 2. hardship catalogues, 3. Stoic terminology
and argument, 4. conventional polemical materials against Epicureans, 5. the diatribe and
6. topoi from popular philosophy.
6.1 Lists of Virtues and Vices . Over the past century scholars have studied lists of virtue
and vices, analyzed their contents, form, sources, as well as situation-in-life. [lxxii] These lists
occur in literary and non-literary sources and are found frequently, but not exclusively, in
philosophical discussions. Classical Greek morality spoke of four cardinal virtues
(prudence, justice, courage, temperance) and four vices (grief, fear, desire, pleasure). They
were frequently employed in protreptic, contrasting the sick soul laden with vices with the
healthy soul adorned with virtues. Lists for consideration appear in many Pauline letters,
such as Rom 1:29-31; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:19-21 & 22-23; Phil 4:8. [lxxiii]
6.2 Catalogues of Hardships. Paul repeatedly lists his personal hardships, a literary device
known as a peristasis catalogue (see

1 Cor 4:9-13; 2 Cor 4:8-9; 6:4-5; 11:23-

28). [lxxiv] Fitzgeralds definitive study of this materials is conveniently summarized here.
Such lists, he argues, are catalogues of circumstances, which might be good or bad. Such
lists were frequently used by Greco-Roman philosophers to claim virtue and win approval
for their way of life. Focusing on the figure of the sage in this cultural world, Fitzgerald
shows that catalogues of hardships played an important role in the propaganda and
pedagogy of the philosopher, because they serve both a revelatory and a probative function.
They show him triumphant over adversity and death, the litmus test of character.
Fitzgeralds summary remark clarifies such claims:

927

As for the true philosopher, Epictetus says that the true Stoic is the man who though sick
is happy, though in danger is happy, though dying is happy, though condemned to exile is
happy, though in disrepute is happy (Diss. 2.19.24). [lxxv]
He then uncovers the larger argument in which catalogues of hardship function. Often there
is a claim that the sages sufferings are the divine will (2 Cor 4:11; 12:10), which the sage
by his has learned to accept and overcome. In the midst of these, however, the sage
triumphs (1 Cor 4:12-13; Phil 4:11-12) and manifests Gods power (Phil 4:13; Rom 8:37).
In summary, we have here a clear philosophical tradition which includes both catalogues of
hardships and a distinctive pedagogical function which serve to reveal the sages virtue
primarily by his endurance of adversity of all sorts. Human happiness is possible in the face
of lifes trials, and the thinking and training which philosophy teaches are the way to this.
Thus we find a body of Greco-Roman literature on a specific philosophical topic and with
specific arguments used in it. Paul indubitably knows this tradition, but the question is
how?
6.3 Stoic and Epicurean Philosophy. Acts 17 portrays Paul speaking to both Stoics and
Epicureans. Is there evidence in the Pauline letters that Paul (a) knew these philosophies
and (b) sided with one and used its argument and terminology? Let us take the case of Paul
and the Stoics, following three important arguments on this topic, namely Pohlenzs article
and two recent studies of Stoic influence in 1 Cor 8-9 and Philippians. The central point
argued by Max Pohlenz consisted in a careful comparison of Pauls terminology and
argument in Rom 1:18-32 with Stoicism, namely, natural theology, [lxxvi] ethics, and the
charge that no one is without blame. [lxxvii]
Abraham Malherbe argues that the argument in 1 Cor 8-9 can be made intelligible by
examining it in the light of popular philosophical deliberations on the theme of the sages
independence. He states that Paul quotes Stoic slogans which some of the Corinthians had
introduced into the discussions and offers his own deliberate adaptation of Stoic
928

categories. [lxxviii] Malherbe then lays out the Stoic doctrine, highlighting Stoic teaching on
(a) weak people, i.e., those who find it difficult to live up to the demands of virtue, (b)
the paradox that only the wise man is free and bad men are slaves, and (c) the training
() needed to distinguish things that are ones own or not. [lxxix] Paul then speaks in a
way which clearly uses philosophical terminology and argument. For example, his remarks
in 1 Cor 8:7-8 pick up the philosophers labeling of weak people as having limited
cognitive faculties and their judgment that eating and drinking are external things,
i.e., o.. [lxxx] Just as the Stoics freedom results from his training, so Pauls freedom
comes from Christ. He makes use of Greek philosophic terminology to describe the
compulsion whereby he preaches the gospel. Like the Stoics, he labors to distinguish what
is in human power and what is not. [lxxxi] Thus Malherbe has made an important argument
that Paul knows both the technical terms of Stoic philosophers and how they function in a
complex, but typical argument. Paul both hears this in the slogans of some Corinthians and
responds to them in a Stoic manner.
In Troels Engberg-Pedersens Stoicism in Philippians, he proposes to assess Stoicism and
Paul first by identifying several clusters of ideas and terms important in Stoicism and then
by investigating whether these cohere as an overall system or argument. [lxxxii] His exposition
consists of three parts. First, he catalogues terms from Philippians, which he argues are
Greek terms, developed as terms with a sharply defined meaning in Greek
philosophy. [lxxxiii] Our digest of his article yields the following sampler of significant terms:
In 1:3-11: good works, insight, all manner of perception, and weighing things that
matter; in 1:27-30: live as citizens in accord with the gospel; in 3:1-21: knowledge,
grasping, being perfect, striving for a goal; in 4:10-20: combination of Pauls idea
of chara and his self-sufficiency. [lxxxiv]
The author then describes the ideal Stoic community and compares it with Pauls view. The
republic Zeno envisioned has been called anarcho-syndicalist, in that it will be an
egalitarian entity with all hierarchy removed and characterized by homonoia (oneness of
929

mind), philia (friendship), and eleutheria (freedom). Second, Stoic ethics start with
the telos of activity, namely, that for which one strives (see Phil 3:12-14). [lxxxv] Here virtue
alone is good and all else is indifferent (1:10), and blessed is the person who knows the
difference. The end of action, moreover, is self-sufficiency (4:10-13). Yet virtue is a state of
mind, a form of knowledge or understanding (see 3:8, 10); thus humans should transcend
their tendency to apply their own subjective or local perspective for evaluating the world, a
complex idea which makes much sense of the way Paul exhorts others to have the mind of
Christ (2:1-5), just as he has (3:7-11). Thus Paul calls for a radical other-directedness (3:314) and guidance by acting in view of a new commonwealth (3:20). Finally, just as Stoics
aimed to reconcile life in the cosmic city with life here and now, we should read in the
same way the advice of Paul that, although we do not reach the ideal now, we make
progress toward it and strive after it (3:12-16).
At this point, Engberg-Pedersen provides a grid for Philippians which highlights the extent
of the Stoic-based, technical terms and how together they make coherent coherent argument
in the letter. [lxxxvi] In light of this very careful reading he offers the following conclusions.
First, he states that Pauls story in Philippians
. . .reflects very precisely the basic ideas that went into Stoic moral and political
philosophy: directedness towards an end, the conceptualization of the end as an ideal
community, the strategy of using the notion of the end to inform peoples understanding
and behavior here and now (it creates a certain mind set with a distinct content). [lxxxvii]
Thus Engberg-Pedersen comes to the measured judgment that: All of this is both centrally
Stoic and

also sufficiently specific to

make

it highly unlikely that it

is

anything but Stoic. [lxxxviii]

Thus scholars have persuasively argued that in Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 8-9; and Philippians
Paul uses the language and argument of Stoicism. This affinity with Stoicism is quite
different from his engagement with Epicureans. Malherbe observes that Paul generally
930

appears in polemic against popular perceptions of Epicureans. For example, Paul appears in
1 Cor 15:32 to be using a stereotype of Epicureanism which gives licence to bodily
passions. [lxxxix] In another place Malherbe notes similarities between community life among
Epicureans and his own churches. [xc]

Malherbe does not claim that Paul studied

Epicureanism, only that knows about it: he not only knew the Epicurean attitude but
consciously sought to distinguish Christians from Epicureans as well as Cynics. [xci]
6.4 Cynic Philosophy. Malherbes article on 1 Thessalonians 2, Gentle as a Nurse, is the
strongest case for Pauls knowledge of and even use of Cynic materials. His study builds on
Dio Chrysostoms description of true and false Cynic preachers in Oration 32. This oration
and a wealth of material about Cynics from other writers allow Malherbe to point out
cogent verbal and formal parallels between Paul and Dio. [xcii] These consist of: 1) whereas
false Cynics fear the crowds hybris because their speech is empty, true ones face the crowd
with a courage given by God; so, Paul, who suffered violence, did not have an empty
sojourn, but spoke boldly in God (1 Thess 2:1-2). 2) Whereas Dio attacked charlatans who
deceive hearers and lead them into error, Paul claims that he did not preach out of error
(2:3). 3) Dio says that the ideal philosopher speaks with purity of mind and without guile;
Paul declares that he was not motivated by uncleanness, nor did he speak with guild (2:4).
4) Dio asserts that true philosophers do not preach for the sake of glory, nor for personal
gain, nor as flattery; similarly Paul claims that he did not use a cloak of greed, nor seek
glory from men, nor flatter them (2:5-6). 5) Dio claims to be divinely directed to speak, as
does Paul (2:4). 6) Finally, Dio says that the philosopher must seek to benefit his hearers,
which may mean at times to speak kindly as would a father or a nurse; so too, Paul states
that he would lay down his life for his converts; he would be a father them and attend them
individually; and he was among them gentle as a nurse (2:6-10). [xciii]

931

6.5 Philosophical Topoi. Finally, we should consider the topoi which Paul uses in various
parts of his letters. [xciv] Since time and space do not allow for an exhaustive list, but let us
take 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians as samples of this phenomenon. In the case of 1
Thessalonians, Abraham Malherbe again provides us with a detailed inventory of
the topoi used and/or adapted in 1 Thessalonians. After calling attention to features of
exhortatory style, [xcv] Malherbe identifies and comments upon the following topoi: 1.
imitation of the speaker, 2. how a speakers oo must conform to his o, lest he be a
hypocrite, 3. boldness of speech, 4. which is also tempered with care such as is given by a
nurse or a father, [xcvi] 5. living quietly, 6. self-sufficiency, 7. the claim to be oo,
and 8. the philosophical consolation. My catalogue, of course, should strike us as crude and
clumsy because it cannot conveniently provide the rich philological and historical which
Malherbe does through his extensive parallels of Paul with Greco-Roman authors known as
students and teachers of philosophy. The eight topoi represent both technical terminology of
philosophy and its typical argument.
In her recent book, Margaret Mitchell demonstrates that Paul weaves into his argument in 1
Corinthians topoi or commonplaces for factionalism and concord. [xcvii] After identifying
the Language of Factionalism and Reconciliation in 1 Cor 1-4, [xcviii] she then shows how
these topoi operate in the body of the letter in 1 Cor 5-16. [xcix] Mitchell identifies for us the
following topoi: 1) factionalism as a human failing, [c] 2) factions as dividing up a whole,
3) ethnic differences as divisions, 4) boasting, [ci] 5) walking in a human way, [cii] 6)
emulation vs envy, [ciii] 7) the beehive as an example of working together, [civ] 8) a building or
house as a unified whole, [cv] 9) steadfastness, 10) concern over radical changes of
status, [cvi] 11) appeal to common interests, 12) urging concord, 13) common good vs
personal good, [cvii] 13) pleasing everyone, 14) body metaphor for social unity, [cviii] 15) cosuffering and co-rejoicing, and 16) discord. Thus she concludes that they are part of a

932

common conceptual and linguistic body of topoi used to promote social and political unity
in Greco-Roman antiquity. [cix]
7.0 Paul: An Educated, Elite Writer.
This impressive catalogue of Pauls literary abilities prompts us to ask a social question: in
Greco-Roman antiquity, who learned to write what, what purpose, and on the basis of what
education? By these questions we mean: 1) What type of literacy is represented by a person
who can write the following: letters of many different types; arrangement of argumentation
which conforms to rhetorical conventions; exercises from the progymnasmata, such as
comparison, encomium and speech-in-character); diatribal style, as well as use of
philosophical topoi? 2) What type of education would be needed to write as Paul did? 3)
Who would receive this education? 4) In what social stratum would we expect to find such
a person? The key to these questions is knowledge of education in antiquity.
7.1 Education Suited to Social Strata. Indubitably Paul was educated to read and especially
write at a high level of sophistication. What was his education likely to be according to the
typical way literate persons were educated in Greco-Roman antiquity, even Judeans
learning Greek? The standard model found in many articles [cx] and books [cxi] on the topic
describes a sequence of three stages: primary, secondary and advanced, each with a
distinctively labeled teacher and curriculum. Kaster describes for us the current scholarly
model of education in antiquity:
. . .a student pursuing a full course of literary instruction typically passed through three
stages of schooling . . . each stage with its own teacher and discrete curriculum: the
primary school (oov) overseen by the primary teacher, where one
learned letters the elements of reading and writing and some arithmetic; the
secondary or grammarschool, where one received thorough and systematic instruction
in language and literature, especially poetry, under the grammarian (o); and the
school of rhetori. [cxii]

933

We highlight certain elements of the process. In the primary stage students learned their
ABCs, that is, the fundamentals of reading, as well as some writing. Students in the second
stage learned to copy Greek works read to them by the teacher (evidently requiring writing
skills), to read them aloud, and to memorize Greek classics such as Homer and Euripides. It
was during this period that students began learning to write by practicing the exercises
described in the progymnasmata. Finally, students in the third stage or ephebeia might
study rhetoric, philosophy, medicine or some other honored field. As one writer put it, this
third period was an exclusive municipal male finishing school. [cxiii]
Serious reservations have been voiced about this sketch, because the evidence for the crisp
distinctions between the three periods seems overstated. Teachers at the second stage often
taught materials thought to be exclusive to the earlier one; and the curriculum of the various
three periods appears to be more fluid than this sketch suggests. Recent scholars offer
important qualifications of this model which takes account of the social location of students
in the educational process. For example, Kaster argues that we consider education as:
. . .a socially segmented system laid out along two essentially separate tracks. The most
important formal distinction here is the division between the two tracks or segments:
the ludus literrarius, providing common literacy for students of relatively humble origins on
the one hand; and the scholae liberales, catering to a more privileged part of the population
on the other. [cxiv]
Situational literacy best describes this view of the educational system: 1. Location: large,
wealthy cities are more able to provide quality education than smaller ones; poor education,
or no schooling, would be available in towns and villages. 2. The students social
class determines which tract he takes (common literacy for the lower strata and liberal
studies for the higher ones). [cxv] 3. Correspondingly, thecontent of education is group
specific: basic letters and shorthand [cxvi] for artisans and slaves, but knowledge of classical
literature and compositional skills for elite or high status youth. [cxvii] 4. Financial resources
and leisure: these are necessary and available for an elites education, but unavailable to
934

children of the artisan and the slave strata. 5. Finally, what was the purpose of a specific
track of education? Utilitarian education was afforded freedmen and slaves for current
employment or in view of future sale in the case of a slave. [cxviii] Thus situational literacy
distinguishes the kind of education suitable for the lower social strata from that which
equips the children of the retainer and aristocratic strata for public, civic life. [cxix]
7.2 Pauls (Social) Education and His Social Location. The previous inventory of Pauls
compositional abilities argues that Pauls education was not craft literacy available to
slaves, freedmen and artisans. It goes beyond mere stenographic ability, competency to
copy and keep books, and compose documentary letters. Pauls compositional skills
indicate that he was trained in liberal studies, both rhetorical and progymnastic studies
typical of the second stage, but also philosophy characteristic of the third stage of the
educational process which was exclusively the prerogative of the wealthy and elites.
[cxx]

This education was expensive and accessible only to urban elites, who might be Roman

citizens. Thus when we seek to locate Paul in terms of the Lenskis pyramid of social
strata, it seems that the minimum level at which we might locate Paul is in the retainer
class. Paul exceeds the functional literacy of typical scribes by virtue of his knowledge of
literary epistolary traditions, progymnastic exercises, philosophy and especially the
ability to write diatribal discourses, which are subjects usually open only to elites. The
presence of Stoic terminology and argumentation in Paul, as well as his ability to compose
diatribal arguments encourage us to see Paul as an elite who was educated for a life of
leisure and who learned the art and craft of rhetoric and philosophy.
8.0 Summary, Conclusions, and Further Questions
8.1 Summary and Conclusions. What does Paul know how to write? What level of literacy
does this represent? What sort of education would provide these literacy skills? And what
would be the social location of such a person? We have seen again and again that Paul is
935

more than literate than scribes. The education needed to achieve this type of literacy
consisted of materials taught in both the second and third stages of schooling: composition
(letters, progymnasmatic exercises, rhetoric) and some philosophy. Inasmuch as education
was status specific in Pauls time, education such as was needed to write what Paul writes
and to know what Paul knows is that of a high-status person, at least a member of the
retainer class, if not higher.
8.2 Did Luke Get It Right? Luke reports the following things about Paul relative to his
social location: 1. a claim that Paul was a Roman citizen (16:37-38; 22:25-29); 2. Pauls
conversation with Stoics and Epicureans in Athens (17:16-31); 3. the cities and especially
the parts of those cities which Paul frequented; and 4. the elite patronage Paul
enjoyed. [cxxi] In regard to citizenship, Lukes claim, whether accurate or not, argues for
Pauls elite social location: the few Roman citizens, whether Greek or Jews by birth,
would constitute a social elite. [cxxii] If Paul was born a citizen, presumably his father or
grandfather had the required wealth and social prominence both to purchase citizenship and
to act as benefactor and patron to Tarsus. [cxxiii] Furthermore, Pauls alleged citizenship is
fully consistent with the catalogue of his status-specific education. Second, Pauls
conversation with Stoics and Epicureans in Acts 17 implies that he had some philosophical
training, which was the exclusive preserve of Greco-Roman elites, which squares well with
what we saw above that Paul knows and employs Stoic terms and logic, while at the same
time he seems to be the opponent of Epicureanism. Third, Luke makes implicit honor
claims for Paul by narrating that he visited and/or resided in the noble Hellenistic cities of
Greece and the Greek east. [cxxiv] Strabo said of Tarsus, a mother-city (metropolis):
The people of Tarsus have devoted themselves so eagerly, not only to philosophy, but also
to the whole round of education in general, that they have surpassed Athens, Alexandria,
and any other place that can be named where there have been schools and lectures of
philosophers (Geog. 14.5.13).

936

Josephus called Antioch a city which, for extent and opulence, unquestionably ranks third
among the cities of the Roman world (Wars 3.29); and Strabo described Ephesus as the
commercial center of Asia Minor. Julius Caesar re-founded Corinth, and under imperial
patronage it rapidly grew in wealth and sophistication (Strabo, Geog. 8.6.21). [cxxv] Such
cities necessarily imply elite social groups; moreover, Lukes narrative frequently describes
Paul in the civic, elite sections of these cities. He thus portrays Paul as
. . .a typical male of considerable social status: he regularly appears in public space; he
frequently performs traditional elite male tasks such as arguing, debating and speaking
boldly in public. Luke would have us think of him as a person at home in places reserved
for elites. [cxxvi]
Finally, Luke portrays Paul at home in the presence of the governing class of Israelite and
Greco-Roman governing classes. The following chart lists the people in whose presence
Paul spoke -- all elites:
1. the governing elite in Jerusalem who authorized Paul (9:1-2; 22:5 ; 26:12}
2. Roman authorities (a) proconsuls: Sergius Paulus (13:7-12) and Gallio (18:12-15; (B)
governors: Felix (23:23-24:27) and Festus (25:1-26:32); (c) kings: Agrippa (25:13-26:32)
3. leading citizens of various Greek cities: (a) the leading man of the island Publius
(28:7); (b) not a few of the leading women (17:4. )
Luke states, then, that Paul is of sufficiently high social status that he could converse with
those of the elite, aristocratic strata. This is the behavior expected of citizens or elites, with
a corresponding education. Of course Lukes portrait in Acts cannot itself determine Pauls
social location; but it supports the argument we have been advancing based on Pauls own
letters.
8.3 Further Conversation. Those familiar with Pauline scholarship will raise cautions and
urge qualifications to what has been argued; and these must be considered in any fair
assessment of Pauls social location. For example, how do Pauls references to working
937

with his hands impact our appreciation of his literacy and social status? [cxxvii] Second, we
must reckon also with Pauls own disclaimers to wisdom, eloquence and learning in 1 Cor
1-3; such disclaimers, however, suggest that high degrees of literacy were indeed valued by
some in the church. Third, our description of education as status-specific needs to be in
conversation with current discussions of literacy in antiquity. Indisputably all
conversation seems to react to William Harris Ancient Literary, [cxxviii] but an excellent
introduction of the topic and its issues can be found in Lucretia Yaghjians survey
article. [cxxix] Fourth, Paul never speaks of Roman citizenship; when honorable pedigree is
useful, he cites his Judean credentials, which of course is quite appropriate in the argument.
Finally, In Pauls letters we find occasional mention of a secretary. For example, in the
ending of Romans we read I, Tertius, the writer of this letter greets you (16:22), although
it is unclear whether Tertius is the actual author, drafter or amanuensis. [cxxx] At other times
(Gal 6:11; Philemon 19 and 2 Thess 3:17), Paul autographs letters which he has presumably
dictated to a secretary, although secretaries were known to embellish or even to compose
letters. [cxxxi] Fourth, if Paul was educated as a person of high social status, how do we
account for the low status he eventually assume, often imprisoned, publicly flogged and
beaten, etc. (e.g., 1 Cor 4:8-13; 2 Cor 11:22-29)? What sort of status degradation ritual
would account for his loss of high social location?
NOTES

[i] . This article, which appeared with others utilizing social-scientific methods of reading,
is found in Jerome H. Neyrey, ed., The Social World of Luke-Acts. Models for
Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 305-32. On this point, Robbins is
dependent upon Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Methodological Considerations in the Debate over
the Social Class of Early Christians, JAAR 52 (1984( 519-46) and Social Location of
Thought as a Heuristic Construct in New Testament Study, JSNT 30 (1987) 103-119.
[ii] . Robbins, The Social Location of the Implied Author, 306.
938

[iii] . Robbins list of categories includes Lukes knowledge of: 1. previous events, 2.
natural environment and resources, 3. population structure, 4. technology, 5. socialization
and personality, 6. culture, 7 foreign affairs, 8. belief systems and ideologies, and politicalmilitary-legal system (The Social Location of the Implied Author, 310 and 312-30).
[iv] . Gerhard Lenski and Jean Lenski, Human Societies: An Introduction to
Macrosociology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974), and Gerhard E. Lenski, Power and
Privilege. A Theory of Social Stratification.
[v] . See Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society. A
Sociological Approach (Wilmington, DL: Michael Glazier, 1988) 35-49; David A.
Fiensy, The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period (Lewiston: The Edwin
Mellen Press, 1991) 155-76; Dennis C. Duling, "Matthew's Plurisignificant 'Son of David'
in Social Science Perspective: Kinship, Kingship, Magic, and Miracle," BTB 22 (1992):
99-116 and his The New Testament. Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History (3rd
ed.; New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1994) 49-50, 55-58, 141-42; and
Richard L. Rohrbaugh, "The Social Location of the Marcan Audience," BTB 23 (1993):
114-27.
[vi] . Lenski, Power and Privilege, 210.
[vii] . For a study of Luke location of Paul in important cities and in conversation with
their elites, see Jerome H. Neyrey, Lukes Social Location of Paul: Cultural Anthropology
and the Status of Paul in Acts, History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Ben
Witherington III, ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 251-79.
[viii] . Lenski, Power and Privilege, 210-19.
[ix] . John H. Kautsky, The Politics of Aristocratic Empires (Chapel Hill, NC: The
University of North Carolina, 1982) 51-56 and 65-66.
[x] . Lenski, Power and Privilege, 219-30. The Roman governing strata was extremely
small in numbers, as Ramsey MacMullen points out: "The senatorial stratum amounted to
939

something like two-thousandths of one percent...Equites probably totaled less than a tenth
of one percent. Senators had to have property worth 250,000 times the day's wage of a
laborer; equites qualified for their rank by less than half of that estate. In Italy, at its richest
moment, in its second largest city (Padua), the equites constituted no more than one percent
of the inhabitants; in poorer regions of the empire and in the rural population of every
region, equites were of course much scarcer" (pp. 88-89 in his Roman Social Relations;
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984). Comparably, the local aristocracy in the cities of
the East would be quite small, perhaps only one percent of the population.
[xi] . MacMullen (Roman Social Relations, 89-90) writes of the local aristocracies:
"Between the top and bottom, taking into account in a single glance the entire empire, a
range of intermediate wealth made up the aristocracy of small cities. In a given city,
however, the aristocracy nevertheless stood upon the summit of a very steep social
pyramid." On aristocrats, see J.H. Kautsky, The Politics of Aristocratic Empires, 89-98, and
Reinhard Bendix, Kings or People: Power and the Mandate to Rule (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1978) 106.
[xii] . Fiensy (The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period, 160-61) offers a
further definition of this stratum. One can distinguish between the ruler and his circle of
elites and another group of lay aristocrats: "They are called 'elders' (presbyteroi) (Mk. 15:1,
Acts 4:5), 'leaders' (proesttes) (V 194), 'first men' (prtoi) (V 9, 185), MK 6:21,
'NOTABLES' (gnrimoi) (B 2.410, 318), 'powerful ones' (dynatoi) (B 2.316, 411), 'those
first in rank (tim) and birth (genos) (A 20.123), and 'honored men' (Yoma 6:4)."
[xiii] . On the Herodian aristocracy in the first century, see David Fiensy, The Social
History of Palestine in the Herodian Period, 157-61.

940

[xiv] . Lenski estimates that as a group they received at least a quarter of the national
income, and together with the ruler, they acquired not less than half of the wealth drained
from the land or commerce.
[xv] . Lenski, Power and Privilege, 243; his full treatment is found on pp. 243-48.
[xvi] . Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 87-88, 92-94, 137-43 and 155-67.
[xvii] . Lenski, Power and Privilege, 248-56.
[xviii] . Lenski, Power and Privilege, 253.
[xix] . The attitude of Cicero (De Officiis 1.42.151) is typical in this regard.
[xx] . Lenski, Power and Privilege, 256-66; see also Bruce J. Malina, "'Religion' in the
World of Paul: A Preliminary Sketch," BTB 16 (1986) 92-101.
[xxi] . Lenski, Power and Privilege, 266-78; Douglas E. Oakman, Jesus and the Economic
Questions of His Day (Lewiston: Edwin Mellon Press, 1986) 100-102 and his "The
Countryside in Luke-Acts," The Social World of Luke-Acts, 152-64. David Fiensy (The
Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period, 157) calls attention to the "the essential
bifurcation of peasant society into aristocrats and peasant." This allows us to appreciate the
ancient distinction between urban and rural populations, with the attendant snobbery by
urban peoples toward the rural, peasant peoples (Fiensy, 168-69). Thus it matters greatly
whether Luke presents Paul as just another "uneducated, common man" from the
countryside like Peter and John (Acts 4:13) or as an urban dweller in major cities of the
empire.
[xxii] . Lenski, Power and Privilege, 278-80.

941

[xxiii] . Lenski, Power and Privilege, 279.

[xxiv] . Lenski, Power and Privilege, 281-84.
[xxv] . Abraham J. Malherbe, Gentle
Thessalonians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987);

as

Nurse,; Paul

and

the

[xxvi] . The best argument for this is the definitive study of the letter of ironic rebuke
presented by the late Nils Dahl, Pauls Letter to the Galatians. Epistolary Genre, Content,
and Structure, unpublished paper delivered to the SBL Paul Seminar 1973.
[xxvii] . Several other letter types are worth noting: 1. Inquiring (o): Paul
inquires about something and urges that news be sent: 1 Thess 3; 2.
Responding ovo): Paul systematically gives responses to questions asked in 1 Cor:
7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12.; 3. Allegorical (ooo): The author veils his message,
e.g., 2 Cor 3; and 4. Accounting (ooo): This contains reasons why something has
not taken place or will not take place; one thinks of Pauls travel plans in 1 Thess2:17-20;
3:11-13; 1 Cor 4:19; 16:1-9; 2 Cor 1:8-2:4; Rom 15:14-28
[xxviii] . John White, Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 202-3.
[xxix] . H. D. Betz, Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978),
[xxx] . Betz, Galatians, 16-23.
[xxxi] . Betz, Galatians, 14-15.
[xxxii] . See, for example, G. W. Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical
Contexts (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) ?? - ??; John Hester, The Rhetorical Structure of
Galatians 1:11-2:14,JBL 103 (1984) 223-33; and Robert C. Hall, The Rhetorical Outline
for Galatians. A Reconsideration, JBL 106 (1987) 277-87. J. Smit, The Letter of Paul to
the Galatians: A Deliberative Speech, NTS35 (1989) 1-26.
[xxxiii] . Margaret Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation (Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991); she begins with a discussion of deliberative rhetoric
(pp. 1-65) and lays out the rhetorical composition of 1 Corinthians in pp. 184-295.
[xxxiv] . George Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical
Criticism (Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press, 1984) 152-56; Wilhelm
Wuellner, Pauls Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to the DonfriedKarris Debate, The Romans Debate. rev. ed.; Karl P. Donfried, ed. (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1991) 128-46; for Romans as protreptic rhetoric, see David E. Aune,
Romans as a Logos Protreptikos in the Context of Ancient Religious and Philosophical

942

Propaganda, in M. Hengel and U. Heckel, eds., Paulus und das antike

Judentum (Tbingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1991) ??? reprinted in The Romans Debate, 278-96.
[xxxv] . Robert Jewett, Following the Argument of Romans, Karl P. Donfried, ed., The
Romans Debate, 272-74.
[xxxvi] . Robert Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and
Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986) ??72 See also S. Watson, What Has
Aristotle to Do with Paul? Rhetorical Criticism and 1 Thessalonians, TynBul 46 (1995)
233-40; and C. A. Wanamaker, Commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1990).
[xxxvii] . D. F. Watson, A Rhetorical Analysis of Philippians and its Implications for the
Unity Question, NovT 30 (1988) 59-80.
[xxxviii] . L. G. Bloomquist, The Function of Suffering in Philippians (Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1993) 72-138.
[xxxix] . Mario M. DiCicco, Pauls Use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in 2 Corinthians 1013 (Lewiston: Mellen Biblical Press, 1995).
[xl] . Joop Smit, Argument and Genre of 1 Corinthians 12-14, Rhetoric and the New
Testament. Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference (Stanley E. Porter and Thomas
Olbricht, eds.; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 211-30; also The Genre of 1 Corinthians 13 in
the Light of Classical Rhetoric, NovT 33 (1991) 193-216 and Two Puzzles: 1 Corinthians
12.31 and 13.3: A Rhetorical Solution, NTS39 (1993) 146-64.
[xli] . Duane F. Watson, Pauls Rhetorical Strategy in 1 Corinthians, Rhetoric in the New
Testament, 231-49; see also Burton Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1990) 56-59; Margaret Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 26-64.
[xlii] . Alas, not everybody agrees; Wilhelm Wuellner (Greek Rhetoric and Pauline
Argument, 185-86) considers it epideictic; in contrast, Michael Bnker (Briefformular und
rhetorische Disposition im 1. Korintherbrief [Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983]
59-72) labels it judicial.
[xliii] . Stanley E. Porter, Paul of Tarsus and His Letters, Handbook of Classical Rhetoric
in the Hellenistic Period (Leiden: Brill, 1997) 533-86.
[xliv] . Porter, Paul of Tarsus and His Letters, 561.
[xlv] . A recent article by Paul Holloway (The Enthymeme as an Element of Style in
Paul, JBL 120 [2001] 329-39) identifies a number of enthymemes in Pauls letters,
especially in the tightly reasoned arguments of Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and
Romans (p 339). On this issue, he finds striking similarities between Latin oratory and

943

rhetoric and Paul. This material thus reinforces the argument that Paul had formal
knowledge of rhetoric.
[xlvi] . The progymnasmata used in this study are: Aelius Theon of Alexandria (Spengel
II.112.20-115.10; see James R. Butts, The Progymnasmata of Theon. A New Text with
Translation and Commentary[unpublished dissertation: Claremont, 1986]); Hermogenes of
Tarsus (Spengel II.14.8-15.5; see C.S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic [New York:
Macmillan, 1928] 23-38); Menander Rhetor (see D.A. Russell and N.G. Wilson, Menander
Rhetor [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981]); Aphthonius of Ephesus (Spengel II.42.20-44.19;
see Ray Nadeau, "The Progymnasmata of Aphthonius in translation,"Speech
Monographs 19 [1952] 264-285 and more recently Patricia P. Matsen, Philip Rollinson and
Marion Sousa, eds., Readings from Classical Rhetoric [Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press, 1990] 266-88); Quintilian, Inst. 3.7.10-18.
[xlvii] . See Jan F. Kindstrand, Diogenes Laertius and the Chreia Tradition, Elenchos 7
(1986) 219-43; Ronald Hock and Edward ONeil, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric, 3-60;
Burton Mack and Vernon Robbins, Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels (Sonoma, CA:
Polebridge Press, 1989); see also Burton Mack, Decoding the Scripture: Philo and the
Rules of Rhetoric, Nourished with Peace (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984) 81-115; F. H.
Colson, Quintilian I.9 and the Chria in Ancient Education, The Classical Review 35
(1921) 150-54.The following articles of Vernon Robbins are uniquely valuable:
Classifying Pronouncement Stories in Plutarchs Parallel Lives, Semeia 20 (1981) 33-42;
Pronouncement Stories and Jesus Blessing of the Children: A Rhetorical
Approach, Semeia 29 (1983) 43-74; A Rhetorical Typology for Classifying and
Analyzing Pronouncement Stories, SBLSP 1984: 93-112; Pronouncement Stories from a
Rhetorical Perspective, Forum 4/2 (1988) 1-31; The Chreia, and Introduction: Using
Rhetorical Discussions of the Chreia to Interpret Pronouncement Stories, Semeia 64
(1994) vii-xvii.
[xlviii] . On comparison, see Harry Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1989); F. Focke, "Synkrisis," Hermes 58 (1923) 327-68; David H. J. Lamour,
"Making Parallels: Synkrisisand Plutarch's 'Themistocles and Camillus," ANRW II.33.6
(1991) 4154-4204; Henrich Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (Mnchen :
Hueber, 1973) 332-33, 392-95, 542-43; Abraham J. Malherbe, "Antisthenes and Odysseus,
Paul at War," HTR 76 (1983) 143-73; Peter Marshall, Enmity at Corinth: Social
Conventions in Paul's Relations with the Corinthians. (Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr. 1987) 5356, 325-29, 348-65; D. A. Russell, "On Reading Plutarch's Lives," Greece and Rome 13
(1966) 150-151; P. A. Stadter, "Plutarch's Comparison of Pericles and Fabius
Maximus," GRBS 16 (1975) 77-85.
[xlix] . Christopher Forbes, Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Pauls Boasting and the
Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric, NTS 32 (1986) 1-30.
[l] .Forbes, Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony, 19.
[li] . Forbes, Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony, 19.
944

[lii] . On the relationship between the categories of the encomium and the rhetoric of praise,
see Jerome H. Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox) 78-138 and "Josephus' Vita and the Encomium: A Native Model
of Personality," JSJ 25 (1994) 177-206.
[liii] .Forbes (Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony,8-10) provides valuable ancient voices
on oo, or self-praise.
[liv] . On the importance of knowing the origins of someone as a grounds for praise, see
Bruce J. Malina and Jerome Neyrey, Portraits of Paul. An Archaeology of Ancient
Personality (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox 1996) 19-60. See also Jerome H.
Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox,
1998) 78-83 and 90-105.
[lv] . John T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in the Earthen Vessel. An Examination of Catalogues of
Hardships in the Corinthian Correspondence (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 87-90.
[lvi] . Malina and Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, 52-55.
[lvii] . George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography. Towards a New Understanding (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1985) ????
[lviii] . "To righteousness (ov) it belongs to be ready to distribute according to
desert, and to preserve ancestral customs and institutions and the established laws, and to
tell the truth when interest is at stake, and to keep agreements. First among the claims of
righteousness are our duties to the gods, then our duties to the spirits, then those to country
and parents, then those to the departed; among these claims is piety (), which is
either a part of righteousness or a concomitant of it. Righteousness is also accompanied by
holiness (o) and truth and loyalty () and hatred of wickedness"
(Aristotle, Virtues and Vices, 5.2-3)
[lix] . To it belongs to be undismayed by fears of death and confident in alarms and brave
in face of dangers, and to prefer a fine death to base security, and to be a cause of victory. It
also belongs to courage to labour and endure and play a manly part. Courage is
accompanied by confidence and bravery and daring, and also by perseverance and
endurance" (Aristotle, Virtues and Vices 4.4).
[lx] . Malina and Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, 48-50.
[lxi] . Stanley K. Stowers, Romans 7.7-25 as a Speech-in-Character (ooo),
Troels Engberg-Pedersen, ed., Paul in His Hellenistic Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1995) 180-202.
[lxii] . Stowers, Romans 7.7-25 as a Speech-in-Character, 187.
[lxiii] . Stowers, Romans 7.7-25 as Speech-in-Character, 191.
945

[lxiv] . Stowers, Romans 7.7-25 as Speech-n-Character, 191-92.

[lxv] . Stanley K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Pauls Letter to the Romans (Chico CA:
Scholars Press, 1981).
[lxvi] . Stowers, The Diatribe and Pauls Letter to the Romans, 76.
[lxvii] . Stowers, The Diatribe and Pauls Letter to the Romans, 86-92.
[lxviii] . Stowers, The Diatribe and Pauls Letter to the Romans, 125-33.
[lxix] . Stowers, The Diatribe and Pauls Letter to the Romans, 76.
[lxx] . Stowers, The Diatribe and Pauls Letter to the Romans, 178-79.
[lxxi] . Stowers, The Diatribe and Pauls Letter to the Romans, 78.
[lxxii] . The introductory article of John Fitzgerald (Virtue/Vice Lists, ABD 6.857-59)
lays out the history of the topic and seems to favor the assessment of the material as closely
related to philosophical schools. See also Abraham J. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, a
Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986) 138-41.
[lxxiii] . Abraham Malherbe has regularly argued that such lists of virtues and vices were
part of philosophical exhortation, see his Stoics, Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce
M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds. (New York : Oxford University Press, 1993) 71415; and Paul and the Thessalonians (Fortress: Philadelphia, 1987) 24, 31-33, 82-83).
[lxxiv] . The primary research here has been done by John T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an
Earthen Vessel. An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Corinthian
Correspondence (SBLDS 99; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); Malherbe (Moral Exhortation.
A Greco-Roman Sourcebook, 141-43) notes that Stoic and Cynic moral philosophers made
extensive use of such lists.
[lxxv] . Fitzgerald, Cracks in the Earthen Vessel, 204.
[lxxvi] . On Pauls Areopagus speech and its affinities with Stoic natural theology, see
Bertil Grtner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (Uppsala: C. W. K. Gleerup,
1955) 73-203.
[lxxvii] . Max Pohlenz, Paulus und die Stoa, ZNW 42 (1949) 70-98.
[lxxviii] . Abraham J. Malherbe, Determinism and Free Will: The Argument of 1
Corinthians 8 and 9, in Troels Engberg-Pedersen, ed., Paul in His Hellenistic
Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 232.
[lxxix] . Malherbe, Determinism and Free Will, 233-36.
946

[lxxx] . Malherbe, Determinism and Free Will, 237.

[lxxxi] . Malherbe, Determinism and Free Will, 244-45.
[lxxxii] . Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Stoicism in Philippians, Paul in His Hellenistic
Context, 259-60. Mr. Pedersen has recently published a details study entitled Paul and the
Stoics (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2000); in it he endeavors to show that Paul
made extensive use of a comprehensive, but also a sharply focused model that had been
developed (293, see 301). His argument can be summarized in three theses: (1) an
historical thesis: there is a fundamental similarity in the basic model that structures both
Stoic ethics and Pauls comprehensive parenesis in his letters as a whole(301); (2) an
exegetical thesis: a reading that draws on Stoic ideas helps to solve a number of problems
(302); (3) a reading that draws on Stoicism to emphasize and develop those ideas of a
cognitive type that are in fact in Paul is positively required for an exegesis of his letters to
have fulfilled its task (303); and (4) Paul must be read directly, philosophically, even
naturalistically as a person who is speaking ofthe world as it is available to all partners in
the dialogue, in exactly the same way as this was done by his fellow Jews (like Philo) and
Greeks (like Plato and the Stoics (303-4).
[lxxxiii] .Engberg-Pedersen, Stoicism in Philippians, 261.
[lxxxiv] . Engberg-Pedersen, Stoicism in Philippians, 261-64; in one place he remarks
that some of these are just general philosophical terms, other have more specifically Stoic
connotations (262).
[lxxxv] .Engberg-Pedersen, Stoicism in Philippians, 269-74.
[lxxxvi] . Engberg-Pedersen, Stoicism in Philippians, 278-79.
[lxxxvii] . Engberg-Pedersen, Stoicism in Philippians, 279.
[lxxxviii] . Engberg-Pederson, Stoicism in Philippians, 279.
[lxxxix] . Abraham Malherbe, The Beasts at Ephesus, JBL 87 (1968) 76-78.
[xc] . Abraham Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians (Fortress: Philadelphia, 1987) 40-43
and 85-87.
[xci] . Malherbe, Paul and the Thessalonians, 104.
[xcii] . Abraham Malherbe, Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background to 1 Thess
ii, NovT 12 (1970) 217.
[xciii] . F. Gerald Downing has recently published a comprehensive comparison of Paul and
Cynicism, and comes to the following conclusions: a) Paul would have been seen and heard
as some sort of Cynic; b) by virtue of Pauls ascetic praxis and in his verbal articulation of
947

it, Paul was aware of this identification; and c) Pauls appropriation of Cynic material was
deliberate; he knew his way around the material and was able to work with the details of
the inner-Cynic debate (Cynics, Paul and the Pauline Churches [London: Routledge, 1998).
[xciv] . By topos we mean a philosophical commonplace or sententia. See E. Mertner,
Topos and Commonplace, Strena Angelica (G. Dietrich and F. W. Schultze, eds.; Halle:
M Niemeyer, 1956) 178-224; T. Y. Mullins, Topos as a New Testament Form, JBL 99
(1980) 541-47; D. G. Bradley, The Topos as a Form of Pauline Paraenesis, JBL 72
(1953)238-46; John Dillon, The Transcendence of God in Philo: Some Possible
Sources (Center for Hermeneutical Studies, Protocol 16; Berkeley: The Center for
Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1975) 171-78. See also Abraham
J. Malherbe, Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament, ANRW 2.26.1 (1992) 320-25
and Margaret Mitchell, Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical
Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians, (Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox, 1991) 67, note 8.
[xcv] . Abraham J. Malherbe, Exhortation in 1 Thessalonians, NovT 25 (1983) 238-40.
Some of these features include 1) addressing the audience with as you know. . .you
know; 2) use of nouns and verbs expressing encouragement. . .exhortation; and 3)
adaptation of the exhortation to the condition of the hearers.
[xcvi] . On this point, see Abraham J. Malherbe, Gentle as a Nurse, NovT 12 (1970) 20317.
[xcvii] . Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical
Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox, 1991). Her work is most useful here for two reasons: first, her
research includes an excellent reporting of individual commonplaces urged by other
scholars, such as C. Forbes, Comparison, Self-Praise a Irony: Pauls Boasting and the
Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric, NTS 32 (1986) 1-30; J. Shanor, Paul as Master
Builder. Construction Terms in 1 Corinthians, NTS 34 (1988) 461-71; H. Chadwick, All
Things to All Men (1 Cor IX.22), NTS 1 (1955) 261-75; P. A. Brunt, Amicitia in the
Late Roman Republic, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 191 (1965) 120. Second, Mitchells own detailed collection of parallel materials from the Greco-Roman
world gives depth and authority to her claims to be identifying part of a common
conceptual and linguistic body of topoi used to promote social and political unity in GrecoRoman antiquity (181).
[xcviii] . Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 65-110.
[xcix] . Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 111-70.
[c] . Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 82, esp. note 98. In a number of
articles, L. L. Welborn covered much of the same terrain as did Mitchell; he does not label
his materials as topoi, but his research provides both support to many of Mitchells
assertions and other commonplaces; see On Discord in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and
Ancient Politics, JBL 106 (1987) 85-111 and A Conciliatory Principle in 1 Cor
948

4:6, NovT 29 (1987) 320-46; both of these have been reprinted in a collection of
Welborns work: Politics and Rhetoric in the Corinthian Epistles (Macon, GA: Mercer
University Press, 1997).
[ci] . Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 91-95.
[cii] . Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 96.
[ciii] . Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 97.
[civ] . Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 98.
[cv] . Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 99-104.
[cvi] . Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 123-25.
[cvii] . Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 142-43.
[cviii] . Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 157-62.
[cix] . Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 181.
[cx] . For example, John T. Townsend, Education (Greco-Roman), ABD 2.312-17.
[cxi] . See Henri I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (New York: Sheed and
Ward, 1956); Stanley Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome from the Elder Cato to the
Younger Pliny (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1977).
[cxii] . Robert A. Kaster, Notes on Primary and Secondary Schools in Late
Antiquity, TAPA 113 [1983] 323-46, here 323. This represents the prevailing model found
in H. I. Marrou, S. Barron; and M. L. Clarke
[cxiii] . Townsend, Education (Greco-Roman), 315.
[cxiv] . Kaster, Notes on Primary and Secondary Schools in Late Antiquity, 337.
[cxv] . Alan D. Booth, The Schooling of Slaves in First-Century Rome, TAPA109 (1979)
11-19; his concluding summary best expresses this viewpoint: There is cause to believe
that in first-century Rome the ludi magister (the calculator and notarius too) ran a lowly
type of technical school which peddled craft literacy to children, slave and free, to enhance
their employability, but that the elements were usually acquired elsewhere by children
embarking upon a liberal education (19).
[cxvi] . Slave education is described as craft literacy, which could produce bookkeepers,
stenographers, secretaries (S. L. Mohler, Slave Education in the Roman
Empire, TAPA 71 [1940] 263). Commenting on an apprentice contract from Egypt, C. A.
949

Forbes (The Education and Training of Slaves in Antiquity, TAPA 86 [1955] 330)
remarks: The program calls for an apprentice to spend a considerable time in the
memorization of a complete set of tachygraphic signs, called the commentary, and then to
practice strenuously in writing and transcribing. See also Kaster, Notes on Primary and
Secondary Schools in Late Antiquity, 343.
[cxvii] . Booth (Schooling of Slaves in First-Century Rome, 14) makes clear that a
specific type of education was available to children entirely on the basis of social location:
The training of salves in clerical skills (litterae communes) in later antiquity. . .was
uncontroversial. But liberal study was properl the preserve of the freeborn upper class.
[cxviii] . Forbes, The Education and Training of Slaves in Antiquity, 326.
[cxix] . Kaster ( Notes on Primary and Secondary Schools in Late Antiquity, 346)
concludes that with current research, the three-stage sequence conformed rather to a twotrack or socially segmentedpattern, with the school of letters providing the lower classes
with a basic literacy while the liberal schools provided a more privileged clientele with
more refined skills (emphasis added).
[cxx] . This precisely the argument made by Forbes, The Education and Training of Slaves
in Antiquity, 324-25 and 359-60; Alan D. Booth, Schooling of Slaves in First-Century
Rome, 14-15; and Kaster, Notes on Primary and Secondary Schools in Late
Antiquity, 338-39. In addition, Martin Bloomer (Schooling in Persona: Imagination and
Subordination in Roman Education, Classical Antiquity 16 [1997] 57-78) demonstrated
just how status-specific Roman elite education was, namely, the socialization of the
student into an elite man (57) by training him in the following exercises: 1. exercise of
speaking rights, 2. learning how to command, 3. speaking in character (i.e., as hero or
general), 4. how to speak to inferiors, 5. learning the language of elite males, 6. learning to
speak as apatronus on behalf of clients. Thus declamation taught competition, rule
following and inculcated habits of stratification and distinction (69).
[cxxi] . I have argued the material at considerable length in Lukes Social Location of
Paul: Cultural Anthropology and the Status of Paul in Acts, History, Literature, and
Society in the Book of Acts. (Ed. Ben Witherington, III; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996) 251-79.
[cxxii] . F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1977) 38. Important background on Roman citizenship is provided by A. N. SherwinWhite, The Roman Citizenship(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937) and Roman Society
and Roman Law in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978) 144-93; F.
Schultz, Roman Registers of Births and Birth Certificates, JBL 32 (1942) 78-91 and 33
(1943) 55-64.
[cxxiii] . Many scholars dismiss Lukes claims for Pauls Roman citizenship. For example,
Wolfgang Stegemann (War der Apostel Paulus ein rmischer Brger? ZNW78 [1987]
200-29) gives three arguments against citizenship: 1) Pauls low social class and Jewish
950

background, 2) Pauls silence on this point in his letters; 3) the apologetic nature of Lukes
composition of Acts where citizenship is claimed.
[cxxiv] . On this point, see my Lukes Social Location of Paul: Cultural Anthropology and
the Status of Paul in Acts, History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts (Ben
Witherington, III, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 268-76.
[cxxv] . See Jerome Murphy-OConnor, St. Pauls Corinth (Wilmington, DL: Michael
Grazier, 1983) 25-26 and his The Corinth that Saint Paul Saw, BA 47 (1984) 147-59; and
J. Wiseman, Corinth and Rome I.227BC - AD 267, ANRW (date) VII.1 438-548.
[cxxvi] . Neyrey, Luke Social Location of Paul, 275-76.
[cxxvii] . The most important study of this question is that of Ronald F. Hock, The Social
Context of Pauls Ministry (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), esp. the conclusion 66-68. While
criticizing other arguments that Paul was following a rabbinic ideal of combining Torah and
a trade, Hock points to important Cynic parallels indicating how they made the workshop
one of the settings for studying philosophy. See also Stanley K. Stowers, Social Status,
Public Speaking and Private Teaching: The Circumstances of Pauls Preaching
Activity, NovT 26 (1984) 58-82.
[cxxviii] . William V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1989).
[cxxix] . Lucretia B. Yaghjian, Ancient Reading, The Social Sciences and New Testament
Interpretation (Richard L. Rohrbaugh, ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996) 206-30.
[cxxx] . The best and most recent discussion of this material is that of E. Randolph
Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1991;
although he finds precedents for elites giving total command of a letter to a secretary, by far
the more normal thing was the secretarys taking of dictation and/or embellishing the
material spoken to him.
[cxxxi] . In regard to 1 Pet 5:12, Paul Achtemeier (1 Peter [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996]
350) argues that In early Christian literature, including the NT, the phrase v
vo identifies not the author of the letter, or its scribe, but its bearer, the one who
delivered it to its readers.

Bewitched in Galatia:
Paul and Cultural Anthropology
JEROME H. NEYREY, S.J.
951

Weston School of Theology

BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS WORK ON ACCUSATIONS of demon possession in

Matthew, [1] Luke, [2] and 2 Corinthians, [3] I came to pay increasing attention to Paul's
question in Gal 3:1: "Who has bewitched you?" Although it could be used to characterize
negatively one's opponents and their sophistries, [4] baskanein, which is found only here in
the NT, is a common term for the evil eye in the LXX [5] and Greek literature. [6] It is my
hypothesis that Paul is using it in its formal sense as an accusation that someone has
bewitched the Galatians. [7] This means that Paul is arguing that the false teachers spreading
"another gospel" in Galatia are either Satan himself or persons possessed and controlled by
Satan. In this regard, Paul would be said to share with the rest of the authors of the NT a
common view of the active presence of Satan and demons in the world. [8] Like them, Paul
would also engage in the common practice of accusing one's enemies and rivals of sorcery
or demon possession, a phenomenon attributed to Jesus and his followers, as the following
diagram indicates:
1. Jesus accuses others of demon possession
(a) Judas (John 6:70)
(b) Peter (Mark 8:33)
(c) others (John 8:44; Matt 12:43-44// Luke 11 :24-26; Matt 13:38-39)
2. Others accuse Jesus of demon possession
(Mark 3:23-30; John 7:20; 8:48,52; 10:20)
3. Paul accuses others of demon possession
(a) superapostles (2 Cor 11:3,13-15)
(b) Elymas the Magician (Acts 13:8-11)
4. John the Baptizer is accused of demon possession
(Matt 11:18//Luke 7:33)
In the social sciences, accusations of demon possession are discussed under the technical
label of "witchcraft accusations," a term which allows them to be examined and interpreted
in a critical way according to accepted social science methods, which will be the formal
perspective of this study.
Modern Westerners find it difficult to take seriously not only belief in demon possession
but also in witches who work evil, [9] an indication that we perceive our world quite
differently from Jesus, Paul, the four evangelists, and other NT writers. Yet if we are to see
the world through Paul's eyes and appreciate the full force of "bewitch" in Gal 3:1, we must
turn to the social sciences to find appropriate categories to examine Paul's world and
adequate models to appreciate the typical function that "witchcraft accusations" played in
the Mediterranean world, [10] even in the NT. All of the linguistic parallels we find still need
some heuristic model to allow us to see them in their proper cultural perspective.

952

I propose to examine Gal 3: 1, in fact the whole document, in the light of the discussion of
witchcraft current among cultural anthropologists. The works of Mary T. Douglas are
particularly useful in this endeavor for several reasons. First, in addition to her own field
work on witchcraft accusations, she undertook to synthesize much of the work done by her
colleagues, a task which makes available to us as much of a consensus on the topic as is
likely to be found. Second, inasmuch as witchcraft accusations appear only in a certain type
of social system and only under certain conditions, Douglas has attempted to describe both
the symbolic cosmos of those who employ witchcraft accusations and the social function
they play in that culture. Historians of ancient Mediterranean cultures are increasingly
employingDouglas's basic anthropological work. [11] Her modeling of witchcraft accusations
has proved useful to students of religion as well. [12]
It is my hypothesis that Gal 3:1 is no different from 2 Cor 11:3, 13-15, where Paul accuses
his rivals, the "superapostles" at Corinth, of being Satan disguised as an angel of light. This
charge of demon possession is a formal "witchcraft accusation," a technical term for the
accusation that Paul's rivals are either the devil himself or persons controlled by him. The
proper evaluation of 3:1 as a formal accusation of sorcery will entail the use of two models
from Douglas's works, first a general sketch of the "cosmology" of Paul's world from an
anthropological point of view, and then a specific assessment of a "witchcraft accusation,"
which is a common feature of that type of cosmology.
I. The Basic Model: Pauline Viewpoint in Galatians
As we attempt to examine the specific meaning and function of 3:1 and 1:8, we must first
sketch the cosmological viewpoint of Paul in Galatians; for the accusation of
"bewitchment" can only be properly understood in light of his perceptions of a deceived
and hostile world. In this regard, Mary Douglas offers us a succinct model quite suited for
this task. In this initial section, we will examine Galatians in terms of the basic categories
which typically interest anthropologists, although they may seem foreign to NT exegetes
(i.e., purity, ritual, identity, body, sin, cosmology, suffering/misfortune). These categories,
moreover, must be situated in terms of Douglas's group/ grid analysis, [13] which indicates
how cultures vary and how the attitudes to elements such as structure, ritual, body, and
identity vary as well.
Douglas herself has been strongly concerned with the structure or systematization of
cultures. People tend to organize their worlds, locating and classifying persons, places,
times, and things. This impulse toward systematization we call group, an impulse which
may be strong or weak. Even in the face of strong systematization, it is not certain whether
members of the social group accept the worldview and the practical structures symbolizing
this viewpoint. If there is agreement with society's system, a match between professed goals
and personal experience, then this agreement, which is called grid, is high; but if
individuals do not experience the world according to its stated ideas or do not agree with
the systematic structures which flow from that view, then grid is low. Douglas, then, offers
two variables, group andgrid, for locating a given social group, variables which yield a
scattergram of four ideal types of worldviews or cosmologies.
~
953

Grid

high

Group

Group

weak

strong

low

Grid

Four ideal types of worldviews emerge: (a) strong group / high grid, (b) strong group /
low grid, (c) weak group / high grid, and (d) weak group / low grid. It is the opinion of
those who have used Douglas's model apropos of NT documents that most of them may be
classified as strong group / low grid. [14] Their authors all accept in varying ways the religion
of Israel: belief in the one, true God and acceptance of God's Scriptures, with some
attendant structures (strong group). But Jesus and his followers do not accept the
structuring of Israel's faith as it was traditionally expressed in terms of the temple and the
system of order and classification symbolized in the temple; [15] and so they sought to
reform Israel's faith (low grid).
Even strong group / low grid viewpoints admit of some variation, allowing for some groups
or persons, like Mark or Luke, to challenge the old system less and for other groups or
persons, like Paul in Galatians, to make strong claims about the way the reformed life of a
true Israelite is to be lived. Douglas suggests that when "witchcraft accusations" are found,
they are to be located in strong group, but medium or rising grid, [16] for serious claims are
implicit in the accusations that only certain ways of viewing and structuring the world are
valid (hence, rising or medium grid).
Turning to the worldview of Galatians, which by hypothesis we identify as strong group /
rising grid, we will examine how Paul perceives the world in terms of seven typical
anthropological categories: purity (or system), ritual, personal identity, body, sin,
cosmology, and suffering/ misfortune. The particular, but typical meaning of these
categories in strong group / low grid has been worked out both by Douglas and her
interpreters; it is schematized as follows:
954

Purity: strong concern for purity, but the inside of the social and physical body is under
attack; pollution present, but purification rites are ineffective.
Rite: a society of fixed rites; rite is focused upon group boundaries, with great concern to
expel pollutants from the social body; fluid sacred space.
Personal Identity: located in group membership, not in the internalization of roles, which
are confused; distinction between appearance and internal states; dyadic personality.
Body: social and physical bodies are tightly controlled but under attack; invaders break
through bodily boundaries.
Sin: a matter of pollution; evil is lodged within the individual and society; sin is much like
a disease deriving from social structure.
Cosmology: anthropomorphic; dualistic; warring forces of good and evil; the universe is not
just and may be whimsical; personal causality.
Suffering/ Misfortune: unjust; not automatic punishment; attributed to malevolent forces;
may be alleviated but not eliminated. [17]
Purity. This term is almost synonymous with what Douglas means by group, i.e., the
systematic structuring of the social world: the classification of persons, places, times, and
things in terms of some value or organizing principle. "Purity," an abstract term, is best
understood in terms of its opposite, "dirt."
It [dirt] implies two conditions: a set of ordered relations and a contravention of that order. Dirt,
then, is never a unique isolated event. Where there is dirt there is a system. Dirt is the by-product of
a systematic ordering and classification of matter, insofar as ordering involves rejecting
inappropriate elements. [18]

It is generally conceded that temple- and even synagogue-Judaism were strongly organized,
a cultural impulse which is found also in the ex-Pharisee, Paul. [19] Paul claims that, prior to
his faith in Jesus, he had been a Pharisee's Pharisee (Gal 1:14; Phil 3:4-6); as such, this
same Paul perceived the "purity" of Judaism polluted by Jesus and his followers, [20] for
which reason he persecuted them (Gall: 13; 1 Cor 15:9). Even in Galatians, Paul continued
to be acutely sensitive to "dirt" which threatened his pure world, [21] i.e., to "another gospel"
which had been preached. To appreciate the sense of "purity" and "dirt" which is reflected
in Paul's worldview, let us sketch the orderly patterns of his perception of the cosmos in
Galatians, with special attention to how Judaizers and "another gospel" are pollutions of the
world he has established.
With his Pharisee's eye for clarity and precision, Paul describes in Galatians 3-4 the history
of God's actions, indicating how God has successively related to the world in two
systematic but different ways, which we conveniently call the covenant with Abraham (3:69; 4:24) and the covenant with Moses (3: 10-12). [22] Each covenant systematically expresses
God's will for humanity and indicates a clear way to salvation, either through belief in
955

God's promises or by the doing of God's halakic will. [23] Apropos of the covenant of Law,
Paul draws clear time-lines around it, indicating when it was "added" to the original
covenant (3: 17,19) and when it was "ended" (3:13,23). [24] "Covenant," then, symbolizes
system.
God's orderings of the world, moreover, are contained in the Scriptures. Not only
are the general sketches of God's covenants found there, but particular details of the
Scriptures are used by Paul to affirm aspects of the covenant system which Paul sees as
currently valid in Christ, such as the importance of the singular ""offspring" of Abraham
(3:16-17), which narrows the correct line of descent or Abraham's justifying "faith" (3:6).
Certain details for these Scriptures are important in Paul's argument for the preference of
the covenant of Abraham over that of Moses. For example, the earlier character of God's
dealing with Abraham (3:17) signals its priority in time and importance; the Hagar-Sarah
story offers a host of details whereby the covenant with Abraham may be seen to come
through Sarah and her free son, Isaac.
Yet the world of Paul the Pharisee is structured by his faith in Jesus who died on the cross.
Jesus himself exemplifies the structure of the covenant of Abraham, viz., faith in
God. [25] His death, moreover, marks the exact boundary line between the former covenant
of Law and the new covenant of faith and grace (3:13-14). Furthermore, Jesus sums up in
himself the precise pattern of the covenant of faith, what it means and how it works. For
example, Jesus is the unique "son" promised Abraham (3:16), the model of our "sonship"
with God (4:5-7), a definition of our status. Just as Jesus prayed to God, so his followers
are filled with Spirit and pray "Abba! Father!" (4:6). The precision about one's relationship
to God that was formerly given Paul the Pharisee by torah now comes from Jesus. Paul's
world, therefore, is strongly structured in terms of traditional belief in God and the
Scriptures, at least as these are understood and configured in a certain way, i.e., in Christ as
the fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham, which ends the former covenant with Moses.
This basic pattern of ordering, moreover, attests to what Paul perceives as "holy" or "pure,"
a point which is clearly of considerable importance to him. [26] The unquestionable aim of all
religious behavior is "righteousness," [27] the issue being how one arrives at that holy state.
In characteristic dualistic fashion, Paul argues that "holiness," which he typically calls
"righteousness," does not come from the Law (2:16; 3:11). Rather, as God's Scriptures
teach, holiness/righteousness come only with faith: Abraham believed God, and "it was
credited to him as righteousness" (3:6; cf. Gen 15:6); and those who are "righteous by
faith" shall live (3:11; Hab 2:4). The holy state of those who are righteous by faith is further
expressed by the possession of the "holy" Spirit, which the holy God pours into human
hearts, confirming and empowering them as "holy" (3:2,5; 4:6).
Yet, as Douglas indicates, this strong sense of an orderly, holy cosmos can come under
fierce attack. Paul writes Galatians precisely because someone, presumably Judaizers, has
come to Galatia and attacked Paul's ordering of the world in the way described above. At
this point of the analysis, it is irrelevant just what they said and why it should be persuasive
to the Galatians. Suffice it to say that Paul perceives their presence and preaching of
"another gospel" as a pollution of God's holy church because it attacks the pure way of
serving God which Paul enunciated. They are infecting the church like polluting leaven
956

(5:9; see 1 Cor 5:6-7), or gangrene (see 2 Tim 2:17). [28] Cast in this light, the conflict
assumes cosmic proportions.
Rites. Examining the structures of society, Douglas pays special attention to the rites and
ceremonies which either define the boundaries of a group (rituals) or celebrate and
strengthen its values and structures (ceremonies). In this strong group/low grid cosmos,
attention is focused primarily on rites which establish and maintain boundaries. Since
people in this cosmos perceive their boundaries already breached by pollutants, they devote
themselves to sounding the alarm and rallying to the perimeter which is being attacked, i.e.,
identifying the pollution and trying to expel it.
Galatians exhibits several kinds of rituals, those which create boundaries and those which
would repel the invading pollutant that has crossed them. In understanding "boundaries,"
we need only look at Paul's enunciation of redundant dualistic patterns in Galatians. By the
way he speaks of the two covenants, Paul clearly indicates where the primary boundary line
lies between the two covenants, between synagogue-Jews and Christians. First, he describes
his own status, how he was originally an outsider to God's plan. Extremely zealous for the
traditions of his fathers, Paul persecuted the church of God, trying to destroy it (1:13-14).
Yet God brought him across a boundary and made him an insider by an act of grace, i.e., by
freely setting him apart, calling him, and revealing his Son to him (1:15-16). Paul not only
establishes his legitimacy by this rehearsal of his vocation, thus indicating that he stands on
the correct side of the boundary separating good from evil, but his experience also serves as
a paradigm of the correct boundary line, viz., the way God works to establish boundaries by
grace and faith.
The Galatians, too, crossed a significant boundary when God freely gave them the Spirit
through faith (3:1-5), thus changing their status from Gentile outsiders to covenant
insiders. [29] Formerly outsiders who did not know God, they were shown grace and favor by
God (4:9), proof of which is the gratuitous reception of Spirit by hearing with faith (3:2-5).
Paul draws the main boundary lines most sharply in chaps. 3 and 4, where he contrasts the
covenant with Abraham, characterized by promise and faith, with the covenant with Moses,
known by its emphasis on Law and doing. [30] Following the former, one finds blessing (3:89), but only curse in the latter (3:10, 13). Paul insists that the covenant with Moses is ended,
Christ being the official boundary line, viz., the end of the Law, by being born under the
Law, and becoming a curse, and thus terminating the Law. Leaving aside for the moment
the intricacies of Paul's argument, we are aware how this functions as boundary language,
firmly establishing where one thing ends and another begins. All of his arguments to
buttress the validity of the covenant with Abraham only draw the boundary line that much
clearer and distinguish insiders from outsiders that much more sharply. The allegory of
Hagar and Sarah in 4:21-31 reinforces the basic boundary, [31] contrasting free with slave,
heaven with earth, and spirit with flesh, thus indicating the cosmic dimensions of the
boundary drawn in Christ.
This boundary, which is theoretically expressed in terms of historical covenants and
traditional personages, becomes immediate in the way Paul affirms the effect and
importance of Jesus' death in 2:15-21. The correct side of the boundary line is constituted
957

by being "in Christ," i.e., by having the faith of Jesus; here is found justification, which is
"purity" in God's sight. The wrong side is that characterized by "the Law" and works of the
Law, where Paul implies sin is found (2:16-17; 6:13). In criticizing the wrong side, Paul
describes himself as "tearing something down," emphasizing that Christ died for a purpose,
to end the period of sin and curse. Of the tight side, Paul claims that it is "the grace of
God," which should not be nullified (2:21).
The basic boundary, then, is expressed in terms of covenants, personages, and theoretical
means of justification (grace, works). It is finally expressed in terms of spirit and flesh and
the activity appropriate to each. Spirit and flesh are terms introduced in the Sarah-Hagar
allegory, linking Isaac with birth through the Spirit (4:29) and Ishmael with birth according
to the flesh (4:23). The terms are appropriate to Paul's argument, in that birth through spirit
(4:6) and gift of spirit (3:2-5) characterize the correct side of the boundary, the covenant in
Christ. Opposed to "spirit" is "flesh," not simply bodily descent through Ishmael, but works
of the flesh, in particular fleshly circumcision, which is the chief symbol of the Judaizers
and the major ritual of the alternative covenant system.
Paul focuses on the boundary line which circumcision symbolizes. Those who cut in their
flesh the mark of the Jewish synagogue system (of the Law of Moses, works) are
themselves cut off: "You are severed (cut off) from Christ, you who would be justified by
the Law" (5:4). For a Gentile who began on the correct side of the boundary (faith) to
submit now to circumcision would mean to cross back over the boundary to the wrong side.
The Epistle to the Galatians, then, reflects Paul's incessant boundary making, a perception
of two mutually exclusive systems or ways of serving God. The boundary is legitimated in
history (3:6-13; 4:21-31), exemplified in experience (I: 15-17; 3:2-5), and illustrated by
specific practices (2: 16-17; 5:4). The boundary, moreover, is endlessly presented in a series
of redundant dualisms [32] which replicate and reinforce the basic distinction between
Christians and Jews according to Paul.
Redundant Dualisms in Galatians
Covenant with Abraham

-1-

Covenant with Moses

characterized by

characterized by

promise/faith

law/doing

Belonging through

-2-

Belonging through

Sarah and Isaac

Blessing
Grace

Hagar and Ishmael

-3-

Curse

-4-

Sin

958

Freedom
Free gift of Spirit
Spirit
Home: Jerusalem above

-5-

Slavery

-6-

Earned merit through deeds

-7-

Flesh

-8-

Home: Mt. Sinai below

Paul, then, is adept at erecting boundaries which become the major lines of his "purity
system." Yet, according to Paul, the Judaizers have attacked that boundary by asking people
who stand correctly to cross back into "slavery," "flesh," and "curse," the covenant with
Moses.
Besides the ritual of boundary making, Paul indicates a second kind of ritual which is
appropriate for dealing with polluting invaders who are discovered to have breached the
boundaries. They must be identified and expelled. [33] In two clear places, Paul explicitly
calls for the expulsion of the pollutants (and their ideas). Apropos of the Sarah-Hagar
allegory, Paul formally cites from Gen 21:10 Sarah's demand to Abraham that Hagar and
her son be expelled from his household because of Ishmael's threats to Isaac's well-being.
"Cast out the slave and her son" (4:30). In the context, Paul clearly intends this as a warrant
for expelling those who are allegorically linked with Hagar, Ishmael, and the covenant of
flesh, viz., those who preach another gospel. [34]
In a more symbolic statement, Paul prays that those who urge circumcision and so
introduce polluting doctrine into the church would themselves "cut off." In 5:4, Paul
already indicated that those who "cut" themselves bodily in circumcision are automatically
"cut off" from Christ. Then, in what is evidently a play on the term "cut," [35] Paul prays that
"those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves" (5:12) by castration, which in a Jewish
cultural system would mean being "cut off" from the temple of God and being rendered
permanently unclean. [36] Mutilation [37] is a richly charged word here, suggesting the ritual
impurity which comes from bodily mutilation; Lev 21:20 indicates that those with "crushed
testicles" cannot approach to offer the bread of God. [38] Mutilation, moreover, would cancel
"glory," which in 6: 13 is a euphemism for the circumcised penis (see Phil 3:19). Finally,
mutilation symbolically suggests Paul's desire that these heretics be cut off from the church,
made shameful, and rendered permanently unclean. Permanent removal from the holy body,
then, is the ritual described by Paul in 5:12.
Passing note should be taken of the anathema Paul directs at those who would introduce
"another gospel" into his churches (1:8-9). The curse of anathema clearly labels those who
bring deviant doctrines as pollutants and demands their separation both now and forever
from God's holy realm. [39] In Rom 9:3, anathema is linked with and explained by a phrase
which clearly exposes its meaning as a form of expulsion or banning: "...accursed and cut
off from Christ." [40]
Personal Identity. The identity of individual people in Paul's world is found in terms of
another, which might be in terms of the town of one's birth, one's family, trade, or some
other identifying stereotype.[41] Paul, e.g., is always God's prophet or Jesus' apostle: he
959

never speaks on his own. Peter, James, and John are not only Christians but also pillars of
the Jerusalem church; they are, then, known in terms of role and place. The Galatians are
the "true Israel"; and individual members of the church are known as "the household of
faith" (6:10). They are, moreover, expected to learn their Christian identity by imitating
Paul (4:12).
In this regard, Douglas calls attention to a profound problem in learning the identity of
people in this social script. Although this world would build boundaries exactly to locate,
classify, and identify people, this is also a world in which boundaries are breached and the
system is under attack. But the problem here lies precisely in the difficulty of identifying
the invading pollutant, because in this world external appearances are not a sure guide to
the interior. At best, ambiguity reigns here; but at worst, this world is full of deceit and
masquerade which intend to deceive. [42] Evil masquerades as good, even as the good may
not be fully recognized for what it is because of some seeming exterior defect. Paul in
Galatians is intensely aware of both ambiguity and masquerade.
As regards Paul himself, ambiguity shrouds him on every side. Although he insists that he
never preached circumcision or spoke in favor of Jewish practices, others at least perceive
him as being two-faced, saying one thing and doing another. [43] In several places he notes
the criticism that he "pleases men" (1:10) [44] or that he too has approved circumcision (5:
11). [45] These are not implausible criticisms, inasmuch as Paul admits that he is extremely
flexible in his preaching (1 Cor 9: 19-23). [46]
Similarly, we consider the ambiguity in the explanations for his visit to Jerusalem in 2:1-10.
First he insists on his seeming independence from Peter and the Jerusalem church (1:16-17)
in terms of both his authority and his doctrine. Yet when he finally goes to Jerusalem,
although he claims to go because of a revelation from God (2:2), he lays before the
Jerusalem leaders his gospel expressly for the purpose of receiving their commendation
(2:2b). Ambiguity extends as well to Paul's role and status, for while he may claim to be an
"apostle," he is by his own admission the runt of the litter, one untimely born (1 Cor 15:7),
who does not deserve to be called an apostle because he persecuted the church (1:13; cf. 1
Cor 15:9). Even on a bodily level, the one who preaches power, holiness, and life is
ambiguous. He alludes to a bodily ailment which could in the eyes of some belie that he
has a gospel of power or the words of life (4:13-14). [47] In this regard, he noted how the
Galatians originally saw through the ambiguity of his bodily ailment and "received him like
an angel of God" (4:14). Yet his appearance, role, and status, and even his doctrine, are
ambiguous. He may take oaths to clear up ambiguity (1:20), [48] but that only indicates it
already exists. [49]
Besides warning his churches about the ambiguity which exists between the way people
present themselves and what they really are, Paul indicates that this discrepancy is probably
a matter of deceit and masquerade. For example, in 6:3 he issues a general warning: If
anyone thinks he is some- thing, when he is nothing, he deceives himself (cf. 1 Cor 3:18;
8:2). In Galatians, the pillars of Jerusalem are clearly ambiguous to Paul, if not actually
deceitful hypocrites. To begin with, Paul regularly characterizes them as those who seem "
be someone truthful or holy, viz., "those of repute" (2:2) and those who "are reputed to be
something" (2:6-7,9), ostensibly bearers of the truth of the gospel of God. Their "repute,"
960

however, rests on "externals," which in this cosmos are ambiguous at best and potentially
deceitful: their eyewitness experience of Jesus and their direct access to his words and
teaching. Externally, then, they are impeccable and far more qualified to be leaders than
Paul, who presumably never knew the earthly Jesus and even persecuted his followers. But
Paul accuses Peter of hypocrisy (2: 13) for his behavior at table in Antioch (2: 11-14). [50]
In this vein, Paul himself is trying to make a counterargument that the Judaizers, who
ostensibly preached a doctrine of "perfection" which comes with the full keeping of the
Law, [51] are themselves masquerading as good while they are evil. Urging an external action
such as circumcision, which they claim will result in "glory," in reality they would destroy
faith. Urging the observance of "days, months, seasons, years" (4:11), they effectively deny
the importance of Jesus' faith and God's grace. Arguing the perfection which comes with
the Law, they would cheat the Galatians of freedom and put them back in bondage (4:8-9).
We will return to these texts when we examine them under the rubric of witchcraft
accusations, but 3:1 and 1:8 deserve to be considered here as examples of this masquerade.
Paul, of course, does not consider his Judaizing opponents to have the truth which they
claim when he exclaims, "Who has bewitched you?" (3:1). They have passed off as coin of
the realm "another gospel" which is not just worthless but costly. And in his remark about
"an angel from heaven preaching a gospel contrary to what we preached" (1:8), Paul would
seem to be alluding to the popular myth that Satan disguised himself as an angel of light to
seduce Eve, [52] a midrash which stands behind his accusations about the "superapostles" in 2
Cor 11:3, 13-15. [53] It is correct to take Paul ''as an angel of God" (4:14), but not other
preachers, who are only demons in disguise. [54]
Body. Douglas is at her best in urging us to consider the body and its "roper care as a
symbol of the social body. [55] Where there is strong social control (strong group), Douglas
expects this to be replicated in strong bodily control. We argued above that Paul sees the
world strongly organized and structured, which suggests that he should also urge strong
bodily control and discipline. This is verified in Galatians 5-6, where Paul emphatically
indicates that freedom from the Law of Moses does not mean lawlessness: Do not use
your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh" (5:13). Lest the Galatians not understand him
correctly, he delivers a conventional moral exhortation which proscribes certain vices and
prescribes specific virtues. [56] Paul understands this catalog in terms of walking in the
Spirit" (5: 16), i.e., as a way of life based on clear, strong rules of conduct. [57] Inasmuch as
his aim is strict control of the flesh," the dominant virtue is selfcontrol" (egkrateia, 5:23). [58]
Douglas argues that when there is concern for social boundaries, entrances and exits, there
will be corresponding concern to control the entrances and exits of the physical body, in
particular the sexual, oral, ocular, and aural orifices, which are entrances into the body's
interior. [59] In the list of vices of "the flesh" to be avoided, Paul typically identifies in 5:1920 those vices which involve the body's orifices, which should be controlled and guarded to
prevent such evil and pollution:
genitals: fornication, impurity, licentiousness
961

mouth: drunkenness, carousing, anger

eye:

sorcery, envy, jealousy

In Galatians, Paul focuses on two bodily orifices, the mouth and the genitals. In regard to
the mouth, he typically expresses the Semitic preoccupation with mouth vis--vis speech,
i.e., concern with false witness, foolish speech, and wrong doctrine. He would regulate the
mouth so that only certain things should be spoken, while other things should never be
spoken. He proscribes "another gospel" (1:8-9), which would advocate circumcision or
observance of the Law of Moses. And he prescribes other speech: (a) his correct gospel
(1:11; 5:2); (b) public reproach of those who in any way advocate the other gospel, either
reproach of Peter (2:11,14) or sarcastic rebuke of the Galatians themselves (3:1-5; 4:20);
and (c) speech in the Spirit (4:6).
The crisis over circumcision, moreover, focuses on the regulation of the genital orifice.
Ironically, Paul might seem to stand for no control over this orifice because he eschews
circumcision, but that would be misleading. He rigorously demands control of the genital
orifice represented by circumcision, only he demands that it not be circumcised. Just as
Jesus' insistence that hands need not be washed did not mean that he had no purity
concerns, only concerns quite different from those of the Pharisees, so Paul's insistence that
the male genital orifice not be circumcised is also a purity concern and a demand for strict
control of that orifice.
In general, Paul urges "self-control," which implies bodily discipline. The reader
should not mistake Paul's emphasis on spirit versus flesh and freedom versus slavery to
imply that he does not urge bodily control. Eschewing circumcision and other Jewish
bodily practices, he nevertheless enjoins a bodily control corresponding to the social
structures that he claims characterize the true covenant of God.[60]
Sin. Given the strong sense of "purity" or social organization, one would expect to
find sin defined in terms of the violation of society's (and God's) basic laws. [61] This is the
case in 5:18-21, where the "works of the flesh" which are condemned are basically the Ten
Commandments, transgression of which will cause the loss of eternal salvation: "I warn
you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of
God" (5:21; cf. 1 Cor 6:9-10).
Yet in this ambiguous world where evil is attacking the boundaries of society and
body alike, sin is also perceived as pollution which corrupts the body totally. [62] In this
regard, the doctrine and practice of the Judaizers are a "leaven" which is corrupting the
purity of God's people (5:9); and so their sin is clearly seen as a pollution which must be
expelled. [63]
Cosmology. This cosmos is perceived in anthropomorphic [64] terms. Paul no doubt
understands Israel's God as a person, who is Father (4:4-6), benevolent (3:2-5), merciful
(1:13-16), and just (6:7-8). But Paul's cosmos is also disturbingly full of other personal
agents of power who work harm against us, as the following list indicates:
962

1. Satan (1 Cor 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 12:7; 1 Thess 2:18)

2. principalities (1 Cor 15:24; Rom 8:38)
3. rulers (1 Cor 2:6,8)
4. power/exousia (1 Cor 15:24)
5. power/dynamis (1 Cor 15:24; Rom 8:38)
6. tempter (I Thess 3:5)
7. elements (Gal 4:3,9)
8. beings that by nature are no gods (Gal 4:8)
9. spirit of the world (1 Cor 10:10)
10. demons (1 Cor 10:20-21)
11. god of this age (2 Cor 4:4) [65]
But in this world there also exists a dominant evil force that is perceived
anthropomorphically. [66] This personal Evil stands behind Paul's charge that someone is
bewitching the Galatians (3: 1) or someonemight be disguising himself as an angel of God
(1 :8). Although individuals are personally responsible for their own behavior and will be
judged accordingly (6:8), yet personal Evil exists in this world; it attacks and seduces
people, thus causing their ruin as surely as if they had broken all of God's commandments.
For example, Paul speaks of himself as personally attacked by Satan. On one
occasion "Satan hindered me from coming to you" (1 Thess 2: 18); elsewhere he describes
how a thorn afflicted him, "a messenger from Satan, to harass me" (2 Cor 12:7). Paul also
speaks of his churches as attacked by Satan, i.e., by "superapostles," agents of Satan (2 Cor
11: 13-15). Paul readily concedes that he and the churches must regularly strive "to keep
Satan from gaining the advantage over us" (2 Cor 2: 11), an Evil figure who still tempts
them (1 Cor 7:5) and who works to keep people from believing the gospel (2 Cor 4:4).
In Galatians, Paul speaks of an Evil which enslaves humans (4:9), bewitches them
(3: 1), and through its earthly agents "persecutes him who is born according to the spirit"
(4:29), not just Isaac but those of his lineage (see 1 Thess 2: 14-15). In short, Paul tends to
ascribe all the evils of this world to the agency of this Evil figure: [67] sickness, death, and
especially "heresy." [68]
This world, moreover, is dualistically perceived. Just as everything in the cosmos is
dualistically divided into two kingdoms (see purity, ritual above), so the two kingdoms are
963

themselves ruled respectively by two figures at war with each other, God and Satan.
Apropos of the warring cosmic powers, some scholars would invite us to consider the
doctrine of the "two spirits," the yeser hattob and theyeser hara, [69] which are at war in
human hearts, a suggestion which I find plausible in light of the current discussion. This
cosmos, then, is a battlefield of warring spirits, many of whom are disguised as angels of
light.
Suffering misfortune. In a dualistic world where Evil attacks the boundaries and bodies of
God's covenant people, it goes without saying that the world seems quite unjust at times.
Paul himself serves as an excellent example of the cosmic injustice whereby the good
suffer, despite their being God's chosen ones who are blessed with grace and Spirit. A
prophet called by God (1:13-16), an apostle legitimated byJerusalem (2:7-9), Paul is
nevertheless held in low regard and even viciously attacked. [70] But then, such has always
been the lot of God's true prophets, [71] as it was of Isaac at the hands of Ishmael (4:29).
Beyond the fact that Paul interprets the cross of Jesus as the official boundary line between
the covenants of Moses and Abraham, Paul glories in this cross and the symbolic suffering
attached to it as an indication of where he stands. For identification with Christ crucified
would indicate that he not only knows the truth about Jesus [72] but also bodily imitates him
(6:17), thus accepting suffering as proof that he is being attacked unjustly by Evil, God's
enemy.
Douglas's basic anthropological model, therefore, offers a secure and enlightening
device for examining the worldview of Paul in the Letter to the Galatians. It indicates in
more formal terms what is often intuitively grasped: (a) that Paul perceives himself under
constant attack, even as he engages in interminable conflict with others; (b) that Paul
perceives his world in radically dualistic terms, in which he contrasts his position with that
of the Judaizers; (c) that Paul perceives the cosmos at best as ambiguous, but actually as a
dangerous world of deceit and masquerade; and (d) that Evil is attacking and polluting his
churches. The strength of this model has allowed us to examine texts which might not at
first seem important and to see a coherence in Paul's perceptions. This first part of our
inquiry, then, has given us a basic framework in which to consider more formally the
accusation made in 3:1 and implied in 1:8.
II. Accusations of Bewitchment
Let us be clear from the beginning about what we are discussing when we speak of
"witchcraft accusations." We are not interested in black cats and broomsticks, but in the
social phenomenon of an accusation that one's enemy or rival is either the devil himself or
someone acting under the devil's power. We focus, then, on the accu.sation of demon
possession ("witchcraft accusation ") with attention primarily on the function of such an
accusation.
Douglas offers a more specific model for studying bewitchment in Galatia with her
consideration of three elements needed to understand "witches" and "witchcraft
accusations": (a) specific characteristics of witchcraft societies, (b) the anthropological
definition of a "witch," and (c) the function of accusations of witchcraft or bewitchment. [73]
964

Specific Characteristics. Douglas identifies six specific characteristics of what she

calls "witchcraft societies," i.e., societies where accusations of witchcraft possession tend to
occur. These are clearer definitions of the cosmology described in part one of this study.
1. External Boundaries Clearly Marked. [74] As we noted above, in Galatians there is
no ambiguity in Paul's mind about who is "in" and who is "out"; for the primary ritual in
which Paul engages is boundary building and maintenance.
2. Confused Internal Relations. [75] In the churches of Galatia, there appears to be a
vacuum of leadership, for Paul founded his churches and moved on, a practice which was
his general custom. The letter mentions no one by name, no Stephanas whom he might
appoint as regent in his absence (1 Cor 16:15-16), no Euodia and Syntyche, who might be
the owners of the house churches where Christians met (Phil 4:2-3). In this vacuum we
learn of "teachers" whose credentials are never mentioned, much less refuted. Even Paul's
own claims to leadership are contested here. Although claims and legitimacy might be
tested and validated in Jerusalem (2:6-9), there is apparently no mechanism in Galatia to
sort out the competing claims of Paul or his opponents.
The letter, moreover, indicates considerable confusion on Paul's part about roles and
statuses in the church. Paul knows of leaders at Jerusalem, "pillars" (2:9), but he slurs their
authority by describing them as those who only "seem" to have legitimate status. Paul
would like to be considered "an apostle," a term which many in Galatia would deny to him
(1:10). [76] When he tells the story which functions as the foundation of his role and
authority (1:15-16), Paul presents himself using language from the prophetic tradition. This
suggests that he perceives himself in some way as a "prophet," a category which should
command respect, but which is very hard to test or to define. There are apparently
"teachers" in Galatia, but we know nothing about their status or legitimation. [77] Paul, then,
disputes the authority and status of all others, even as his own is contested. The internal
relations in these churches, then, are extremely confused.
3. Close and Unavoidable Interaction. [78] Granted Paul is physically absent from the
Galatian churches, yet he remains in close contact with them, just as he was with Corinth
and Philippi. Because of his claim to be their founder and father, he cannot and will not
abandon them; and so he chooses to remain in close interaction with them, even as this
means unavoidable and constant friction.
Although it is not clear how Paul comes to know about the crisis in Galatia, from his
other letters we get the sense of a person in very close contact with his churches, especially
when absent. As he himself says, although absent he is present (1 Cor 5:3) in a variety of
ways:
(a) through his messengers to them (1 Cor 4:17; 16:10; 1 Thess 3:2), who return to him
with news (1 Thess 3:6; 2 Cor 7:6,13-14);
(b) by oral reports from members of the churches (1 Cor 1:11);
(c) by letters from them (1 Cor 7:1);
965

(d) by his own letters to them. [79]

The contact, then, is intense and unrelenting.
4. Tension-Relieving Techniques Underdeveloped. Techniques for distancing,
regulating, and reconciling these conflicts are little developed here. While in Jerusalem
issues may be decided, at Antioch Paul resorts to name-calling. Paul accuses Cephas of
insincerity, although by his own admission he himself is a "Greek with Greeks and a Jew
with Jews" (1 Cor 9: 19-21); and according to his critics at Galatia, he seems to be less than
consistent about circumcision (1: 10; 5: 11). It is especially in regard to the conflicting
claims of Paul and the Judaizers that we recognize how underdeveloped are the techniques
for settling leadership and doctrinal disputes in Galatia. There is no formal procedure for
regulating this intense competition, adjudicating rival claims, or even separating the parties.
5. Weak Authority. [80] The ability to control effectively the behavior of people
in Galatia is evidently unavailable to Paul. It is presumed that Paul's rivals cite to their own
purposes the only authority, the Scriptures, [81] just as Paul construes the Scriptures in his
own idiosyncratic way. But who is right? And how can the Galatians know? Paul's
authority, moreover, is being fiercely attacked by those who denigrate his "apostleship,"
point out his inconsistencies, and highlight his distance from Jerusalem and its traditions. It
is not incidental that, whereas Paul previously laid before Cephas and theJerusalem pillars
his doctrine, "lest somehow I should be running in vain" (2:2), he does not appeal
to Jerusalem to adjudicate the present crisis. Implicit in this stance is Paul's
sense of his own weak authority in Jerusalem as well as his attack on its alleged authority
(2:6,8). [82]
It is noteworthy that when Paul's "apostleship" comes under attack (1:1), he
redefines the legitimacy of his position by describing his role as that of a "prophet." [83] Like
Jeremiah and Isaiah he claims to be "set apart even from his mother's womb" (1:15). God,
not Jesus, "called him" and gave him a revelation to proclaim (1:16). Nowhere else in his
letters does he pass himself off as a prophet like the prophets of Israel. But here, where he
is denied one role ("apostle"), he searches for another label to explain his status and
authority ("prophet"). Could he establish this, he would be superior to any "apostle"
commissioned by mere men or confirmed by them, for he would be a "prophet" to whom
God has directly revealed the truth. The very confusion of roles Paul assumes (apostle,
prophet) indicates the weakness of authority in the conflict.
6. Intense, Disorderly Competition. Accusations of demonic possession tend to
occur in groups characterized by intense, disorderly competition for leadership. Consider:
Paul versus the pillars atJerusalem (2:1-10), Paul versus Cephas at Antioch (2:11-14), Paul
versus the teachers in Galatia. At every level, we find competition and rivalry. Although
scholars tend to focus primarily on the doctrinal issues in Galatians, the fact is that Paul
here, as elsewhere, remained in an intense state of competition with rival preachers, a
competition which was regularly disorderly. [84] This should not be ignored when trying to
understand his theology in its historical context.

966

Definition of Witch. A "witch" is best defined in terms of the misfortune such a

person is said to have caused and the context in which such misfortune appears. [85] In the
Gospels, accusations of witchcraft occur in the context of illness (Matt 12:22-29// Luke
11:14-22), whereas in Galatians the context is doctrine and practice.
According to Douglas's model, witches appear in groups dominated by a dualistic
point of view which sees the world divided into polarized opposites. Those who consider
themselves to be in the correct place and to take the correct stand perceive themselves
under attack, especially from hostile outsiders who would corrupt and poison them. And
this wickedness is experienced on a cosmic scale: those who immediately threaten them are
from the Evil One. The "witch," then, is a figure who sums up all of the above senses of
dualism, cosmic evil, and hostility to the group.
From her analyses, Douglas would describe the "witch" as having the following
characteristics: [86]
1. The witch is one whose inside is corrupt;
2. the witch has a perverted nature, a reversal of the way things ought to be; he or she is
a deceiver whose external appearance does not betray his or her inner nature;
3. if the witch is seen as living within the group, he or she attacks the pure and innocent
by life-sucking or by poison.
Although Paul does not formally name or describe his Judaizing opponents, there are bits of
evidence in the letter which indicate that he perceives them as "witches."
Corrupt Insides: Paul understands the covenant with Moses (Law/works) as
producing a "curse" (3:10-11); it was, after all, given "because of transgressions" (3:19),
and according to the Scriptures "all were consigned to sin" (3:22) who live in it.
Conversely, no one can be justified before God and by the Law (3:11; 2:16). It follows,
then, that the Judaizers who urge a return to this covenant must themselves be sinners still,
under God's "curse," and definitely not justified before God. Paul infers, then, that they are
still in sin; in anthropological terms, their insides must be corrupt.
Perversion/ Deception: In some way, Paul links the Judaizers in Galatia with "false
brethren" in the Jerusalem church (2:4) in that both of them urge slavery. They are "false"
because they deliberately claim to be zealous for God, and to belong to the disciples of
Jesus, but in Paul's view they are enemies of God's plan in Christ and are only
masquerading as brothers of God's family. They urge, moreover, a doctrine and a practice
which they claim leads to t perfection or glory. They indeed seem to argue their case from
God's holy Word, but from a part which Paul describes as a temporary covenant given
because of sin to sinners, a part of the Scriptures which Paul calls a "curse." They, however,
exalt that part of the Scriptures as necessary and desirable, disguising the curse and slavery
of their covenant under the lie of perfection and glory. They are deceivers, only pretending
to be Christians; in fact, they are enemies of the cross of Christ, which for them is a
967

stumbling block (5:11), that achieved nothing. They are really disciples of Moses, while
only pretending to be disciples of Jesus.
Poison/ Life-Sucking: In one telltale remark, Paul describes the false doctrine of the
Judaizers as "leaven," even a pinch of which necessarily corrupts the whole batch of pure
flour (5:9). Paul understands "leaven" here as a metaphor for wickedness and pollution, just
as he does in 1 Cor 5:8. [87] This doctrinal "leaven " corresponds to the witch's poison which
corrupts and kills when ingested (see Matt 16:11-12).
As regards "life-sucking," we should attend to two phenomena in Galatians. Paul
himself is concerned that he be "full" and not "empty" (kenos), and so he goes to Jerusalem
to lay his own doctrine before the church lest he have created "emptiness" in people (2:2;
cf. 1 Cor 15:10,14,58). He, then, is not empty, nor does he cause others to become empty,
sucked of life. Yet his portrayal of the rival teachers implies that they cause emptiness, the
loss of previous life in the soul. As Paul argues in 3:3, by urging circumcision and the Law
the Judaizers would cause people who "began in the Spirit" (an inside full of God's life) to
"end in the flesh" (a shell of a person). They are causing the loss of Spirit, leaving their
disciples empty, sucked of life. As Paul says, if they observe "days, months, seasons, and
years," then he has labored "emptily"; for the Galatians shall have lost all that Paul would
have put in them (4:10-11) through the life-sucking of the preachers of "another gospel."
Function of Witchcraft Accusations. There are two "witchcraft accusations" in
Galatians, 3:1 and 1:8. As was noted in the beginning of this study, baskanein in 3:1 is the
technical term in the classical Mediterranean world for "bewitch." The anthropological
model we are using suggests that we understand this term as a genuine accusation by Paul
that the churches in Galatia have been attacked by an Evil figure, Satan or one of his
minions.
The proper labeling of 1:8 depends on our appreciation of a clearer use of this
language in 2 Corinthians 11. Paul accused the "superapostles" who preach at Corinth in his
absence of being demon-possessed. [88] He drew an analogy between Satan's seduction of
Eve and the seduction of the holy Corinthian church by these rival preachers (11:3). Noting
that Satan is wont to disguise himself as an angel of light (11:14), he argues that the same
tactic is used by Satan's servants, the "superapostles": "So it is not strange if his servants
also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness" (11:15).
An "angel of light," then, is a fundamentally ambiguous figure, who might be God's
messenger, [89] but who might just as well be Satan in disguise. I suggest that Paul's remark
in Gal 1:8 about an "angel from heaven" who' preaches "a gospel contrary to that which we
preached to you" should be unmasked as a deceiving "angel of light," i.e., as Satan in
disguise. The unfortunate fact for Paul is that such a gospel has already been taught
at Galatia by teachers whom he considers to be capable of "bewitchment." Gal 1:8, then,
contains no positive reference to "angelic revelations," [90] but rather a warning of a potential
and even actual deception by a disguised "angel of light," after the analogy of 2 Corinthians
11. Gal 3:1 and 1:8, then, should be formally labeled "witchcraft accusation." But what is
their function?
968

According to Douglas's profile, the characteristic ritual of this kind of social group
focuses on discernment and expulsion of the witch. The primary act in the process of
grappling with the attacking Evil is the accusation of witchcraft or demonic possession; for
by the accusation, the threat to the group's boundaries is revealed and its cause, the witch, is
identified and can be expelled. This points up an important feature we discussed earlier,
viz., that this is a highly competitive society marked with strong rivalry and strong
ambition. In this context, the accusation functions to denigrate rivals and pull them down in
the competition for leadership. [91] Such accusations, in short, are idioms of social control. [92]
It would be an understatement to say that Paul is fiercely jealous of his turf. In letter
after letter, either he states his policy of "making it my ambition to preach the gospel not
where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another's foundation" (Rom 15:20); or
he complains bitterly about those who have crossed the line and come on to his turf to
poach: "We will not boast beyond limit, but will keep to the limits God has apportioned
us....For we did not overextend ourselves. ...We do not boast beyond limit, in other's
labors...boasting of work already done in another's field" (2 Cor 11:3, 13-16). [93] It was on
this occasion that Paul accused the "superapostles" at Corinth of being Satan in disguise (2
Cor 11:3,13-15). For the sake of peace, Paul may say that he welcomes Apollos' labors at
Corinth and considers him his equal in the ministry (3:5), but there is no doubt that Paul
planted the seed (3:6) and laid the foundation (3:10). Anyone who would build on that
foundation had better look out (3:12-14)! Whereas theologians focus on these conflicts in
terms of conflicting theologies, a social science model urges us to see them as evidence of
an intense sense of rivalry, competition, and even jealousy.
Galatians fairly bristles with a sense of rivalry and competition. We recall Paul's
competition with the Jerusalem pillars, at whose "repute" he sneers (2:6). We do not know
the particulars of the division of the apostolate between Cephas/Jewish mission and
Paul/Gentile mission in 2:6-8; but there are hints that Paul came to understand it as a
territorial division, which implies a certain exclusivity. He appears reluctant to go on Peter's
turf, i.e., to Jerusalem (1:16-24); and the text suggests Paul's discomfort at anyone's coming
on to his turf, be it the advent of certain men from Jerusalem (2:12) or the coming of rival
teachers into his churches in Galatia. [94]
Paul's Antioch becomes an occasion of conflict with the arrival of "outsiders" (2:1112). The apparent harmony which Cephas and Paul shared was shattered when "men from
James," presumably "the circumcision party," occasioned a division between them. On one
level, the conflict is over eating-rituals, which symbolize theological issues. The use of
social science modeling draws attention to Paul's sense that his turf is violated by these men
from James, whose theology he considered evil. Cephas' presence at Antioch then becomes
a scandal. While stopping short of calling Cephas a witch, Paul accuses him of "insincerity"
or hypocrisy (2:13).
But the most intense rivalry occurs between Paul and his opponents for leadership
over the churches of Galatia, which are his turf. I do not doubt that Paul reacted to their
very coming on to his territory in the same way he took offense at "certain men [who] came
from James" (2:12). Their coming, of course, was linked with their preaching "another
gospel." Yet to judge from the intense apology for his own role and status, Paul seems to
969

have perceived and experienced their coming as an explicit attack on his leadership in a
church from which he was absent. The issue is not just theology but rivalry as well. A
mirror reading of his statements about himself suggests the shape of the polemic, either real
or perceived. He is no genuine apostle (1:1); he hides the truth from these churches and so
is a false teacher (5:11; 1:10); his ties with the mother church are tenuous at best, implying
that he is a maverick figure (2:1-10) with perhaps a defective doctrine. The fact that Paul
hastens to find alternate legitimation of his authority and role (1:13-16) suggests a strategy
of one-upmanship [95] in the rivalry with the Judaizers.
If apology serves to deflect their criticism of Paul, his own "witchcraft accusations"
against these rival preachers function offensively to reduce their status. The Judaizers are
those who not only "pervert the gospel" (1:7), but they act as disguised agents of the devil
by "bewitching" the poor Galatians (3:1). Yet it is not enough to identify the Judaizers as
demons in disguise, for such evil persons should then be expelled from the church; Paul
explicitly calls for this when he cites Gen 21:10: "Cast out the slave and her son" (4:29).
Witchcraft accusations might serve one of two purposes, either expulsion or
fission. It does not appear that Paul quit the fight, abandoned the churches in Galatia and
moved on-not fission! [97]If we may judge from the Epistle to the Galatians, his strategy was
clearly to expel the witches and so to purify the holy group. History does not tell us the
outcome of the struggle, but presumably Paul succeeded.
[96]

Summary and Conclusions

1. From this study, it would seem correct to identify Paul's cosmological perspective
as strong group/low grid, a viewpoint characteristic of a highly conflictual, competitive
society. Douglas's group/grid model allows us to view individual items in Galatians in a
way which highlights their social content and function. Her model, moreover, suggests how
the individual anthropological categories replicate the basic cosmological viewpoint and
offer a coherent view of Paul's world.
2. Anthropological perspectives on "witchcraft accusations" offer a cross-cultural
model for appreciating not only specific verses in Galatians (1:8; 3:1) but also the
cosmological background against which such accusations are plausible and functional.
3. The test of any model lies in its ability to account plausibly for the most data and
to suggest fresh insights and new lines of inquiry. In this regard Douglas's modeling seems
particularly successful. Not only does it give us a valid procedure for understanding the
accusations of demon possession in Paul and other writings in the NT, it also suggests a
fresh way of investigating Paul's basic cultural viewpoint.
4. The model, moreover, allows Western critics of Paul to enter his world more
sensitively both in terms of the language about demons and bewitchment and in regard to
the conflictual, competitive social dynamics, areas for which conventional methods of
exegesis are not suited. As such, this type of investigation should be seen as a welcome
addition to the scholar's repertory of methods and skills.
970

5. Whereas typical scholarly readings of Galatians tend to focus on the theological

issues argued, the nitty-gritty social world of Paul rarely gets addressed. The current use of
anthropological models fills that void and offers important insights into the social problems
and dynamics of Paul and the early church. The issue is not the reduction of the NT from
theology to sociology, but a fuller reading of the theology embedded in a lively social
context.

[1]

See Jesus the Witch, Calling Jesus Names, forthcoming from the Polebridge Press.

[2]

Luke 11: 14-23-Accusations of Demonic Possession, an unpublished paper delivered at the Westar
Institute's Social Facets Seminar, Notre Dame University, October 1986.
[3]

Witchcraft Accusations in 2 Cor 10-13: Paul in Social Science Perspective, Listening 21 (1986) 160-70.

[4]

H. D. Betz, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970) 131.

[5]

Cf. Deut 28:54; see Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (2d ed.; New York: St. Martin's,
1966) 346; also F. C. Fensham, "The Good and Evil Eye in the Sermon on the Mount," Neot I (1967) 51-58.
For anthropological analysis of the evil eye, see John M. Roberts, "Belief in the Evil Eye in World
Perspective," The Evil Eye (ed. Clarence Maloney; New York: Columbia University, 1976) 223-78; and David
Gilmore, "Anthropology of the Mediterranean Area," Annual Review of Anthropology II (1982) 197-98.
[6]

The evidence may be conveniently found in J. Moulton-G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 107; LSJ, 310; and Betz, Galatians, 131; see also
Plutarch, Quaest. Conv. 680C-683B inPlutarch's Moralia (LCL; 16 vols; ed. F. C. Babbitt; Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University; London: Heinemann, 1969) 8. 416-32.
[7]

Suggestions have been made in the classical commentaries on Galatians in this regard, but with no further
attention to what type of cosmos is implied or how such an accusation functions; see J. B. Lightfoot, Saint
Pauls Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan and Co., 1881) 133; Ernest DeWitt Burton, A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1921) 144.
[8]

Although we are concerned in this study with accusations of demon possession, a full consideration of the
typical NT perception of the activity of demons would necessarily entail a study of exorcisms, a phenomenon
described in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts; see James M. Robinson, The Problem of History in
Mark (London: SCM, 1957) 21-42; and Paul W. Hollenbach, "Jesus, Demoniacs, and Public Authorities: A
Socio-Historical Study," JAAR 49 (1981) 567-88. See also Everett Ferguson, Demonology of the Early
Christian World (New York: Mellen, 1984); and Walter Wink, The Powers: Vol. 2, Unmasking the
Powers (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 1-68.
[9]

E.g., Daniel Arichea and Eugene Nida, A Translation Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Galatians (Stuttgart:
United Bible Societies, 1976) 53.
[10]

Anthropologists concern themselves with contemporary societies; their field studies are based on them and
verified by them. In dealing with ancient societies, contemporary social science models can still be useful, in
particular in dealing with "witchcraft" in the Mediterranean world. The "evil eye," although found in
contemporary Mediterranean cultures, is indeed ancient; see Dov Noy, "The Evil Eye," EncJud (New York:

971

Macmillan, 1972) 6. 997-1000; Bernhard Kotting, "Boser Blick," RAC 2 (1954) 474-82. It is a perspective of
the world which has persisted over centuries. Certainly, specific cultures develop variations of this general
phenomenon in terms of place and time, which would be important to sort out given time and space. It is
nevertheless legitimate to work at a higher level of abstraction in which specific differences disappear as one
attempts to grasp a more general understanding of the typical features and general function of a phenomenon
such as "witchcraft accusations," which is the procedure in this study. Although the model used here is based
on Mary Douglas's field work in Africa, other scholars call attention to the specifically Mediterranean
character of a "witchcraft accusation"; see George Murdock, Theories of Illness (Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh, 1980) 21-23, 57-71. Douglas, moreover, attempted to synthesize data from various cultures and
present a cross-cultural model of witchcraft, in which the particularities of time and place are omitted in favor
of a more generalized theory. The present use of Douglas's material relies on this acceptable social science
procedure.
[11]

Besides the many papers using Douglas's materials that have been presented at the conferences of the
American Academy of Religion, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the Catholic Biblical Association,
there is an increasing body of literature using her modeling: e.g., with regard to Judaism, Jacob Neusner, The
Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1973); with regard to early Christianity, Bruce
Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1986); see most recently, SocialScientific Criticism of the New Testament and Its Social World (Semeia 35; ed. J. H. Elliott; Decatur, GA:
Scholars, 1986).
[12]

See Peter Brown, "Sorcery, Demons, and the Rise of Christianity from Late Antiquity into the Middle
Ages," Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations (ed. Mary Douglas; New York: Tavistock, 1970) 17-45;
Margaret Pamment, "Witch-hunt,"Theology 84 (1981) 98-106.
[13]

Her own exposition of grid and group is found in Natural Symbols (New York: Pantheon, 1982)56-60;
other scholars have schematized it more completely for use by students of religion; see, e.g., Sheldon Isenberg
and Dennis Owen, "Bodies Natural and Contrived: The Work of Mary Douglas," RSR 3 (1977) 5-8; and
especially Bruce Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 13-44. See also James V.
Spickard, Relativism and Cultural Comparison in the Anthropology of Mary Douglas: A Meta-Theoretical
Evaluation of Her Grid/ Group Theory (unpublished dissertation; Berkeley, CA: Graduate Theological Union,
1984).
[14]

E.g., Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 37. From my work, I would suggest that
Romans, Ephesians, and the Pastorals reflect an attempt at consensus and thus desire a high grid response.
[15]

This is spelled out in greater detail in my article, "The Idea of Purity in Mark's Gospel," Social-Scientific
Criticism, 91-128.
[16]

Douglas, Natural Symbols, 111-12.

[17]

This digest comes from Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 15, and is explained by him
in detail later on pp. 37-44.
[18]

Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966) 35.

[19]

What "purity" looks like concretely in temple and synagogue may be found in my "The Idea of Purity in
Mark's Gospel," 92-105.
[20]

See Michael Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul (SNTSMS 53;
Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985).

972

[21]

On Paul's perception of "dirt" which pollutes the holy body of Christ, see my essay, Body Language in I
Corinthians: The Use of Anthropological Models for Understanding Paul and His Opponents, SocialScientific Criticism, 138-49.
[22]

On the conceptual differences between these two types of covenants, see Ronald Clements, Abraham and
David (SBT 2d ser. 5; Naperville: Allenson; 1967); and M. Weinfeld, "Covenant, Davidic, IDBSup, 188-92.
[23]

Just as Paul can map out the Christian purity system with precise lines and boundaries, the same can be
said of Judaism in Paul's time; see R. Heiligenthal, "'Soziologische Implikationen der paulinischen
Rechtfertigungslehre im Galaterbrief am Beispiel der 'Werke des Gesetzes.' Beobachtungen zur
IdentiUitsfindung einer frilhchristlichen Gemeinde," Kairos 26 (1984) 38-53.
[24]

See David Lull, The Law Was Our Pedagogue: A Study of Galatians 3:19-25, JBL 105 (1986) 485-86.

[25]

On the "faith of Jesus," see D. W. B. Robinson, "'Faith of Jesus Christ'-A New Testament
Debate." Reformed Theological Review 29 (1970) 71-81; George Howard, "Notes and Observations on the
'Faith of Christ,'" HTR 60 (1967) 459-65; Richard Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ (SBLDS 56; Chico, CA:
Scholars, 1981) 157-76; Luke T. Johnson, "Romans 3:21-26 and the Faith of Jesus." CBQ 44 (1982) 77-90;
and my The Passion According to Luke (New York: Paulist, 1985) 156-92.
[26]

Ordinarily, Paul describes the members of his churches as "the saints" (see Wayne Meeks, The First Urban
Christians [New Haven: Yale University, 1983] 85-86), a term missing in Galatians, perhaps an indication that
he sees them now polluted by false doctrine and practice and so not worthy of the name of "saints." On Paul's
concept of "purity" or holiness, see Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran. 52-78.
[27]

The best discussion of the whole issue of "righteousness" is currently found in John
Reumann, Righteousness in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 41-90.
[28]

From my study of the importance of unity as the equivalent of purity in 1 Corinthians ("Body Language in
1 Corinthians: The Use of Anthropological Models for Understanding Paul and His Opponents," SocialScientific Criticism. 139-42, 144-45, 157-58), 1 would include in the discussion of "purity" in Galatians Paul's
desire for a unified, i.e., homogeneous church: one people, one doctrine, one practice.
[29]

Although he is not using social science modeling, E. P. Sanders persuasively discussed "transfer" language
in Paul's theology, indicating in a series of dualisms the former and subsequent states of those whom God has
saved in Christ; see hisPaul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 4-9.
[30]

See James D. G. Dunn, "Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3:10-14)," NTS 31 (1985)
524-27.
[31]

See C. K. Barrett, "The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians," Essays on
Paul (Philadelphia; Westminster, 1982) 154-70.
[32]

An "apocalyptic" view of the dualisms in Galatians is offered by J. Louis Martyn, "Apocalyptic Antinomies
in Paul's Letter to the Galatians," NTS 31 (1985) 412-20.
[33]

Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 38.

[34]

Paul also claims that the Judaizers are trying to build boundaries as well, boundaries which will "shut you
out" of God's kingdom (4: 17).

973

[35]

See Hans von Campenhausen, "Ein Witz des Apostels Paulus und die Anfange des istlichen
Humors," Neutestamentliche Studien fuir Rudolf Bultmann (BZNW 21; ed. W. Eler; Berlin: Topelmann, 1954)
189-93.
[36]

This is based on the purity rule in Judaism that bodily unwholeness means unholiness; see my "Symbolism
in Mark 7," to be published shortly; apropos of the uncleanness of eunuchs Lev 22:24; Deut 23:1.
[37]

Betz, Galatians, 270.

[38]

Castration, moreover, literally means that one's line is cut off from the covenant of Israel, a profound curse;
as such it renders one unclean or "cut off." See b. Yebam. 24a and -75b; Sabb. 152a; Sola 26a; Sanh. 36b; see
also Bruce Malina, The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox,
1981) 133.
[39]

See Goran Forkman, The Limits of the Religious Community (ConNT 5; Lund: Gleerup, 2) 171, 177.

[40]

See Johannes Behm, "anathema," TDNT I (1964) 354-56; Betz, Galatians, 50-51.

[41]

See Malina, The New Testament World, 51-60. Apropos of Paul, see my article, "The Forensic Defense
Speech and Paul's Trial Speeches in Acts 22-26," Luke-Acts. New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical
Literature Seminar (ed. C. H. Talbert; New York: Crossroad, 1984) 211-13.
[42]

It is interesting to note that in Matthew's Gospel, even as followers of Jesus are put on guard against the
alleged "hypocrisy" of others who pray in public, they are themselves told to deceive others with regard to
fasting: "When you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by men"
(6:17). The very emphasis on "secrecy" in Matt 6:1-18 suggests a strategy of deception.
[43]

The classical explanations run as follows: (a) either he allowed Jews to be Jews (1 Cor 9: 19-23), a position
seemingly affirmed by the agreement with Peter that there is a mission to the Jews (Gal 2:7-8); or (b) he gave
the Galatians only the first and easy elements of the Christian torah, with the substance and perfection yet to
come, a charge which he admits in 1 Cor 3: 1-2.
[44]

Paul boasts that he does in fact strive to "please all men" in 1 Cor 10:33, whereas in 1 Thess 2:4 he insists
that he does not "please men"; yet see I Cor 9: 19-23.
[45]

Can Luke be totally wrong in Acts 16:3 when he narrates that Paul wanted Timothy to be circumcised in
view of his future work with synagogue-Jews?
[46]

On this, see D. Carson, "Pauline Inconsistency: Reflections on I Corinthians 9:19-23 and Galatians 2:1114," Churchman 100 (1986) 6-45.
[47]

This is, of course, comparable to the remarks of Paul in 1 Cor 2:1-5, that he preached on God's power in
weakness, God's wisdom in words of foolishness. To the elitist Corinthians, he never ceases to boast of
infirmities, afflictions, dishonors, even bodily ailments (see 1 Cor 4:9-13; 2 Cor 4:8-9; 11:23-29; 12:7),
probably to deflect the depreciation of him because of these phenomena.
[48]

See Paul Sampley, "'Before God, I Do Not Lie' (Gal 1.20). Paul's Self-Defense in the Light of Roman
Legal Praxis," NTS 23 (1977) 477-82; see also Saul Liebermann, Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York:
Jewish Theological Seminary, 1942) 115-42.
[49]

A revealing indication of his ambiguous speech can be found in the on-again, off-again travel plans
mentioned in 2 Cor 1:16-20.

974

[50]

For an excellent recent study of that incident, see James D. G. Dunn, "The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2: 1118), JSNT 18 (1983) 3-57.
[51]

Apropos of Gal 3:3, see Ernst Baasland, "Persecution: A Neglected Factor in the Letter to the
Galatians," ST 38 (1984) 139.
[52]

See Nils A. Dahl, "Der Erstgeborene Satans und der Vater des Teufels (Polyk. 7:1 und Joh
8:44)," Apophoreta (BZNW 30; Ernst Haenchen Festschrift; ed. W. Eltester; Berlin: Topelmann, 1964) 70-84.
[53]

See my article, "Witchcraft Accusations in 2 Cor 10-13," 169.

[54]

Another example of ambiguity and masquerade involves Paul's understanding of the God who is not
deceived by disguises (6:7), but reads human hearts; see my article, "Eschatology in 1 Thessalonians: The
Theological Factor in 1:9-10; 2:4-5, 4:6 and 4:13-18," SBLASP (1980)
[55]

Natural Symbols. 65-81; see also my "Body Language in 1 Corinthians," 129-70; and my "Symbolism in
Mark 7."
[56]

See Betz, Galatians. 281-83.

[57]

On the moral importance of "walk," see Georg Bertram, "pateo." TDNT 5 (1967) 940-45; and Gustaf
Wingren, ".Weg,' 'Wanderung' und verwandte Begriffe," ST 3 (1949) 111-23.
[58]

See Walter Grundmann, "egkrateia." TDNT 2 (1964) 339-42; this should be seen alongside Paul's own
boast that he disciplines his body (1 Cor 9:24-27).
[59]

Douglas, Natural Symbols. 70-71; idem, Purity and Danger. 123-24.

[60]

This is most clearly stated in Rom 6: 15-22.

[61]

See Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 32.

[62]

Ibid., 40; see Douglas, Natural Symbols. 35-36, 99-106.

[63]

See Forkman, The Limits of the Religious Community, 147-49.

[64]

See Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 32-33, 40.

[65]

See Barbara Hall, Battle Imagery in Paul's Letters: An Exegetical Study (unpublished dissertation; New
York: Union Theological Seminary, 1973) 132-60; for a current bibliography on this topic in Pauline studies,
see Wink, Naming the Powers. 6 n.1.
[66]

In his recent article ("Apocalyptic Antinomies," 417) Martyn only hinted at a sense of cosmic warfare
between two Spirits; Douglas's suggestions urge the exegete to complete a sketch of Paul's cosmos, indicating
how pervasive is his sense of the world attacked by an Evil Spirit; see Rom 5:14,17, where "Death" is
personified as "reigning" over all humanity.
[67]

This perspective is common in the literature of Qumran; see James H. Charlesworth, "A Critical
Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3:13-4:26 and the 'Dualism' Contained in the Gospel of John," John and
Qumran (London: Chapman, 1972) 77-89; see also P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial (SUNT 6;

975

Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969); and H. W. Huppenbauer, De, Mensch zwischen zwei
Welten (ATANT 34; Zurich: Zwingli, 1959).
[68]

It is, of course, part of the cosmology of NT writers to attribute disease to Satan (Luke 13:16), as well as
death, inasmuch as Satan entered Judas to work Jesus' death (Luke 22:3). Satan is credited with stealing the
word-seed from human hearts, even as it is planted (Mark 4:15); see Joel Marcus, "Mark 4:10-12 and Markan
Epistemology," JBL 103 (1984) 558, 561-62, 566.
[69]

See Frank C. Porter, "The Yecer Hara: A Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin," Biblical and
Semitic Studies (Yale Bicentennial Publications; New York: Scribner's, 1902) 108-9; W. D. Davies, Paul and
Rabbinic Judaism (New York: Harper & Row, 1948) 20-28; Herbert May, "Cosmological Reference in the
Qumran Doctrine of the Two Spirits and in Old Testament Imagery," JBL 82 (1963) 1-7; Joel Marcus, "The
Evil Inclination in the Epistle of James," CBQ 44 (1982) 606-21.
[70]

Baasland ("Persecution," 140-43) discusses the phenomenon of the passio iusti in the Scriptures, applying
it to Paul's remarks about his own suffering in Gal 5:11 and 6:12.
[71]

Graham Shaw (The Cost of Authority [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982] 41) speaks of the prestige of
persecution, which identifies the one attacked as clearly on God's side.
[72]

The central symbol of the crucified Christ is itself an instance of the sense of the unjust sufferings of the
righteous; the cross, moreover, is singularly ambiguous in Paul's world, for it is a "curse" to some, but grace
to others; see Max Wilcox, "'Upon the Tree'-Deut 21:22-23 in the New Testament," JBL 96 (1977) 85-99.
[73]

See Douglas, Natural Symbols. 99-124; idem, Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations. esp. xiii-xxxviii;
also Mary Douglas, "Techniques of Sorcery Control in Central Africa," Witchcraft and Sorcery in East
Africa (ed. John Middleton and E. H. Winter; London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963) 123-41; idem,
"Witch Beliefs in Central Africa," Africa 37 (1967) 72-80; see also Kai T. Erickson, Wayward Puritans (New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966); and E. E. Evans-Pritchard,Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the
Azande (Oxford: Clarendon, 1937).
[74]

Douglas, Natural Symbols. 113.

[75]

Ibid. 111-14, 119.

[76]

The dispute over Paul's "apostleship" is not unique to Galatians, a fact which suggest that Paul lived in a
state of controversy over his own role and status (see 1 Cor 9:2; 15:8-11).
[77]

See 1:6-9; 3:1-2,5; 5:17; 5:7-12; 6:12-14; see J. Louis Martyn, "A Law-Observant Mission to Gentiles: the
Background of Galatians," SJT 38 (1985) 313-17.
[78]

Douglas, Natural Symbols. 109-14; see also Lucy Mair, Witchcraft (New York: World University Library,
1969) 207-13.
[79]

On Paul's letters and his presence, see Robert W. Funk, "The Apostolic Parousia: Form and
Significance," Christian History and Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967) 249-59.
[80]

Douglas, Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations. xviii; idem, Natural Symbols. iii.

[81]

See esp. Martyn, "A Law-Observant Mission," 317-24.

976

[82]

On the ambiguity of Paul's status in Jerusalem, see Rom 15:30-31. For a more theological interpretation of
Paul's conflict with Jerusalem, see Lloyd Gaston, "Paul and Jerusalem," From Paul to Jesus (ed. Peter
Richardson and John Hurd;Waterloo, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University, 1984) 61-72.
[83]

See Jacob Myers and Edwin Freed, "Is Paul Also Among the Prophets?," Int 20 (1966) 44-49; and Beda
Rigaux, The Letters of St. Paul (Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1968) 56-58. See also my article, "The Forensic
Defense Speech," 219-20.
[84]

In this context, Hall's dissertation (Battle Imagery in Paul's Letters. 8-12) becomes all the more important
as it thoroughly informs us of the plethora of terms for battle and conflict found throughout Paul's letters. Her
work and this project ideally complement each other.
[85]

Although Gal 3:1 can be understood in terms of the emic notion of "evil eye," this study validly introduces
etic notions like "witch" to allow the scientific observer to bring more .interpretative materials to bear; on the
distinction between emic and etic, see Marvin Harris, "History and Significance of the Emic/Etic
Distinction," Annual Review of Anthropology 5 (1976) 329-50.
[86]

Douglas, Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations. xxvi-xxvii; idem, Natural Symbols. 113.

[87]

On the metaphorical meaning of "leaven," see Hans Windisch, "zyme, " TDNT2 (1964) 903-6; see also my
article, "Body Language in 1 Corinthians," 138-40. This meaning is found in both Jewish and Greco-Roman
literature.
[88]

A full exposition of this argument may be found in my "Witchcraft Accusations in 2 Cor 10-13," mentioned
in n. 3.
[89]

In 4:14, this "angel of light" is none other than Paul himself.

[90]

See Betz, Galatians. 53.

[91]

Douglas, Witchcraft Accusations and Confessions. xviii; idem, Natural Symbols. 114.

[92]

See Mair, Witchcraft. 203, 216; and Esther Goody, "Legitimate and Illegitimate Aggression in
a West African State," Witchcraft Accusations and Confessions. 211.
[93]

See C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York: Harper &
Row, 1973) 262-68.
[94]

Although he puts on an amicable face, Paul is no less upset by rival preachers at Philippi (see 1:15-17); see
my Christ is Community (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1985) 215-18.
[95]

For clear examples of this trait, see Phil 3:3-6 and 2 Cor 11:21-23.

[96]

Douglas, Witchcraft Accusations and Confessions. xviii; idem, Natural Symbols. 114.

[97]

Yet one wonders about Paul's plans in Romans 15 to leave the churches over which he was so protective;
he says that he is uncertain whether his offering is acceptable in Jerusalem, perhaps suggesting a deep sense
of how out of place he had become in the East. This is all speculation, but Douglas's suggestion of "fission"
might be a fresh way to analyze the abrupt departure of the jealous Paul from his churches in the East. He, of
course, would not be the first to "go out"; see the "secessionists" in 1 John.

977

BODY LANGUAGE IN 1 CORINTHIANS:

THE USE OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL MODELS FOR
UNDERSTANDING PAUL AND HIS OPPONENTS
Jerome H. Neyrey
Weston School of Theology

ABSTRACT
Mary Douglas offers a model for correlating attitudes to the physical body and
corresponding structures in the social body. The physical body is a symbol of the
social body: tight bodily control replicates strong pressure to conform to group
norms, whereas weak bodily control (even emphasis on "spirit") denotes weak
social systems and weak pressure for control. According to 1 Corinthians Paul
demands strong control of (1) bodily orifices (the genitals, chs 5-7; the mouth for
eating, chs 8, l0-11; the mouth for speaking, chs 12-14); (2) bodily surfaces (ch
11); (3) bodily structure (head and members, chs 11-12) and (4) bodily discipline
(ch 9). The pneumatics appear to Paul to urge weak bodily control in accord with
their ideology of individualism and freedom. Douglas' ideas on bodily control
offer a cross-cultural model for appreciating Paul's strong sense of custom,
structure and order in his churches, a model applicable not only to 1 Corinthians,
but to all of his letters.
INTRODUCTION
Of all of Paul's letters, 1 Corinthians is thoroughly and intensely concerned with
BODY. 1. There is great concern for bodily orifices: (a) chs. 5-7 deal with the
genitals, a major bodily orifice; (b) chs 8-10 and 11 are concerned with another
orifice, the mouth for eating; and (c) chs 12-14 are likewise concerned with the
mouth, under the rubric of tongues and prophecy. 2. Bodily surface is discussed
in 11:2r-16, whether this refers to veils on the head or to hair styles. 3. The body
as the prime image of the church is developed in ch. 12. 4. Head and feet are used
to describe the relational position of God to Jesus (15:25-28); head also describes
Jesus' relation to members of his body (11:3). 5. Discipline of an athlete's body
serves as a model for Paul's advice in 9:24-27. 6. Whether in the resurrection
there will be a body and what that body will be like are questions that are treated
in ch 15. 7. Unified body members may "greet one another with a holy kiss"
(16:20). BODY, then, is a constant point of reference in 1 Corinthians.
978

Yet in 1 Corinthians, there are two levels of issues. Particular bodily issues are
discussed: whom one may not marry (ch 5), with whom one may not have sexual
intercourse (ch 6), whether to marry and stay married (ch 7), what foods one may
eat (chs 8-10), how the surface of one's head must be covered and which "heads"
one should obey (ch 11). Besides these particular bodily issues, there is concern
in 1 Corinthians for more general issues relative to the social body. The
designation of the group as a "body" implies many things about membership,
roles, structure, order, and authority in that same body. It is important, then, that
we attend to the specific issues affecting the physical body as well as the more
social view of the group implied by its designation as a body.
The understanding of BODY in 1 Corinthians is complicated for us because
Paul's position on specific body issues is not universally shared by the Christians
at Corinth. The following brief synopsis indicates the range of diversity on
specific, practical issues concerning BODY in that group.
Issue
incest

(ch 5)

fornication (ch 6)
19)
idol meat (chs 8,10)
28-29)

Non-Pauline Position

Pauline Position

boast (5:2)

horror (5:6-7)

freedom (6:12-13)

pollution (6: 15-

freedom (10:23)

restraint (10:24,

head surface (ch 11)

no restraint

restraint (11:16)

tongues & prophecy

(ch 14)

no restraint

restraint (14:26-32)

This synopsis indicates that the Pauline position inclines to bodily control and to
a sense of the group as influencing the individual, whereas the non-Pauline
position favors little bodily control and a strong sense of individualism.
Whether in fact at Corinth Paul's opponents on one issue are the same as his
opponents on another issue is a problem that cannot be addressed at this point.
Paul's own reaction, however, to the series of issues and problems noted above is
known. And, as I hope to show, it is coherent and consistent. The same claim can
be made in regard to the opponents' position-at least from Paul's perception of it.
Two attitudes to body, then, are found in 1 Corinthians, attitudes which are
antithetical in terms of the degree of control appropriate to the body.
979

I. BODY LANGUAGE AND CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY

I propose to study BODY issues and imagery in 1 Corinthians from the
perspective of the noted British anthropologist, Mary Douglas. In a series of
studies she has put forth a hypothesis about BODY as a diagram and symbol of
the social system.
Building on the celebrated essay of Marcel Mauss (1973:70-88), Douglas states
that the body is a medium of expression: "The social body constrains the way the
physical body is perceived" (1973:93). For bodily technique is learned social
behavior; the social system determines how the body is used as a medium of
expression of perceptions, norms and values. Strong pressure from the social
group will be replicated in corresponding strong control of the physical body.
According to Douglas, moreover, the body is a microcosm of the social body, a
symbol of society:
The body is a model which can stand for any bounded system. Its boundaries can
represent any boundaries which are threatened or precarious. The body is a
complex structure. The functions of its different parts and their relation afford a
source of symbols for other complex structures (1966:115).
Not only is ordering and structuring of the physical body a replication of social
structuring, control of the physical body is an expression of social control:
Bodily control is an expression of social control-abandonment of bodily control
in ritual responds to the requirements of a social experience which is being
expressed (1973:99).
For example, concern with bodily orifices replicates social concerns:
Interest in its (the body's) apertures depends on the preoccupation with social
exits and entrances, escape routes and invasion. If there is no concern to preserve
social boundaries, I would not expect to find concern with bodily boundaries
(1973:98-99; see 1966:124).
As we noted earlier, just this issue of control or non-control of the body
distinguishes Paul and his opponents at Corinth.
It is the purpose of this essay to gather the remarks of Douglas on BODY and to
see how they form a model for interpreting the body language of 1 Corinthians.
We can observe in great detail what Paul says about bodily control and his
980

consistent attention to bodily issues. As Douglas suggests, Paul's observations on

bodily control replicate his opinions on social control; and so we are dealing not
only with his remarks to specific issues, but with his cultural view of the way
Christian groups should be structured. The previous essay on "Purity" is apropos
here, for by examining Paul's bodily rules, we gain access to his idea of purity,
the ordering principle which is replicated in specific bodily rules. Let us now
investigate how Douglas' remarks may constitute a cross-cultural model which
can be used to investigate Paul.
In her book, Natural Symbols, Douglas developed a model for assessing the
degree of control or non-control over a social body. Social systems exert varying
pressure on a given social unit to conform to societal norms. The degree of this
pressure Douglas identifies in her jargon as "group"; it may be STRONG or
WEAK. a) STRONG "group" indicates a high degree of pressure to conform to
group norms as well as a strong degree of pressure for order and control. Where
there is strong group pressure, the body is imaged as a controlled or bounded
system; entrances and exits are guarded; order and discipline are valued;
personality is dyadic and group values predominate. b) WEAK "group" indicates
a low degree of pressure to conform to societal norms. Where this pressure is
weak, the body is not perceived as a controlled system; entrances and exits to the
body are porous; norms and discipline are not valued; personality is very
individualistic. It is here that Douglas would expect to see emphasis on free spirit
rather than on regulated body, fostering of trance and ecstasy which betoken
weak bodily control.
Douglas' model includes a second variable, "grid," which refers to the degree of
assent given to the norms, definitions, and classifications of a cultural system.
High "grid" indicates a high degree of fit or match between the individual's
experience and societal patterns of perception and evaluation. The individual will
perceive the world as coherent, consistent and intelligible in its broadest reaches.
Low "grid" indicates a low degree of fit or match between an individual's
experiences and societal patterns of perception and evaluation. When "grid" is
low, the world is largely incomprehensible.
These abstract variables can be more concretely expressed. Social groups have
cosmologies, that is, views of the world and one's place in it. Using broad and
inclusive terms from the field of cultural anthropology, Douglas investigates six
aspects of cosmology: 1) purity, 2) ritual, 3) personal identity, 4) body, 5) sin, 6)
spirit possession. The following chart [1] summarizes comparative features of
societies distinguished according to group and grid variables.

981

WEAK GROUP/HIGH GRID

STRONG GROUP/HIGH GRID

Purity. pragmatic attitude toward purity; pollution Purity. strong concern for purity; purity rules
not automatic
define and maintain social structure

Ritual. used for private as well as personal ends Ritual. a society of fixed rituals expressing the
when present; ego remains superior to the ritual internal classification system of the group;
process; condensed symbols do not delimit society ritual symbols perdure in all contexts of life

Personal Identity. individualism; pragmatic and Personal Identity. a matter of internalizing

adaptive
clearly articulated social roles; dyadic
personality; individual subservient to society

Body. viewed instrumentally, as means to some Body. tightly controlled; a symbol of life
end; self-controlled, treated pragmatically

Sin. basically caused by ignorance or failure, hence Sin. violation of formal rules; focus on
viewed as stupidity or embarrassment with loss of behavior rather than internal states of being;
face, with individual responsible
individual responsible for sin

Spirit Possession. not dangerous

Spirit Possession. dangerous; either not allowed

or tightly controlled & limited to a group of experts

WEAK GROUP/LOW GRID

STRONG GROUP/LOW GRID

Purity. anti-purity posture

Purity. strong concern for purity, but the inside

of the physical & social body is under attack;
pollution present, and purification rituals
ineffective

Ritual. anti-ritual; effervescent and spontaneous

Ritual. a society of fixed rituals, which are

focused on group boundaries; great concern to
expel pollutants from the social body

982

Personal Identity. no antagonism between society Personal Identity. located in group membership,
& self, but the old society from which individual not in the internalization of roles, which are
emerges is seen as oppressive; self &/or social confused; dyadic personality
control low; highly individualistic

Body. irrevelant; life is spiritual; purity concerns Body. social and physical bodies are tightly
absent, but body may be rejected or freely used
controlled, but invaders have broken through
bodily boundaries; not a symbol of life

Sin. a matter of personal ethics and interiority

Sin. a matter of pollution; evil is lodged within

the individual & society; sin is like a disease
deriving from the social structure; internal state
of
being
more
important
than
adherence to formal rules, which are still
important

Spirit Possession. approved, even welcomed; no Spirit Possession. dangerous: a matter of

fear of loss of self control
demonic possession; evil

A. COSMOLOGY OF A CONTROLLED BODY (strong "group")

1. Purity In a strong group situation, there is strong concern for the purity of the
social and physical body. As we saw in the previous essay, purity refers to the
ordering, classification, and structuring of the social world; it means an
avoidance of all that violates that sense of order. In terms of the physical body, it
means identification of and distancing of oneself from "dirt" (spittle, feces,
menses) which socially means concern over persons and events that do not fit the
group's ideals and sense of order, viz., things that violate its rules. [2]
2. Ritual There are fixed rituals for determining where the lines and boundaries
of the ordered system lie and who is properly within the body and who is not,
that is, concern over boundaries of the body. And there are ritual symbols which
express the internal classification system of the group. Every body has a place
and knows where it is; hence boundaries which define location are carefully
drawn and entrances and exits into carefully defined space are guarded.
Authority, status, and roles are clear and clearly expressed.
3. Personal Identity Identity here is non-individualistic and group-oriented.
One's role and place in the group is assigned and learned.
983

4. Body Social and physical bodies are rigidly controlled. Along with a strong
sense of purity goes a protection of the body from threatening pollutions.
5. Sin This is defined not simply as violation of rules but as pollution which
invades the body and threatens to pollute its pure insides. Moral norms are well
defined and are socio-centric, that is, learned from the group and measured in
those terms.
B. COSMOLOGY OF AN UNCONTROLLED BODY (weak "group")
1. Purity There is a reactionary or weak concern for purity. This implies
considerable tolerance for diversity and plurality.
2. Ritual Again there is a rejection of strong entrance rites into the group or of
clear boundaries around it. There tends to be a weak internal classification
system, implying fluid social status. Effervescence and spontaneity are valued
here.
3. Personal Identity Society is seen as oppressive; assigned roles are rejected.
Personal and social control are devalued, and so individualism is pronounced.
4. Body The body is not perceived as a bounded system and there is no sense of
protecting its orifices and its purity. The body is not a symbol of life, for life is
spiritual.
5. Sin This is a matter of personal ethical decisions and interiority, rather than a
violation of socio-centric norms.
From these contrasting cosmologies, we can describe contrasting attitudes
to the body. Where there is strong "group" pressure, the body is perceived as a
bounded system, strongly controlled. It is considered as a "holy" or "pure" body
and so it guards its orifices (eyes, ears, genitals) and maintains firm and clear
boundaries. Its concern for order and clarity make it fear unconsciousness,
fainting, or any loss of control; it will tend to take a negative view of ecstasy or
spirit possession. It is a regulated and harmonious body whose individual parts
are disciplined and coordinated for group action, as in the case of an athlete.
Where "group" pressure is weak, the body is not perceived as a bounded
system nor is it strongly controlled. There is no fear of pollutants around the body
and so there is no control over its orifices and boundaries, viz., what is sees,
hears, to whom it joined in marriage or sexual union. Porosity to its environment
is accompanied by a celebration of freedom of movement and spontaneity of
984

individual members of the body. Trances and spirit possession are looked upon
favorably.
In trying to show the replication of attitudes between physical and social
bodies, Douglas suggests a series of contrasting terms: 1) formal/informal, 2)
smooth/shaggy, 3) structured/unstructured, and 4) ritualism/effervescence. A
controlled physical body may be described as formal; in social terms this means
"social distance, well-defined, public and insulated roles" (1973:100). An
uncontrolled physical body is informal, which means "role confusion,
familiarity, intimacy" (1973:99-100).
Smooth/shaggy express much the same as formal/informal. Smooth is
appropriate where group ideals are clear, where roles are defined, and where
ladders of authority or pyramidal structures exist.Shaggy denotes individualism,
criticism of the system, less commitment to role or structure
(1973:102). Structured/unstructured are terms borrowed from Talcott Parsons.
In highly structured situations there is a minimum of possible responses other
than the ones required by the norms of the situation. The less highly situations
are structured, the .more informality is valued, the greater the tendency to
abandon reason and follow crazes, and the more license for bodily expressions of
abandonment (1973:102-103).
Douglas' primary interest in Natural Symbols is the decline of ritualism in
society. And so she elaborates her theory of social pressure (or "group") to see
how ritualism fits into a cultural system (see "ritual" in the cosmologies
above). Douglas proposes a test case regarding bodily control or abandonment in
the study of spirit possession among three African tribes. She notes a spectrum of
opinion on the issue: how spirit possession, trance, etc. may be strongly
controlled (ritualism) and how they may be uncontrolled (effervescence,
1973:133-35). According to Douglas, the conditions for ritualism occur: 1) when
there is an articulated and controlled social structure, 2) when interpersonal
relationships are subordinated to public patterns of roles, and 3) when society is
differentiated and exalted over the self. The conditions for effervescence occur:
1) when there is a lack of articulation in social structure and weak control, 2)
when little distinction is recognized between public and interpersonal relations,
and 3) when society is not differentiated from self (1973:10.3-104). Ritualism is
symbolized in differentiation of roles, sacramental attitudes to rites, distinctions
between inside and outside, and a high value placed on control of
consciousness. Effervescence is expressed in diffused symbols, preference for
spontaneity, absence of interest in magic or sacraments, and the absence of
control over consciousness.
985

In summary, Douglas suggests a model for studying BODY.

1. According to her "group" variable, a physical body may be
either controlled (strong "group") or uncontrolled (weak "group") by social
expectations and norms.
2. Strong "group" may be described as smooth, formal, structured,
and ritualized; weak "group" is shaggy, informal, unstructured, and tending
to effervescence.
3. The control of the physical body mirrors social control, which shows itself
according to the cosmologies noted above.
4. And so, bodily control expresses the concerns of the social body; the former is
a microcosm of the latter. We can use the patterns of bodily control as a way to
understand the overarching values and ideology of the society which promotes its
social rules.
We can take this model and now apply it to the perceptions about BODY in 1
Corinthians. The hypothesis of this study may be clearly stated. 1. There are two
different views of physical and social body atCorinth, Paul's and his opponents'.
2. Pauls viewpoint of the physical body is that of a highly controlled body: it is a
bounded system, to be strongly controlled; it is a pure or holy body and so must
guard its orifices; its concern for order and clarity make it fear unconsciousness
or loss of control; it takes a negative view of spirit possession; it is a regulated
and harmonious body, whose parts are clearly differentiated and coordinated for
the good of the whole body; no individual member is allowed to disrupt the
body's disciplined functioning. This view of the physical body replicates a view
of
the
social
body
marked
by
strong
"group"
pressure, formality, smoothness, structured features,
and ritualism.
3.
The opponents view the body as an uncontrolled organism; there is no fear of
pollutants around the body and so there is no need for control of the bodily
orifices. Accordingly the bodily boundaries are porous. Porosity is accompanied
by celebration of freedom of movement and spontaneity. Trances and spirit
possession are looked upon favorably. This view of the physical body replicates
the perception of the social body as marked by weak "group"
pressure, informality, unstructured features; hereeffervescence flourishes. 4.
The contrasting attitudes. to control of the body in 1 Corinthians are an important
source of information about the conflict in Corinth and offer a clearer window
into the issues which divided Paul and his adversaries there. 5. The attitude
toward BODY, moreover, affords a source of consistence and coherence in
evaluating the perspective of Paul and his adversaries.
986

Strong "group" pressure:

Strong control of social body
Strong control of physical body

Weak "group" pressure:

Weak control of social body
Weak control of physical body

II. BODILY ORIFICES

A: The Sexual Orifice
As we noted earlier, Paul's concern with BODY focuses on three areas: 1) bodily
orifices, b) bodily surfaces, and c) bodily imagery. In 1 Cor 5-7 Paul is concerned
with sexual problems and issues, i.e. with the sexual orifice of the body and with
the proper/improper crossing of that orifice. The first issue is the problem of the
incestuous marriage in 5:1-8. [3] Two attitudes are immediately evident: a) some
are "puffed up" approvingly over the marriage (5:2a) but b) Paul recoils in horror
at it (5:1,2b). Bodily control is scorned by some and expected by others.
The key to Paul's viewpoint is contained in the metaphorical remarks about
leaven in 5:6-8. The incestuous marriage in the Christian group is like leaven,
which is perceived as a pollutant threatening the body. "Leaven means "the old
leaven of malice and iniquity" (5:8); if it enters the pure batch of flour it will
"leaven the whole lump" (5:6), i.e. pollute it. On the contrary, Christian believers
are called to be a new lump, holy, pure, and unleavened in virtue of Christ's
passover sacrifice (5:7-8). No polluting impurity should be found in the midst of
the Corinthian "saints." Paul, then, judges from the standpoint of purity and
pollution.
The incestuous marriage is a pollution of such magnitude that it is "not found
among the pagans" (5:1). This pollution threatens the social body, as the "leaven"
metaphor [4] in 5:6-8 makes clear. It also pollutes the Christian partner; for, when a
man joins himself to a woman, "the two become one flesh" (6:16). If one partner
is impure and polluting, the other partner will be corrupted. This corrupting
sexual union, therefore, represents an illicit crossing of the sexual orifice; the
holy social body of the church and the individual Christian body is threatened.
The strategy in this crisis is clear. The threatened social body must expel the
pollutant by excommunicating him (5:2b-5, .7, 13). As Douglas predicted,
concern to regulate the sexual orifice replicates concern for the integrity of the
social body's boundaries and entrances. Implied in this strategy is the expectation
that excommunication from the group may pressure the offending Christian
partner to break up the incestuous marriage. The "one flesh" (the marriage) must
be destroyed; the individual must reestablish the holiness of his own body and
guard
its
sexual orifice. The depolluted Christian may then re-enter the holy group (5:5;
987

see 2 Cor 2:5-7). The control of individual bodily orifices replicates the group's
concern with its social boundaries, as Douglas has suggested (1973:98-99).
In the treatment of fornication in 6:12-20 we discover that two views of body are
again operative. According to some, the body is uncontrolled: 'All things are
lawful to me" (6:12). For them, the body is neutral [5] -it is not a bounded structure
whose inside is pure and must be guarded. This is brought out in the analogy
made between eating food and fornicating. "Food is made for the stomach"
(6:13); that is, any food may cross the orifice of the mouth and enter the stomach;
eating is a neutral action which has nothing to do with purity. Likewise with
fornication, the sexual orifice is neutrally conceived; anything may pass across it;
any sexual union is permitted. Like eating, carnal intercourse is perceived as
having nothing to do with purity or boundary violations.
For Paul, however, two different principles are operative. First, the physical body
of the believer is not neutral but holy. "The body is not meant for immorality but
for the Lord and the Lord for the body" (6:13); the body, in fact, is a "member of
Christ" (6:15). Like the Christian social body (3:18), the physical body is
expected to be a container of holiness: "Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit
within you" (6:19). Second, the body is a bounded and controlled system. All is
not "lawful" for it, for some things may "enslave" it (6:12), and so bodily control
is an appropriate strategy. Paul is concerned with the body's purity and so there
are corresponding rules controlling the orifices of the body and regulating what
crosses them.
As we saw in 5:1-8, when a holy person is joined to an unclean partner, the
resulting "flesh" is corrupted. In the case of sexual commerce with a prostitute,
the resulting "flesh" is polluted (6:16). The example of prostitution serves to
explain the evil of fornication: it is a sexual union which is seen as polluting the
Christian partner. Alternately when a person is joined to the Lord who is holy, the
resulting union is holy (6:17). Fornication, like prostitution, is perceived as a
pollution, for the resulting body cannot be holy; its pollution makes impossible a
holy union with Christ.
The concern in 6:12-20 is with the pure interior of the body. Every other sin is
committed "outside" the body, that is on the outside of the boundary which
maintains the purity of the inside. Such sins, while evil, are not called pollutions
or abominations. But sexual sins are perceived as attacking one's own body
(6:18); that is, they cross the boundary or orifice and threaten the holy inside.
This implies that illicit sexual commerce is a pollution that occurs within the "one
flesh" which results from the joining of the two. In the case of fornication,
prostitution, and incest, the sexual orifice and the organism's boundary should be
988

vigorously guarded and not illicitly crossed. The result will be a pollution of the
body's interior. [6]
Rules for the body and its orifice, moreover, are appropriate because for Paul
individual bodies are not neutral or free but controlled. "Your body is not your
own; you were bought with a price" (6:19). Freedom, even freedom for the body,
may be the shibboleth of some at Corinth, but that is not Paul's viewpoint. He
prescribes control of the body and its orifice in 5:1-8 and 6:12-20, a view in
keeping with his perception of the body as a holy system which needs to be
guarded.
The issue of marriage taken up in ch-7 has further bearing on the sexual orifice of
the body. The ideal is stated repeatedly: absolute non-crossing of the sexual
orifice is highly desired either in virginity or celibacy.
1. "It is well not to touch a woman" (7:1). [7]
2. "It is well to remain single as I do" (7:8).
3. "He who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).
Implicit in this posture of guarding the sexual orifice is a view of sex as
somehow inherently polluting.
The rationale for this is hinted at in 7:32-35. The unmarried person is perceived
as joined to the Lord, totally concerned "how to please the Lord" (7:32) and "how
to be holy in body and spirit" (7:34). Married persons are "divided" in concern
for the Lord and their spouses (7:34b). Dividedness [8] is inherently destructive of
a body, a point which will be made evident in the discussion of ch 12 which
follows. And it is implied that loyalty is a limited good; as much as is given to a
spouse, that much cannot be given to the Lord. Married persons may be holy in
spirit, according to Paul, but being holy in body as well is problematic for them
(7:34-35).
Paul's permission for sexual intercourse is but a pragmatic concession. He will
allow a lesser evil to avoid a greater pollution: "Because of the temptation to
immorality, each man should have his own wife" (7:2). Or, if a man's "passions
are too strong, and it has to be, let him marry" (7:36). The ideal would be to
remain celibate and virginal so as to be totally concerned with the Lord and to be
holy in body and spirit.

989

The ideal of sexual abstinence cannot be maintained. Hence sexual union is

permitted. But it is wrapped in controls and subject to numerous regulations.
First, there will not be promiscuous crossing of boundaries or orifices: "Each
man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" (7:2). Second,
sexual relations are themselves subject to control: "The wife does not rule over
her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his
own body, but the wife does" (7:4). A third rule is given in 7:5-6. It is not
permitted to refuse sexual intercourse "except by agreement for a season," in this
case to do something truly holy, such as "devoting yourself to prayer." The reason
for this limited concession is fear of pollution, i.e. "lest Satan tempt you through
lack of self-control" (7:6). Purity concerns lead to guarding of bodily orifices and
to regulating the proper crossing of that orifice; that is what "self-control" means
in this context. Protection of boundaries is appropriate to a body perceived in this
way.
Paul's teaching on divorce (7:10-16) repeats much of his concern for orifices and
his perception of the body as a bounded, holy system. (1) On the one hand, he
categorically prohibits divorce (7:10-11, 27-28). When two bodies join and
become one flesh, that "one flesh" is a whole or holy body. And like all bodies it
must resist unwarranted entrances into it as well as the threat of being rent
asunder. This rule, although ascribed to the Lord (7:10), is coherent with Paul's
viewpoint of a regulated body. (2) Even in the case of exogamous marriages
(where two pagans married and one subsequently became a Christian), Paul does
not act according to the prescriptions in Ezra 9:1-2, 11-15 and try to break those
marriages (7:12--13). [9] Divorce is perceived as a worse pollution than the mixed
marriage. But pollution is the appropriate concept here, for the issue is one of
purity and pollution. Why not break this marriage? Paul says that the pagan
(unholy) partner may be "made holy" by the holy partner and so the "unclean
children" become "holy" (7:14). This is a reversal of the leaven image of 5:6-8,
but it clearly indicates that pollution language governs Paul's discussion of
marriage and divorce. (3) Yet as great a pollution as divorce is for Paul, he
permits it (7:15-16). Why? The unbelieving partner desires to separate, that is,
the partner who is unholy. The holy inside of this "one flesh is already polluted in
some way; the union is already split. Now Paul's concern is to preserve the
holiness of the believing member: "Let them separate" (7:15). A higher law of
purity is operative; a lesser impurity (divorce) is tolerated in fear of a greater
pollution (apostasy, loss of Christian membership). As in the case of the
offending eye, hand or foot in Mt 5:28-30, let the boundaries be redrawn to
exclude the offending pollutant. In this case the divorcing person is seen as
amputated from the holy divorced person; and the body's integrity is maintained.
B: The Mouth (for eating)
990

A second orifice, the mouth, becomes the focus of the discussion in 1 Cor 8-11.
The problem concerns eating and what mayor may not cross the orifice of the
mouth. To appreciate Paul's perspective, let us first examine 10:14-22, where his
viewpoint regarding body and mouth is clearest.
It is important to note the principle laid down in 10:14-22. Rules are given
concerning eating: some food is prescribed (vv. 16-18) and some food is
proscribed (vv. 19-22). The orifice of the mouth is regulated! But what principle
determines the food which mayor may not pass the oral orifice?
The permissible food is the "holy" food of the Eucharistic meal. The cup of
blessing which Christians drink is "participation in the blood of Christ" and the
bread which they break is "participation in the body of Christ" (v. 16). [10] The
Eucharistic food is permitted to cross the boundary of the mouth and to enter the
body; in doing so it reinforces the body's purity. The image here is like the
"leaven" in 5:6-8. If what goes in is good, it does not contaminate but strengthens
purity; but if what is ingested is corrupting like leaven, it pollutes the holy inside
of the body and so it is proscribed. The Eucharist is inherently holy; it is
prescribed food. But there is another kind of food which is proscribed, as Paul
notes: "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot
partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons" (10:21). Foods
sacrificed to idols certainly are not "holy"; and in view of Paul's view of the body
as a bounded system threatened by pollution, such foods are a pollutant which
will corrupt the individual because they will mean being "partner with demons"
(v. 20). Paul once more perceives the issue on the basis of purity and pollution.
The logic here is similar to that in chs 5-7. By eating and drinking at a cultic
table, a person has koinonia with the cultic lord (10:16, 20) and becomes "one
body" with the lord (10:17). This is analogous to the "one body" which is formed
in sexual commerce: the two become "one flesh" (6:16). Even with virginity, the
person who joins him/herself to the Lord forms a new unity with the Lord (6:17).
This "one body" may be holy or unclean depending on whether the partner to
whom one joins oneself is clean or unclean (see 6:15-16). Incest and fornication
involve a koinonia which corrupts; Christian marriage results in a koinonia which
sanctifies. So with foods. Sharing the body and blood of Christ
means koinonia with the holy Lord; and this "one body" is holy. But sharing the
cup and table with demons meanskoinonia with an unholy demon; this union is
polluting. In Israel's Scriptures covenant fidelity has frequently been expressed in
terms of marriage (Ezek 16; Hos 1-2). This metaphor manifests the same
analogy Douglas suggested between the social and physical body:

991

Collective
physical body

social

koinonia with cultic Lord

body

Individual

koinonia with husband

Just as in marriage there cannot be two husbands, so there cannot be two Lords of
the covenant, Jesus and demons. Hence one cannot eat at both tables. The pure
and the polluted are mutually exclusive realms.
Issues relating to food and eating continue to occupy Paul's attention in 11:17-34,
the discussion of behavior at the Eucharist. The Eucharist for Paul is the holiest
of times, things, and activities. Time: Paul operates with a map of time, indicating
that the time when the group gathers to celebrate its holiest rite is the most
important time for them. Violation of this map of time is as much a pollution for
him as was Jesus' violation of Sabbath for the Pharisees (see previous essay; Mk
2:23-3:6). Object: the Eucharist, because it is the body and blood of the Lord (see
10:16-17) is the holiest of objects and must be treated with utmost
purity. Activity: the celebration of the Eucharist express the group's identity,
cohesion and boundaries. [11] It is the premier ceremony of ordering and
classifying this group of people, and so its proper celebration requires absolute
holiness among its participants.
But its holiness is threatened on two fronts. First, the problem is focused on the
orifice of the mouth and on foods, secular and holy, which are being consumed.
Second, the problem of the physical body represents a problem in the social
body. When the church assembles, it is presumably to express the unity of the
body, the union among the participants and between them and their holy Lord.
But it is reported in 11:18-20 that the body which gathers is not holy. "Divisions"
are occurring in the body (11:18); any division of a body is a violent threat to
its wholeness and hence to its holiness. In Douglas' model of purity and
pollution, purity refers not only to what conforms to the classifications and
boundaries whereby a social group is structured, but also to "wholeness."
Wholeness may refer to an object or person fully conforming to the group's
definition of it (certain sea creatures do no conform to the complete definition of
a sea creature, and so lack "wholeness"). On a bodily level, a eunuch lacks
something necessary for being a whole male and so is unclean because of this
lack of bodily wholeness (Lev 2 1:17-21).
The bodily problem, insofar as it is expressed, deals with the divisiveness of
intemperate eating and drinking at the Eucharist: "In eating each one goes ahead
with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk:' (11:21; see Gal 5:2021). This deregulation of the oral orifice is compounded by some becoming
992

drunk, which is itself an evil (see 6:10), for excessive wine pollutes [12] and is
typical of pagan meals and cultic practices.
The crisis over the oral orifice of the physical body reflects a crisis over the
boundaries of the social body. Discriminatory eating and drinking manifests
distinctions being made between social levels of those present, thus establishing
artificial boundaries within the group to exclude the poor, the hungry or the
weak: "Do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have
nothing?" (11:22). [13] The breakdown in table manners (i.e. the de-regulation of
the oral orifice) is perceived by Paul as threatening the boundaries [14] of the social
body. Lack of control of the orifice of the body manifests a serious disregard of
the social body's integrity and purity.
There is probably great irony in the remark in v. 19 that "there must be factions
among you in order that those among you who are 'genuine' may be recognized."
This means that those causing the faction or division are perceived as doing so
for the purpose of distinguishing themselves as "genuine" or elite members of the
group. Some, such as those who are puffed up at the incestuous marriage (5:2)
and who boast of freedom to eat anything (10:23), would see no harm in their
unregulated eating and drinking at the Eucharist; on the contrary, it may
distinguish
them as the strong in the group as opposed to the weak, the foolish, and those
easily offended. Eating and drinking in their minds has nothing to do with
pollution. Not so with Paul, who is concerned with the "division" in the holy
body of the Lord caused by intemperate eating and drinking: "Do you despise
the church of God or humiliate those who have nothing?" (11:22). What threatens
the unity and health of a body is a pollution; their eating so threatens; it is a
pollut ion.
This behavior pollutes the Eucharist itself as well as the holy group. "When you
meet together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat" (11:20). This is so, not
because they are using the wrong formula, but because they are desanctifying the
rite. Receiving it when drunk or in a disorderly fashion meals profaning the holy
Eucharist: "Who eats the bread and drinks the cup unworthily sins against the
body and blood of the Lord: (11:27). One who does so brings "judgment", not
holiness, upon himself (11:29); one is thereby liable to condemnation (11:32-34)that is, being publicly rendered "unclean." The holy Eucharist which is received
in an unholy person is rendered ineffective; it loses its holiness. It is profaned.
Rules, then, must be laid down to guard more closely the orifice of the mouth and
so to protect the holiness of the Eucharist itself and the .social body whose
cohesion and holiness is threatened. Rules proscribe certain food and drink and
993

regulate the consumption of others. No drunkenness is allowed (11:21);

consumption of food at the feast must be done all at the same time ("when you
come together to eat, wait for one another," (11:33). Lest intemperate eating
cause a problem, "if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home" (11:34) By regulating
the orifice of the mouth, these rules aim at restoring the health of the social body
by healing divisions (11:18) and by eliminating humiliations (11:22). Other rules
enjoin self-examination on the offending parties to see if their interior is holy
enough to receive the Eucharist worthily (11:27-28) and to discern whether they
are the cause of any harm to others. In other words, the proper governing of the
orifice of the mouth at the Eucharist is the prime way to guard the holiness both
of the Eucharist and of the group receiving it.
When we approach the issue of eating' idol meat in chs 8-10, several of Paul's
principles should be clear:
1. The physical body is constantly threatened by pollutants which attempt to
cross its oral orifice and which, when ingested, work to divide the body.
2. On the basis of the ideas of purity and pollution, there are appropriate rules
for regulating the orifice of the mouth: certain foods are proscribed, others
prescribed. The manner of eating may also be regulated.
3. The rules guarding the oral orifice likewise guard the boundaries of the
social body.
The issue of idol meat in chs 8-10 is more complicated than that of the Eucharist,
for the Eucharistic food can be argued to be intrinsically holy. Rules for its proper
reception are appropriate. But the early church de-sacralized food in its abolition
of Jewish dietary laws (Mark 7:19; Acts 15; 1 Cor 10:25-26). Yet no appeal is
made in 1 Cor to this ecclesial decision as the basis for the eating of idol meat. As
we shall see, such an appeal to authority is totally out of character for those who
urge that idol meat be eaten. On the contrary, the arguments seem to reflect a
view of the body which is radically different from Paul's, a view which was
described earlier under the cosmology of an uncontrolled body.
Among the chief arguments urged in favor of eating idol meat, the dominant one
seems to be freedom from laws and taboos. "Am I not free" is the slogan urged
twice for the validity of eating (10:23; see 6:12 and 8:9). Paul admits the validity
of
this
"freedom"
to
eat
(10:29)
but
indicates that it is not the overriding value here. By arguing in ch 9 that he
himself relinquished his rights and freedoms, Paul indicates that freedom is not
an absolute value for him as it is for others inCorinth. A second argument for
994

eating
comes
from
the
individualistic
claim
to
have
"knowledge" (8:1, 10). The claim to special insight serves to redraw boundaries
within the group, dividing the elite who have this "knowledge" from those seen
not to have it (8:7, 11). The knowledge claimed has to do with a judgment on the
neutrality of foods, that is, how they are no longer evaluated according to the old
Jewish laws. Inasmuch as "food is made for the stomach and the stomach for
food" (6:13), food is neutral. To eat it may even be a way of demonstrating that
one is beyond the old legal and purity concerns. The nature of Paul's cautious
remarks in chs 8-10 indicates his sensitivity to the strong individualistic claims
made by those who eat and who disregard any consequences such eating might
have on the weaker members (8:7-13). No holiness, no group concerns, no
regulation of freedom color their thinking. Paul understands these arguments, but
they do not represent his viewpoint at all.
The bottom line in Paul's remarks are rules which regulate the orifice of the
mouth so as to protect the holiness of the body. Under certain circumstances
eating is proscribed: "You may not eat" (me esthiete,10:28). Specific
circumstances when one may or may not eat are also clearly enunciated. One
may eat when invited out: "If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner. ..eat
whatever is set before you" (10:27). But one may not eat if eating would
genuinely scandalize a fellow Christian. The circumstances are clear; one may
not eat a) at table in an idol's temple (8:10) and b) when the weak-conscienced
member explicitly says "This has been offered in sacrifice" (10:28).
Not only the regulations but the arguments which support them are similar to
what we have seen in regard to Paul's regulation of the oral orifice in 10:14-22
and 11:17-34. Paul has strong purity concerns. First, even the weak-conscienced
member of the church is holy in virtue of Christ's purifying death (8:11). The
paramount concern is chs 8-10 is to prevent this weak but holy member from
being "defiled": "Some eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience,
being weak, is defiled" (molyntai, 8:7). Second, Paul repeatedly concerns himself
with the interior space of the persons involved, their conscience and especially
the threatened "weak conscience" (8:7,10,12; 10:28-29). Just as Paul worried
about the polluting leaven entering a pure batch of flour, so he is on guard lest the
holy interior of a member be defiled by sight of another eating idol meat or by
actual ingestion of it. "Conscience," then, speaks to the holy interior which is
threatened with defilement. And so, Paul concludes, "if food is a cause of my
brother's being scandalized, I will never eat meat, lest I scandalize my brother"
(8:13). "To Scandalize" means to cause the loss of interior holiness in the affected
person, i.e. to pollute (see Mt 18:6, 8-9).

995

Implied in Paul's argument is the same concern found in 7:12-14, 10:14-22 and
11:17-34, viz., to protect the social body from division. Paul perceives a lack of
concern for the integrity of the social body in the position of those who would eat
("the strong"), which disregards the effects of their eating on "the weak." Such
behavior becomes a stumbling block to some (8:9); "sinning against your brother.
..you sin against Christ" (8:12). This "sin against Christ" is none other than an
attack on the body of Christ, the church (Murphy-O'Connor, 1978:563-564).
Paul's concern with the guarding of a bodily orifice once more communicates his
concern for the boundaries of the social group.
In Paul's argument in chs 8-10, we find other elements of the cosmology of a
controlled body, which arguments are radically different from those urged by "the
strong." (1) Freedom: Although freedom to eat is nominally endorsed, Paul
proceeds to wrap that freedom in constraints and to circumscribe it with
regulations. [15] Freedom is not an absolute or overriding value for Paul. He
claimed for himself a series of individual rights (9:.1-15), which he sees as
circumscribed by the needs of the social body. He affirms that he is indeed free:
'Am I not free? Have I not seen the Lord?" (9:1). But that freedom is controlled
by what is good for the social body: "For, though free, I have made myself a
slave to all" (9:19) for the benefit of the body of Christ (9:20-23). (2) Personal
Identity: A certain individualism describes those who have knowledge and would
eat. They are concerned basically with themselves. Paul, however, is concerned
with what is good for the group: "Let no one seek his own good, but the good of
his neighbor" (10:23), and again, "I try to please all men in every- thing I do, not
seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved" (10:33).
The gnosis of the strong only "puffs them up" (8:1); it does not yield any
advantage
for
the
group.
(3) Ethics: The
ethical
norm
of those who would eat is that of individualistic freedom: 'All things are lawful to
me" (10:23; 6:12). For Paul, the clue is found in what "builds up" the group.
"Love," or concern for the group's unity, "builds up" (8:1); it is better than
knowledge which puffs up. Although all things are lawful, "not all things build
up" (10:23). And so what strengthens group boundaries is of higher value than
the freedoms of individuals.
Paul's regulation of the eating of idol meat and the reasoning which underpins it
stand in sharp contrast to the behavior and attitudes of those who would eat in
freedom. We can conveniently sketch the differences in the cosmologies of Paul
and his opponents which will summarize the discussion thus far:
Opponents
no concern for purity
purity concerns

PURITY
996

Paul
strong

porous boundaries
over what crosses

RITUAL

concern
bodily

boundaries
not a bounded system,
controlled,
no protection needed,
against
no concern with orifices
with
and boundaries

BODY

individualism,
group
freedom unrestrained
governed by "love"

PERSONAL

personal ethical decision

strongly
guarded
pollution,
concern
orifices
and boundaries

IDENTITY
SIN

strong
orientation,
freedom
pollution

C: The Mouth (for speaking)

In 1 Cor 12-14, the orifice of the mouth becomes the focus of Paul's attention. As
we shall see, Paul establishes rules for this orifice, but it is important to note the
reasons which accompany his regulation of it. The question here is not like that
of idol meat, i. e. what crosses the mouth and enters the body, but what comes out
of the mouth and enters the ears of the assembled body. The regulation will be of
the mouth of the speakers.
First we note that there are operative in ch 14 two different views of the body and
of tongues. For many at Corinth, the gift of tongues is highly valued as a symbol
of effervescent spirit possession: "One who speaks in a tongue speaks not with
men but to God. ..he utters mysteries in the Spirit" (14:2). In anthropological
terms, Mary Douglas would consider speaking in tongues as a form of trance.
Apropos of this she remarked: "Where trance is not regarded as at all dangerous,
but as a benign source of power and guidance for the community at large, I
would
expect to find a very loosely structured community, group boundaries
unimportant, social categories undefined" (1973:109). Spirit possession indicates
a lower degree of social structure and control, as well as strong individualism. In
this context freedom must prevail, for one should never "quench the spirit" (1
997

Thess 5:19). Nor would one ever consider governing the orifice of the mouth or
structuring this gift in the life of a community: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is freedom" (2 Cor 3:17). The cosmology of those who prize speaking in
tongues is highly individualistic and freedom-oriented; no rules are appropriate to
this uncontrolled body.
Paul's cosmology, however, is that of a controlled or structured body. In this
context other remarks of Douglas about spirit possession are useful: "We tend to
find trance-like states feared as dangerous where the social dimension is highly
structured, but welcome and even deliberately induced where this is not the case"
(1973:104). Let us examine Paul's viewpoint on speaking in tongues.
The dominant argument urged by Paul for the regulation of speaking in tongues
is group cohesion (recall Personal Identity in the cosmology of a controlled
body). A value judgment is made on the relative importance of tongues and
prophecy. Those who speak in tongues "edify themselves," but those who
prophesy "edify the church" (14:4). "He who speaks in prophecy is greater than
he who speaks in tongues" because prophecy edifies. (14:5). "Edification" is a
persistent value for Paul; "let all things be done for edification" (14:26). Eating
idol meat dis-edifies, abstinence edifies (8:1,10); seeking one's own good may
dis-edify another, so "let no one seek his own good but the good of his neighbor"
(10:23-24). "Edification" indicates that one's personal identity and behavior is
group, not individualistically, oriented. "Edification," moreover, is a term which
denotes purity concerns. Dis-edification causes scandal and pollutes the
conscience (8:7); edification strengthens the wholeness and holiness of the
individual conscience and the group. Paul is expressing a purity concern, then,
when he tells the congregation to "be babes in evil" (14:20). This means, be
innocent of dis-edifying behavior which is consequent to unregulated speaking in
tongues. Edification, then, serves group identity, purity concerns, and regulation
of personal freedoms-the cosmology of a controlled body.
Besides articulating prophecy's value in edifying the group, Paul devalues
speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues is fundamentally unintelligible (14:9)
and unfruitful (14:14): "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is
unfruitful" (14:14). For, "five words spoken with my mind" are worth more than
"ten thousand words in tongues" (14:19). By this language Paul clearly values
consciousness and clarity; he favors group-edifying and group-regulated
behavior. Speaking in one's "mind" betokens these values. But praying in one's
"spirit" is unconscious and unintelligible; it is highly individualistic and
uncontrolled behavior. Mary Douglas (1969:69-72) evaluated just these terms,
"mind" and "spirit," in view of their relationship to the social body. She argued
that "philosophical controversies about the relation of spirit to matter or mind to
998

the body be interpreted as exchanges of condensed statements about

the relation of society to the individual" (1969:69). The "body" or the "flesh" in
her argument represents society; "mind" and "spirit" represent the individual. She
then articulates her theory of the relation of society to individual, body to mind
and spirit:
To insist on the superiority of spiritual over material elements is to insist on the
liberties of the individual and to imply a political program for freeing him from
social constraints. In the contrary view, to declare that spirit works through
matter, that spiritual values are made effective through material acts, that body
and mind are separate but intimately united, all this emphasis on the necessary
mingling of spirit and matter implies that the individual is by nature subordinate
to society and finds his freedom within its forms (1969: 69).
Paul's preference for praying "in mind and spirit" expresses his view of personal
identity as dyadic and group-oriented; it implies regulation of freedoms. Those
who glory only "in the spirit" may be said to be individualistic people for whom
freedom is an absolute, unrestrained value.
As Paul sees the issue, the consequences of speaking in tongues are important for
its evaluation. As we noted above, prophecy edifies the group; the effect of
tongues is just the opposite. Tongues, like intemperate eating and drinking at the
Eucharist, play havoc with the body's unity. When someone speaks in
unintelligible tongues, the result is an artificial but deleterious re-drawing of
boundaries within the group: "I shall be a foreigner to the speaker and the
speaker a foreigner to me" (14:11). Since speaking in tongues betokens spirit
possession and is seen as a sign of elite status, its unregulated practice disrupts
the unity of the body, causing factions and divisions (see 12:21). The wholeness
of the body is thereby jeopardized, as it was in 11:18-22. And if outsiders and
unbelievers observe this unregulated practice, "they will say that you are mad"
(14:23). They will be confirmed as outsiders and lose the chance to be made holy
by membership in the holy body of Jesus. [16] While not positively polluting,
speaking in tongues can function to re-draw boundaries within and around the
group, preempting God's prerogative to say who is in or out of it. Thus the
wholeness of the body is harmed and its holiness is threatened.
Given Paul's cosmology of the church as a bounded system where identity is
group-determined and where purity concerns dictate the maintenance of
boundaries, Paul's regulation of the oral orifice is consonant with his view of the
church as a controlled body. He establishes clear rules for the governance of the
mouth. As regards tongues, only two or three at most may speak in tongues at a
given meeting. Even this rule is phrased so as to avoid all loss of control: "If any
999

speak in a tongue, let there by only two or three at most, and each in turn (14:27).
It is even possible to close the orifice completely: "But if there is no one to
interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to
God" (14:28).
Those who prophesy are likewise regulated. "Let two or three prophets speak"
(14:29). And, "if a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent"
(14:30). As with the rules for tongues, Paul permits no loss of control. The
principle
is
clear
that
even
if
a
bounded
body is filled with a free and uncontrollable spirit, order and control are not to be
sacrificed: "The spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets" (14:32). Control is
never to be sacrificed in regard to the body.
III. BODILY SURFACE, HEAD, HANDS AND FEET
In 11:2-16, there is a discussion of bodily surfaces. In this I am following the
study of Murphy-O'Connor (1980:482) that the issue was over hairdo's: men
wearing unmasculine hairdo's and women wearing unfeminine ones.
As with the case of incest and fornication, two contrasting views of body are
operative in the discussion. The primary fact seems to be that some men were
wearing their hair long and coifed in an unmasculine fashion and some women
were
wearing
their
hair
loose,
unbraided,
and
unbound, which was contrary to societal customs. Long and coifed hair for men
denoted effeminacy and possibly homosexuality; uncoifed hair for women
suggested freedom and perhaps sexual license. At least, the novel hairdo's tended
to blur sexual identity and to confuse sexual and societal roles assigned to men
and women. This, of course, would not be objectionable to those who saw that
"in Christ there is no male or female" (Gal 3:28) and to those who proclaimed
that in Christ "we are all free"- from Torah, law, and custom (see 1 Cor 6:12;
10:23). The blurring of sexual roles and. identity because of
unmasculine/unfeminine hairdo's is but the external symbol of the view of body
as a free organism, without clear boundaries, and without concern for purity and
rituals to maintain that purity. No sense of dishonor (i.e. pollution) threatening
the individual or the social body attends the blurring of sexual roles and
distinctions by novel hairdo's.
Inasmuch as we are well aware of Paul's view of body, let us see what he makes
of the issue of novel hairdo's. The woman's hair should be plaited, braided, and
wrapped around her head. That is what is lacking according to Paul in 11:5,6,15.
Plaited hair which is wrapped around the head in orderly fashion symbolizes
control over the surface of the body, the part of the woman which is in direct
1000

contact with the social world. Plaited and braided hair denotes a clear social role
and clear sexual differentiation; the braiding of hair exemplifies the social
concern for matronly chastity and for modesty. [17] This type of hairdo is
appropriate where the body is perceived as a controlled structure, where
boundaries are guarded, where roles are clear, and where purity is prized. For
those with this view, then, uncoifed and unbound hair suggests just the opposite
view of body: freedom, loss of control, and blurring of clear sexual roles. Loose
hair suggests loose morals and therefore takes on the appearance of a pollutant.
Where the physical body is perceived as a system requiring control, a mans hair
is expected to be short and natural. Thus he will be perceived in masculine terms
and not be confused with women (whose hair is customarily long, see 11:6). Nor
should the man dress his hair, curl it, or make it resemble a woman's hairdo
(Murphy-O'Connor, 1980:485). Such hair styling suggests confusion of sexual
identity and/or loss of bodily control, and so is seen as a pollutant, i. e. a danger
to the social order. Hair rules replicate social rules dealing with sexual
differentiation and roles; such rules are appropriate to a bounded body.
Paul's perception of the issue of unacceptable hairdo's is couched in terms of
purity and pollution. [18] The offending man "dishonors" his head (11:4,14), as
does the offending woman (11:5). This irregularity is a "disgrace" (11:6). Since
such hairdo's blur the lines which define masculine and feminine roles and status,
they are a pollution. They are doubly offensive at a worship service where
"praying and prophesying" occur (11:4-5,13) and where holy time demands holy
behavior and holy attire. Paul consciously refers to this in 11:10 when he
expresses his reason for proper hairdo's-"...because of the angels." Apropos of
this verse, Joseph Fitzmyer (1957:55-56) explained that worship was perceived
as taking place before the angels and mediated by them (Ps 137:1 ax and Rev
8:3). As a participation in the heavenly liturgy at which the holy angels presided,
human worship demanded that "unclean or polluted members be excluded "for
holy angels are present," as the following text from Qumran [19]indicates:
Nor shall anyone who is afflicted by any form of human uncleanness whatsoever
be admitted into the assembly of God; nor shall anyone who becomes afflicted in
this way be allowed to retain his place in the midst of the congregation. ..for holy
angels are (present) in their (congre)gation ...let him not enter, for he is
contaminated (lQSa ii.3-11).
Just as eating and drinking at a Eucharist were matters of purity and pollution
(11:17-34), so also were hairdo's.

1001

Paul clearly intends to regulate the surface of the body, the hair. He prescribes
that women should wear their hair long, braided and coiled; men should wear
their hair short and undressed. Hair styles which confuse gender roles and status
are proscribed.
The discussion centers around hairdo's, i.e. control of the body surface. Involved
here is the issue of role differentiation in the church and society. As Mary
Douglas indicated, where formality, smoothness and ritual are accentuated values
in
one's
cosmology,
one
will
tend
to
find
well defined roles, social control and a strong commitment to a structured
system. Where informality, shagginess, and effervescence are dominant values,
there tends to be less role differentiation, little control, and loose adherence to a
structured system. Where personal identity is group-oriented, roles will be clearly
defined; where individualistic, a weak internal classification system is evident.
Let us now use Paul's remarks about hairdo's to see what is said about role
differentiation in the discussion in 11:2-16. The slogan in Galatians, "in Christ
there is no male or female" (3:28), is in considerable tension with Paul's remarks
in
1
Corinthians;
for
in
the
latter
letter
he
[20]
argues for differentiation of the sexes-Gal 3:28 notwithstanding. Alluding to
the original order of creation, Paul points out how even then the sexes were
differentiated. "Man was not made from woman but woman was made from
man" (11:8,12a); "man is the image and glory of God but woman is the glory of
man" (11:7-8). In the new creation in Christ, there are some changes stated: "In
the Lord woman is not 'different' (choris) [21] from man nor is man 'different'
(choris) from woman" (11:11) (Murphy-O'Connor, 1980:497), But sexual
differentiation is by no means totally abolished in the new creation. For Paul
states at the beginning of the passage a principle which undergirds the
hierarchical differentiation of man and woman:
The head of every man is Christ
the
head
of
the
and the head of Christ is God (11:3).

woman

is

her

husband,

This points to some differentiation according to gender and role. We know that in
the abstract men and women are equally chosen by God and are equal recipients
of grace and gift-both "pray and prophesy" in the church (11:4,5). This equality,
however,
is
not
entirely
replicated
in
the
social body. It is stated that "a woman ought to have authority (exousia) over her
head" (11:10) because "woman was made from man for man" (11:8,9). For Paul
1002

the sexes are still differentiated; and so totally different hairdo's are appropriate
to the respective sexes (11:13-15).
Further evidence of Paul's sense of role and status differentiation in 1 Corinthians
is appropriate here. The reader is reminded that as regards social roles, Paul
called upon the Corinthians: "Let every one of you lead the life which the Lord
has assigned him and in which God has called him" (7:17). And "in whatever
state each was called, there let him remain with God" (7:24). Slaves maintain
their same social role and rank of slaves; Jews are still Jews; Gentiles remain
Gentiles. Again in ch 12, Paul reminds the church that there is no radical blurring
of roles in the body of Christ: "If all were a single organ where would the body
be?"
(12:17). If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?
(12:17b). Differentiation of bodily organs is expected and desired. This
configuration, moreover, is God's doing: "But as it is, God arranged the organs in
the body, each one of them as he chose" (12:18). Finally, roles within the social
body are very clearly articulated by Paul; there is no blurring: "first apostles,
second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers,
administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues" (12:28a). The maintenance
of roles and sexual differentiation in regard to hairdo's in 11:2-16 is replicated in
1
Cor
in
Paul's
maintenance
of roles and status differentiation in the body of Christ.
Returning to 11:3, the term "head" (kephale) is not devoid of importance.
Although Murphy-O'Connor insists that it not be translated as authority or
supremacy (1980:491-93), perhaps that point needs to be revised in the light of
the
present
discussion.
Despite
the
freedom
slogans found in the letter ('Am I not free?" 9:1; 'All things are lawful for me,"
6:12, 10:23), Paul by no means sees authority abolished in the new creation (see
16:15-16). From the point of view of body symbolism, "head" denotes high
position,
rank,
and
authority
(Schwartz,
1981:
5152). So when Paul says that "the head of a woman is her husband" (11:3), "head"
denotes higher authority and rank attributed to husbands. This is repeated in
11:10 where woman, who is from man and for man, ought to have
"authority" (exousia) over her head. She is situated "lower" than
man: she is "from" man and "for" him; he has exousia "over" her. Every man,
too, is subject to authority for "the head of every man is Christ (11:3).
This sense of rank and authority occurs in the description of the body of Christ in
ch 12. "Feet" are said to complain that they are not "hands": "Because I am not a
hand, I do not belong to the body (12:15); "eyes" lord it over "hands" and "heads"
over "feet": "I have no need of you" (12:21). Yet in spite of the problems
1003

reflected in the discourse in 12:14-21, Paul does not favor abolishing distinctions
of rank and status in the body: "If all were a single organ, where would the body
be?" (12:19). Douglas' model predicts that where there are strong purity
concerns, there will be a correspondingly strong classification system. In the case
of the Body of Christ, the superior bodily parts are perceived as higher ranked
and as possessing greater dignity and authority in the anatomical hierarchy. The
anatomy of the body in ch 12 is a clear cipher for the taxonomy of the social
body.
Body imagery affords still another clue to rank and authority. Even Christ is said
to have a "head" over him: "The head of Christ is God" (11:3). In 1 Cor 15:20-28
Christ is spoken of as the new Adam-the new head/source. On one level the
argument simply states that as all die in Adam, so all-rise in Christ (15:21-22).
But the passage says much more: like Adam, Christ has dominion and rule over
all creation (15:24; Gen 1:26-28). His "headship" is visualized by his having "all
things in subjection under his feet" (15:25, 27). Christ is "head" as source and as
ruler. Yet even Christ-as-head is perceived to be in a structural relationship with
God: .
When
all
things
are
subjected
then the Son himself will also be subjected

to

him

(Christ)

to him who put all things under him,

that God may be everything to everyone (15:29).
On one level this serves as an answer to the Corinthians who espoused an
overly realized eschatology: the last enemy, death, has not yet been subjected.
But terms such as "head. ..feet" and "subjected" are body language suggesting
role differentiation, structural relationships, even authority and hierarchy. I
suggest that this language in 1 Cor 15:20-28 serves other purposes: 1) to reassert
concepts of control where pneumatic freedom threatens communal cohesion, 2)
to support authority where it is weak, and 3) to affirm structure where it is
blurred. If Christ, truly risen and genuinely free, is perceived as "subjected to him
who put all things under him," then the free and spirit-filled Corinthians can see a
model for their own structural relationship to Paul's authority and that of other
leaders of the group (see 16:16). "The head of Christ is God" (11:3) implies that
even Christ has a structured relationship to God; he himself is not absolutely free
of authority and control. So, when men and women are said to have "heads" over
them, they are no worse off than Christ.
.

1004

In summary, we began with a discussion of hairdo's in 11:2-16. The simple fact

emerged that Paul sees control of the body surface as appropriate and so enjoins
it. But regulation of body surfaces correlates with Paul's regulation of body
orifices. Yet the regulation of hair styles symbolizes also sexual and role
differentiation in the social body. The fact that control in 11:2-16 is exercised
over the "heads" of men and women pointed to the place of authority and rank in
a structured body cosmology, a point amply verified in chs 11, 12, 15. The upshot
of this investigation was to define further Paul's controlled body cosmology by
seeing the correlation between regulation of body surfaces and social
classification systems. Control of the "head" and regulation of specific hairdo's
for men and for women replicate role differentiation and authority structure
which is appropriate to that type of social body.
IV.THE BODY OF CHRIST
Besides concern for orifices of the body and its surface, Paul speaks at great
length about the "body of Christ" which is the church. The social body of the
church is a holy body, the body of Christ (12:12; 6:15). Its holiness consists,
moreover, in being filled with a "holy" Spirit (12:4-11,13; see 3:16 and 6:19). But
the holiness of the body is likewise perceived in terms of its wholeness, viz.
unity. One of the functions of the holy Spirit in 12:4-11 is to unify the cornucopia
of gifts given to the body's diverse members. It is through "the same Spirit" that
wisdom is given to one, knowledge to another, and prophecy to still another
(12:8-10). Not only is diversity of gifts unified in "the same Spirit," but diversity
of races and roles is unified in "the one Spirit": "By one Spirit we were all
baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and all were made to drink
of one Spirit" (12:13). Unity is touched upon in the remarks which indicate that
the "same" Spirit, Lord and God are the dispensers of different gifts (12:4-7). All
of the gifts, moreover, have a unifying purpose; theyre "for the common good"
(12:7), that is, for the "building up" of the body (see 1 Cor 14:3-5, 12, 26). The
body, then, is holy in virtue of its "holy" Spirit, and its holiness is perceived in
terms of its wholeness. As wholeness is a mark of the purity of the physical body,
so unity manifests the holiness of the social body.
The greatest threat to a holy body is pollution; the most dangerous threat to a
whole body is division. Paul repeatedly expresses concern with "divisions" in the
church at Corinth (1:10; 11:18; 12:25). These divisions at one time derive from
members
preferring
different
"heads"
over them: "I belong to Paul...I belong to Apollos...I belong to Cephas...I belong
to Christ" (1:12; 3:4). Divisions, moreover, are made between strong and weak
(1:18-29), wise (knowing) and foolish (8:1-3), free and unfree (8:10-13), sated
and
hungry
(11:18-22).
Jealousy
and
strife
1005

are rampant (1:11; 3:3). Some even "puff themselves up" against others (4:6, 1819; 5:2; 8:1). Some look only to their own good and not to the good of their
neighbor (10:24,29). The premier unifying event is the Eucharistic meeting:
"Because there is one bread, we who are many are one
body, for we all partake of the one bread" (10:17). But even this unifying event is
"divided" by factions (11:18-19). The body at Corinth, then, is threatened with its
most dangerous pollutant, division and disunity.
In the description of the body of Christ in 12:14-26 the threatening pollutants are
already within the body. Two different sets of anatomical parts speak in 12:15-16
and 21. The first set speaks from a sense of inferiority, expressing the feeling that
they are not welcome in the body.
The foot, because it is not the hand, says "I do not belong to the body" (12:15)
and the ear, because it is not the eye, says "I do not belong to the body" (12:16).
The second set speaks from a sense of superiority, expressing the view that they
are the only worthy members of the body. The eye says to the hand, "I have no
need of you," and the head says the same to the feet (12:21). Both of these
postures are polluting because they would corrupt the body for the same reason;
they attack its basic wholeness, and so its holiness. Inferiority attitudes make that
person an outsider to the rest of the group (recall 14:11) and superiority attitudes,
which foster individualism and elitism, humiliate others (recall 11:22). If left
unchecked, the social body will be tragically divided by these attitudes; and a
divided body is corrupt.
The view of the church as a body expresses other important aspects such as
differentiation, roles and ranking. There is no doubt that the organs and parts of
the body are in fact differentiated. "If the whole body were an eye, where would
be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of
smell?" (12:17). As it is, there are head, hands, and feet as well as eyes, ears, and
nose. This differentiation, moreover, is part of the way things should be; it is
ordained by God in creation: "But as it is, God arranged the organs in the
body, each one of them, as he chose" (12:18). God, then, has drawn the
official map of the physical body.
The differentiated parts of the body are also ranked. The head is greater than the
feet; the eye is more important than the ear; the hand is above the foot. Paul even
admits that in the body there are honorable and less honorable parts, presentable
and
inferior
parts,
stronger
and
weaker
members (12:22-24). The ranking of the differentiated parts is related to the roles
ascribed to the members of the church: "first there are apostles, second prophets,
third teachers, then...then... then..." (12:28b). This, too, is God's doing for "God
1006

has
appointed"
them
(12:28b).
God
has
also drawn the map of the social body. Even the charismatic gifts can be
differentiated and ranked: prophecy over tongues, and charity over all (12:31;
13:13).
The body of Christ, then, is a structured and differentiated body. It is, moreover, a
holy body whose wholeness is threatened with polluting division. In ch 5 the
remedy for such a threatening pollutant was to expel it; but that is not appropriate
here
for
it
would
cause
the
very
thing Paul wants to prevent, viz., a divided body. The remedy proposed by Paul
has to do with a renewed sense of personal identity which is characteristic of a
controlled body. As we noted in regard to chs 8-10, individualism in regard to
eating
idol
meat
denoted
a
sense
of
identity
contrary to Paul's group-oriented viewpoint. On the other hand, "building up the
body" and "not seeking one's good but the good of others" (10:24) are actions
commensurate with a sense of identity which is group oriented.
So with the body of Christ in ch 12. The members who most clearly tend to
individualism are urged to be more group oriented, to seek the good of others.
The honorable parts of the body are to invest with greater honor those parts they
consider less honorable; the presentable, the unpresentable parts; the superior, the
inferior parts (12:23- 24). In short, they should not seek their own good but the
good of others, since God has "adjusted the body, giving the greater honor to the
inferior part."
This advice is repeated in the discourse on agape in 13:4-7. For the elite, "love"
should mean building up (8:1); it means seeking the good of others. Love,
therefore, is "patient and kind...not boastful, arrogant or rude." The inferior parts,
too, are told to think of the good of others and not to be "jealous...resentful...but
to bear all things and endure all things." A principle is stated which applies to
superior and inferior attitudes alike: "Love does not insist on its own way" (13:5).
This strategy should produce a salutary result in the body, viz., a healing of
division and genuine unity: "That there be no discord in the body, but all the
members may have the same care for one another" (12:25). This sense of group
identity is correspondingly applied to the gifts which are the subject of the
discussion in chs 12-14. Although there are "varieties of gift... varieties of
service...varieties of working" (12:4-6), each of these is given "for the common
good" (12:7).
V.THE RESURRECTION BODY

1007

One final text interests us: the discussion of "with what kind of body" are the
dead raised? (15:35ff). The perspective of these remarks is anthropological, so
questions of gnosticism or Greek background in the Corinthian argument over
whether there is a resurrection (15:12) cannot be addressed here. Rather I am
interested in why Paul emphatically insists on BODY as the appropriate
characteristic of the risen state: "It is raised a spiritual BODY. If there is a
physical BODY, there is also a spiritual BODY" (15:44).
From the perspective of this essay, one would expect that there might be two
contrasting views of the resurrection, views which perhaps are compatible and
consistent with the Pauline and non-Pauline positions discussed throughout this
work. And in fact, critical scholarship has suggested a coherent reconstruction of
the non-Pauline viewpoint of the Corinthian pneumatics. [22] Briefly, then, the
pneumatics are 1) credited with espousing an overly realized eschatology (4:8),
2) whereby they are beyond the body, which is at best neutral (6:12-13), and into
things spiritual; 3) the result is the abolition of all control and the celebration of
radical freedom: "All things are lawful!" (6:12; 10:23), 4) which results in a
denial of social and sexual differentiation (5:1-2; 11:2-16); 5) in this perspective,
"resurrection" would be perceived as a spiritual condition unrestrained by and
unrelated to the physical and social BODY.
This perspective is reflected in 15:45--49. A radical contrast is made between
Adam and Christ, which would imply that in the eschaton, when Christ and his
followers are "resurrected," what results is "spirit" and not body.
First Adam

Second Adam

1. The first Adam became a "living

a "life-giving

1. The last Adam became

being" (psychen);

spirit" (pneuma);

2. The physical (to psychikon) is first,

pneumatikon);
3. As was the man of earth so are
heaven,
those who are of dust;
heaven.

2. then the spiritual (to

3. and as is the man of
so
are those who are of

A radical distinction is made between what is (a) a "living being...physical...of

earth" and (b) "a life-giving spirit...spiritual...of heaven." Although this is
1008

probably Pauline in origin, it is certainly capable of being co-opted by the

pneumatics, especially 15:45 where it says that "the last Adam (the risen Jesus)
became a SPIRIT." Historical questions aside, my interest lies in what correlation
there might be between one's view of body and of resurrection. In the case of
Paul's opponents, it would seem that resurrection as SPIRIT would adequately
express their eschatological perspective and reflect their typology of a noncontrolled body.
The Pauline perspective on eschatology differs on every point from that of the
pneumatics at Corinth. 1) Eschatology is "realized" .in one sense, but not overly;
for death still reigns (15:23) and all things are not yet under Christ's feet (15:2428); judgment remains (4:5; 5:13; 6:2).2) Christians are not beyond the body, for
"it is not meant for immorality but for the Lord" (6:13). 3) Even as baptized and
gifted with the Spirit, Christians are subject to rules and authority; their freedom
is not absolute; 4) and so, social and sexual differentiation is expected and
appropriate (11:3; 12:14-21). 5) Resurrection, then, is appropriately expressed as
resurrection of BODY, not escape from body into SPIRIT.
Paul's discourse on "what kind of body occurs in the resurrection" is governed by
a basic purity principle. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"
(15:50). It must be "changed" (15:52). This is based on a map of heaven which
indicates that God is radically different from humankind. God is imperishable
and immortal, and can never know corruption. What is perishable and mortal will
corrupt, [23]and so does not belong in the circle of what is immortal and
imperishable. It must be "changed" by putting on "immortality and
imperishability" (15:53-54). Yet what comes into God's presence is ultimately
BODY, albeit transformed BODY.
The substance of Paul's argument occurs in 15:35-44, when a series of three
contrasts is presented. First, dried and dead seeds are contrasted with living
plants (15:36-37); then terrestrial bodies are contrasted with celestial bodies
(15:39-41); finally, un-resurrected bodies are contrasted with resurrection bodies
(15:42-44). But the common denominator in the analogical argument is the fact
that living plants,celestial phenomena, and resurrected persons are all described
in somatic language as BODIES:
1. "What you sow is not the BODY which is to be, but a bare kernel" (15:37).
2. "There are celestial BODIES and there are terrestrial 'BODIES" (15:40).
3. "It is sown a physical BODY; it is raised a spiritual BODY. If there is a
physical BODY, there is also a spiritual BODY" (15:44).
1009

How is this so? As God gave bodies at creation, so God will also allocate bodies
in the eschaton: "God will give it a BODY as he has chosen" (15:39). The holy,
immortal, and imperishable God himself gives an appropriate BODY to what is
mortal
and
perishable
so
that
it
may
come
into
God's holy space.
Commentators [24] often remark that Paul's idea of a "spiritual body" contains the
sense of "a total person controlled by God's spirit" (Sider 1975:434). "Control" is
the operative concept here, for just as Paul would see a charismatic body on earth
acting orderly and in control (14:32), so should a spiritual body in heaven. The
idea of order and control is communicated in the insistence that what is raised is
a BODY. Paul's insistence on BODY even in the resurrected state replicates his
general body typology. The "bodies" which are described in 15:36-41 are
differentiated bodies which may be ranked in a hierarchy. The classification
system on earth ranks bodies as 1) human, 2) animal, 3) bird, and 4) fish; this, or
course, is based on God's work at creation. There is a corresponding
classification and hierarchy in "celestial bodies": 1) sun, 2) moon, and 3) stars.
Even among heavenly bodies, "star differs from star in glory" (15:41). One
should see this alongside other remarks about Christian resurrection where there
is order, pattern and differentiation: "In Christ shall all be made alive. But each in
his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to
Christ" (15:22-23). In heaven, there will be a distinct hierarchy among its inhabitants: God, Christ, then Christians. In the risen state in God's presence, moreover,
there will not be a total abolition of authority and structure. True, "every rule and
every authority and power" will be put under Christ's feet (15:24), but then Christ
will be under God's feet (see 15:28). For the head of Christ is God; the head of
man is Christ. As it is on earth, so it will be in heaven.
According to Paul, then, the heavenly world will maintain important elements of
the earthly world. As God differentiated the parts of the physical and social body
(12:18, 24), so "God will give it a (risen) body as he has chosen" (15:38). As
there is a hierarchy of "heads" and authority on earth (11:3), so Christ will be
subject to God even when the end comes and all is put under his feet (15:24-28).
As there was BODY on earth, which implied order and control, so Paul maintains
that there will be BODY in heaven as well. The order of God's creation will not
be abolished in heaven.
VI. A MODEL: THE ATHLETE'S BODY
Paul's attitude to the physical body and its replication of the social body is never
clearer than in the athletic metaphor he uses in 9:24-27. As far as the metaphor
goes, the physical body is subject to strong regulation. Every athlete "exercises
1010

self control in all things" (9:25); an athlete "regulates" his body and "subdues" it
(9:27). No individual member of the body escapes this control: the legs do not
run aimlessly nor do the fists box the air (9:26). This points to strong
coordination of the individual members toward a common goal, for the common
good.
The metaphor serves as the final point in Paul's argument to the knowledgeable
ones who proclaim freedom to eat idol meat. He has shown in ch 9 that he
himself is as "free" as anyone in regard to specific items, such as support; he has
a right (exousia, 9:4,6,12) which is validated in tradition, Jesus' words and the
Law. Yet Paul voluntarily regulates this right and foregoes its privileges (9:15,17)
for the sake of the common good, viz., the preaching of the gospel (9:23). Paul
seeks not his own good, but the good of others, "I have become all things to all
men that I might save some" (9:22). He presents his own behavior as a model for
those who would eat idol meat: restraint of freedom (vs. exercise of rights) for
the sake of communal cohesion (vs. individualism).
The athlete metaphor reinforces this argument by showing circumstances where
discipline, self-control, regulation of the body, and group-oriented behavior are
appropriate. Paul's use of the athlete metaphor implies that it is appropriate in his
life as a general principle, not just in regard to his rights and freedoms. And so,
Paul implies, life is an athletic contest and the discipline, regulation, self-control
appropriate to athletic training are perennial norms structuring one's life. This, of
course, is the predictable attitude to the body from the viewpoint of a strong
"group" or controlled body cosmology.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Mary Douglas' remarks on BODY and her anthropological model prove to be an
accurate and useful heuristic device for evaluating the contrasting attitudes to
body in 1 Corinthians. In particular, Paul's viewpoint in the letter may be
accurately described according to the cosmology ofa controlled body (strong
"group"/high "grid"), whereas the position attributed to Paul's opponents in 1
Corinthians fits the cosmology of a group which is weak "group"/low "grid."
Valuable also is the insight into the correlation of physical and social body, viz.,
how attitudes to the physical body are replicated in the way the social body is
perceived. Douglas' model, moreover, suggested a coherent interpretation of
Paul's perspective by indicating the cultural cosmology of the author and how
consistently interrelated Paul's remarks are in regard to freedom, authority, rules,
roles, etc. According to Douglas' model, Paul perceives the world through a
dominant value, "holiness" or "purity," which structures the way the social and
physical bodies are perceived and regulated.
1011

Social
Holiness
1. unity, cohesion
integrity

Physical
Holiness
1. wholeness, bodily

2. clear roles, status, & classifications

parts, especially head & members

2. hierarchy of bodily

3. boundaries marked & guarded

regulated

3. orifices & surfaces

Alternately, the chief evil in Paul's world is "pollution," which likewise is

expressed in both social and physical terms.
Social Pollution

Physical Pollution

1. factions, divisions

1. split or deformed bodies

2. confused roles; weak authority

2. weak bodily discipline
or differentiation of body parts; confused gender indication
3. porous boundaries
surfaces

3. unguarded orifices &

The successful application of Douglas' model to 1 Corinthians tends to confirm

the accuracy of the model, even as it serves as a principle of consistency for
delineating what Paul thinks of a particular issue. The model offered a window
into the consistency and coherence of Paul's perspective and it served to throw
light on many troublesome passages and to generate fresh inquiry into the text.
One might ask, however, whether Paul's perspective in 1 Corinthians is typical of
him? Is the model applicable to other Pauline letters? It is beyond the scope of
this study to pursue these important questions. But a quick glance at the Pauline
corpus
suggests
places
to
test
the
model
in other Pauline letters and to ascertain whether the positions taken in 1
Corinthians are typical of Paul elsewhere. For example, (1) Paul's concern in 1
Corinthians with holiness of the body should be compared with his remarks on
holiness in Rom 12:1-2; 13:12-14, Phil 1:20 and 1 Thess 4:1-8. (2) His concern
with regulating bodily orifices in 1 Corinthians might be compared with remarks
about eating in Rom 14-1S (esp. 14:21) and about marriage in 1 Thess 4:4-7 and
2 Cor 6:14-7:1. (3) The understanding of the church as a "body" in Rom 12:4-8
could be compared with the use of that metaphor in 1 Cor 12. (4) One might also
wish to reevaluate the designation of the members of Paul's churches as "the
1012

saints" in the light of this material. (S) The importance of authority in 1

Corinthians might be compared with Paul's advice to be obedient to legitimate
authority in Rom 13.
Besides these specific body issues, a comparison could be made of Paul's
attitudes to related topics in 1 Corinthians and the other letters. For example, the
value given to roles and rank within the church and in the secular world might be
assessed; one thinks immediately of Rom 13:1-7, but also of PhiI2:1g.-30. The
contextualized understanding of freedom in 1 Corinthians might profitably be
compared with the language of "slaves of God...and of righteousness" in Rom
6:13-22, especially in light of the diatribal false conclusion that Christians might
be "lawless." Gal 5:1 and 13-15 deserve to be assessed in this light as well. The
perception of pollution threatening the group could also be investigated, whether
this means pollution as seduction (see 2 Cor 11:1-3, 12-1S) or as threat to unity
(see Gal S:1S, 22; Phil 3:1-11 (esp. 6-7)). The personal identity of members of
the
church
as
group
oriented
might
be
tested
in
PhiI2:1-S, 14-18 (esp 2:3-4) and in 1 Thess 1:3 and 4:9-12.
The use of Douglas' anthropological materials is not intended as a replacement
for classical NT scholarship but precisely as an aid to recovering the cultural Sitz
im Leben of Paul and his churches. Through this type of analysis one begins to
gain an appreciation of Paul's world from his point of view. Thus this model and
approach should be considered as a welcome addition to the toolbox of historical
criticism.
WORKS CONSULTED
Barkan, Leonard
1975 Natures Work of Art: the Human Body as Image of the World. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Barre,
1980 "Qumran and the Weakness of Paul," CBQ 42:216-27.
Benthall,
J.
and
Polhemus,
T.
1975 The Body as Medium of Expression. New York: Dutton.

Michael
(eds.)

Blacking,
John
(ed.)
1977 The Anthropology of the Body. ASA Monograph 15. New York: Academic Press.

1013

Collins,
Adela
1980 "The Function of 'Excommunication' in Paul." HTR 73:251-63.
Conzelmann,
1975 1 Corinthians. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Hans

Cope,
1975 '1 Corinthians
Women." JBL 94:94-110.

11:2-16

and

Paul's

Y.

Views

Lamar
Regarding

Dahl. Nils A.
1967 "Paul and the Church at Corinth According to 1 Corinthians i.l0iv.21." Pp. 313--35 in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to
John Knox. W. Farmer (ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Davies,
W.
D.
1957 "Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Flesh and Spirit." Pp. 169-172 in The
Scrolls and the New Testament. Krister Stendahl (ed.). New York: Harper.
Derrett,
J.
Duncan
1977 "Religious Hair." Vol. 1, pp. 170-75 in Studies in the New
Testament Leiden: Brill.
Douglas, Mary
1966 Purity and Danger. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
1969 "Social Preconditions of Enthusiasm and Heterodoxy." Pp. 69-80 in Forms
of Symbolic Action. Proceedings of the 1969 Annual Spring Meeting of the
American Ethnological Society. Robert F. Spenser (ed.) Seattle: University
of Washington Press.
1973 Natural Symbols. New York: Vintage Books.
1975 Implicit Meanings. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
1982 In the Active Voice. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Feeley-Harnik,
Gillian
1981 The Lords Table. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

1014

Firth,

Raymond
1973 Symbols: Public and Private. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

W.

Fisher, Seymour
and Cleveland, Sidney
1958 Body Image and Personality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Fitzmyer,
Joseph
A.
1957 A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels of 1 Cor
XI.I0." NTS 4:48-58.
1961 "Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor 6:147:1." CBQ 23:271-280.
Ford,

Josephine
1974 "You are God's 'Sukkah' (1 Cor 3:10-17)." NTS 21:139-42.

M.

Forkman,
Goran
1972 The Limits of Religious Community: Expulsion from the Religious
Community within
the Qumran Sect, within
Christianity. Lund: Gleerup.

Rabbinic]udaism,

and

within

Primitive

Gartner, Bertil
1965 The Temple and the Community in Qumran
Testament. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

and

the

New

Goffmann,
Erving
1959 The Presentation of the Self in Every-Day Life. Garden City, NJ:
Doubleday.
Grollig,
F.
X.
and
Haley,
Harold
1976 Medical Anthropology. The Hague: Mouton.

B.

(eds.)

Gundry,
Robert
H.
1976 SOMA in Biblical Theology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Hall,

Edward
1959 The Silent Language. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
1015

Hollenbach,
B.
1979 "Col ii.23: Which Things Lead to the Fulfilment of the
Flesh." NTS 25:254-61.
Horsley, Richard A.
1976 "Pneumatikos vs Psychikos: Distinctions of Spiritual Status among the
Corinthians." HTR 69:269-88.
1978a "Consciousness and Freedom among the Corinthians: 1 Corinthians 810." CBQ 40:574-89.
1978b" 'How can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the
dead?'
Spiritual Elitism in Corinth." NT 20:203-31.
Hurd, John C.
1983 The Origin of 1 Corinthians. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.
Hunzinger, C. H.
1954 Die judische Bannpraxis im neutestamentlicher Zeitalter. G6ttingen:
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.
Isenberg, Sheldon K.
1975 "Mary Douglas and Hellenistic Religions: the Case of Qumran." Pp.
179-85 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, Missoula, MT: Scholars
Press.
Isenberg, Sheldon K. and Owen, Dennis E.
1977 "Bodies natural and Contrived: The Work of Mary Douglas." Religious
Studies Review 3:1-16.
Jeremias, Joachim
1955 "Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor XV.
50)." NTS 2:151-59.
Jewett,
1971 Pauls Anthropological Terms. Leiden: Brill.
1016

Robert

Kasemann, Ernst
1971 "The Theological Problem Presented by the Motif of the Body of Christ."
Pp. 102,-21 in Perspectives on Paul. Philadelphia Fortress Press.
Kraemer, R. S.
1979 "Ecstasy and Possession: the Attraction of Women to the Cult of
Dionysius." HTR 71:55-80.
Kurzinger,
1978 "Frau und Mann nach 1 Kor 11,11f" BZ 22:270-75.

J.

Lampe, G. W. H.
1967 "Church Discipline and the Interpretation of the Epistles to the
Corinthians." Pp. 337-61 in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies
Presented to John Knox.
Leach, E. R.
1958 "Magical Hair." journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
88:147-64.
Lincoln, A. T.
1979 "'Paul the Visionary': The Setting and Significance of the Rapture
to Paradise in II Corinthians XII.I-10." NTS 25:204-20.
MacRae, D. G.
1975 "The Body and Social Metaphors." Pp. 59-63 in The Body as Medium
of Expression.
Malina, Bruce J.
1978a "The Social World Implied in the Letters of the Christian Bishop Martyr
(Named Ignatius of Antioch)." Vol. 2, Pp. 71-119 in Society of Biblical Literature
Papers. 2 vols. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.
1978b "Freedom: A Theological Inquiry into the Dimensions of a
Symbol."BTB 8:62-76.
1017

1979 "The Individual and Community-Personality in the Social World of Early

Christianity." BTB 9:126-38.
1981 The
New
Testament
World.
Anthropology. Atlanta, GA: John Knox.

Lnsights

from

Cultural

Mauss, Marcel
1973 "Techniques of the Body," Economy and Society 2:70-88.
Meeks, Wayne
A.
1974 "The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest
Christianity." HR
13:165-208.
1977 "In One Body: the Unity of Humankind in Colossians and Ephesians." Pp.
209-21 in Gods Christ and His People: Studies in Honor of Nils Alstrup
Dahl. Jacob Jervell and Wayne Meeks (eds.). Oslo: U niversitetsforlaget.
1983 The First Urban Christians. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Miguens, M.
1975 "I Cor. 13:8-13 Reconsidered." CBQ 37:86-97.
Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome
1978a "Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20." CBQ 40:391-96.
1978b "Freedom of the Ghetto (1 Cor VIII. 1-3; X. 23-XI.1)." RB 85:54374.
1979 "Food and Spiritual Gifts in 1 Cor 8:8." CBQ 41:292-98.
1980 "Sex and Logic in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16." CBQ 42:482.
Needham, Rodney (ed.)
1973 Right
and
Left:
Essays
on
Classification. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Pearson, Birger
1018

Dual

Symbolic

1973 The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians. A Study in the

Theology of the Corinthian Opponents of Paul in Relation to
Gnosticism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pilch, John
1981 "Biblical Leprosy and Body Symbolism." BTB 11:108-13.
Polhemus, Ted
1975 "Social Bodies." Pp. 13-35 in The Body as a Medium of Expression.
Postal, Susan Koessler
1965 "Body-Image and Identity: A Comparison
Hopi." American Anthropologist 67:455-60.

of

Kwakiutl

and

Robinson, John A. T.
1952 The Body. A Study in Pauline Theology. London: SCM Press.
Richardson, Peter
1980 "Judgment, Immorality, and Sexual Ethics in 1 Corinthians 6." Pp. 337-57
in SBL Seminar Papers. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.
Rosato, Philip
1977 "Spirit Christology: Ambiguity and Promise." TS 38;423-49.
Scheflen, Albert and Alice
1972 Body Language and the Social Order: Communication as
Behavioral Control.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schilder, Paul
1950 The Image and Appearance of the Human Body. New York: International University Press.
Schiissler- Fiorenza, Elizabeth
1983 In Memory of Her. New York: Crossroads.
1019

Schwartz, Barry
1981 Vertical Classification: A Study in Structuralism and the Sociology of
Knowledge. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Schweizer, E.
1971a "Soma." TDNT VII 1024-94.
1971b."Sarx." TDNT VII 98-151.
Scroggs, Robin
1972 "Paul and the Eschatological Woman." JAAR 40:283-303.
1974 "Paul and the Eschatological Woman: Revisited." JAAR 42:532-37.
1983 The New Testament and Homosexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press.
Sider, R.J.
1975 "The Pauline Conception of the Resurrection Body in 1 Corinthians
XV.35-54." NTS 21:428-39.
1977 "St. Paul's Understanding of the Nature and Significance of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians XV 1-19." NT 19:124-41.
Smith, M.
1980 "Pauline Worship as Seen by Pagans." HTR 73:241-49.
Strugnell, John
1960 "The Angelic Liturgy at Qumran." VTSupp 7:318-45.
Theissen, Cerd
1982 The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press.
Thiselton, A. C.

1020

1973 "The Meaning of Sarx in 1 Corinthians 5:5 A Fresh Approach in the Light
of Logical and Semantic Factors." SJT 26:204-27.
1978 "Realized Eschatology at Corinth." NTS 24:510-26.
1979 "The 'Interpretation' of Tongues: A New Suggestion in Light of Greek
Usage in Philo and Josephus. JTS 30:15-36.
Thrall, M. E.
1977 "The Problem of II Cor VI.14-VII.1 in Some Recent
Discussion." NTS 24:132-148.
Turner, Victor
1969 The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago: Aldine
Press.
Wedderburn, A. J. M.
1981 "The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in 1 Cor
XV. NT 23:229-41.
Windisch, Hans
1964 "Zyme." TDNT II 902-906.

[1]

I am deeply endebted to Sheldon Isenberg (1977:7--8) and Bruce Malina (1978a:102-103) for the following
chart which they put together to systematize Douglas' dispersed remarks on these various topics.
[2]

Paul speaks of persons and things as "holy" (hagios) in a variety of ways: a) Christians, as opposed to nonChristians, are "holy"; they are "the saints... a people set apart (1:2; 3:17; 6:1-2; 14:33; and 16:1,15); b) what
is not diluted or divided is "holy... as in the case of an unmarried person being "anxious about the affairs of
the Lord (7:34); such a one is "holy in mind and body." On totality and holiness, see Douglas 1966:52.
[3]

It is debated just what Paul is referring to in 5:1 (see Conzelmann 1975:96); it is unlikely that this sexual
union is incest or an adulterous relationship of a man with his stepmother. The reference to a man's "having"
his father's wife suggest a more permanent relationship such as marriage or concubinage. It is, however, a
sexual union which Paul considers illicit.
[4]

On the metaphorical character of leaven, see Windisch (1964:904-05); and Philo, Q. Ex. I.15 & II.14.

1021

[5]

Jerome Murphy-O'Connor argues from a purely literary perspective that 6:13,18 and 8:12 represent a slogan
at Corinth which is not a Pauline position. These verses argue for the moral neutrality of the body: "Men of
knowledge claimed that the body and its actions are morally irrevelant. The intention of the person is allimportant and cannot be contradicted by corporeal behavior, Actions do not weigh in the balance against
motives, Since no physical activity has any moral significance, everything is permitted" 1979:297; see also
1978:393-95)
[6]

The material in 5:9-13 confirms Pauls concern with purity of the body. While the focus in 5:9-13 is the
maintenance of a firm, clear boundary between what is clean and unclean, the issue is not, as Paul says, "the
immoral of the world" (5:10), but the unclean within the group ("anyone who bears the name of brother who
is guilty of immorality, etc." 5:11). Let God judge "outsiders," but "those inside you are to judge" (5:12). The
inside of the holy social body must be kept pure by expelling the pollutant beyond its boundaries (5:13). This
concern with social boundaries is replicated in Paul's concern with the orifices of the physical body.
[7]

It is debated whether 7:1 is a slogan of some group at Corinth, an item in their letter to him, or somehow a
Pauline opinion. See Hurd 1983:154-63. Whatever its source or how it comes to be a question in the letter, I
am arguing that it does reflect a Pauline point of view.
[8]

On dividedness (or lack of "totality"), see note 2 above and Douglas 1966:52.

[9]

On exogamous marriages, see David Bossman, "Ezra's Marriage Reform: Israel Redefined," BTB 9 (1979)
32-39.
[10]

In 10:1-4, other food and drink is permitted. After Israel's break with Egypt and its "baptism," it became a
holy people and it ate holy food and drank holy drink from a rock which was Christ. As new external
boundaries were formed, appropriate foods were consumed by the new group which reflected these new
boundaries and reinforced them; on group-specific foods, see Feeley-Harnik (1981:91-96).
[11]

For further remarks on the way the Eucharist is a boundary making phenomenon in the early church, see
Meeks (1983:159-162).
[12]

See Gen 9:20-21 and Philo's remarks on these verses in Plant. 142-48.

[13]

The divisions at the Eucharist may be analyzed on the basis of differences in social rank and economics;
see Theissen (1982:124-132, 153-162).
[14]

See Conzelmann (1975:195 note 22) on the common censuring in classical times of "divisions" at banquets
caused by individualism and the lack of commensality; on the anthropology of commensality, see FeeleyHarnik (1981:85-91).
[15]

For an excellent treatment of "freedom" from a social-science perspective which brings out the contrasts
between Paul and his pneumatic opponents, see Malina (1978b:62-76).
[16]

There is a strong missionary motive expressed here and in the argument against divorce in 7:12-14.
Although Paul regularly views the church and the human body under the rubric of purity and pollution, his
strong missionary sense leads him to be flexible about the group's boundaries where there is the possibility
"that I might win the more" to Christ (see 9:19-23).
[17]

On the character of purity associated with hair. see Derrett (1977 :171-75) and Leach (1958: 147-M).

[18]

See David Daube, "Disgrace," The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (New York: Arno Press 1973)
301-303.

1022

[19]

On angelic liturgies, see Strugnell (1960:318-45).

[20]

This text is fast becoming the shibboleth of various liberation groups in America and elsewhere; see
Schussler-Fiorenza (1983:205-241). From an anthropological point of view, Gal 3:28 speaks of a liminal stage
of baptismal initiation (Meeks 1983:88, 155). But it is a liminal stage, not the state of the neophyte who has
been reaggregated into society after the rite of passage; see Turner (1969:166-203).
[21]

See Kurzinger (1978:270-75).

[22]

See Thiselton (1978:512-25) and Horsley (1978b:203-31).

[23]

Jeremias (1955:151-54) offers important biblical parallels which extend the purity/pollution sense of flesh
and blood as sinful; see also Philo Somn. I.148 and Fuga 59.
[24]

See Thiselton (1978;525).

WITCHCRAFT ACCUSATIONS IN 2 COR 10-13:

PAUL IN SOCIAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE
Jerome
H.
University of Notre Dame

Neyrey,

S.J.

I. AN OLDER MODEL
Bultmann reminded us that there is no such thing as presuppositionless
exegesis. We all necessarily view the world through some lens. In the case of
the Bible, this means that we all use some method or model in reading the
text, whether or not a conscious model, and whether or not a literalist or
critical reading. It is the purpose of this essay to compare and contrast two
specific methods or lenses used to examine the conflict described in 2 Cor 1013. The issue of model and method is of crucial importance; for a flawed lens
yields a skewed picture, and an inadequate lens does not see enough.
The typical scholarly lens employed in reading 2 Cor 10-13 has been the
historical-critical method, which in this case has attempted to understand
and interpret the conflict found there in light of the history of early
Christianity. The enterprise of exegesis entails history. But which model of
history? For the very model of historical reconstruction is the issue I wish to
address. In the case of 2 Cor 10-13, one specific pattern of historical
reconstruction has long dominated critical attempts to explain the
development of the New Testament, so much so that it has assumed the
strength of a formal model for interpreting specific texts and issues. This
1023

historical
model
is
that
of
F.
C.
Baur.
Baur explained the dynamics of early church history in terms of an
ideological conflict between Paul and Peter, respective spokesmen for the
gentile and Jerusalem churches and their presumed conflicting theologies.
Baur's reconstruction is itself influenced by Reformation politics and
history, in which reformers (read Paul) confronted Rome (read Peter).
Baur's historical reconstruction, moreover, found conceptual legitimation in
Hegel's philosophy, which suggested a dialectical model of intellectual and
social dynamics consisting of three stages: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
As applied by Baur to the New Testament, Peter and the Judaizing church of
Jerusalem = thesis; Paul and the gentile churches = antithesis; and LukeActs a synthesis, which in this case means compromise of the key positions.
In this model, Paul is cast as a protesting figure who confronted a Judaizing
heresy in the mother church (Jerusalem); his opponents, then, are perceived
as repressive and conservative formalists. If Paul becomes the challenging
hero, the slayer of dragons, even the liberator of Jesus and the founder of
Christianity, his opponents appear as benighted conservatives or heretical
Judaizers. When this model of early Christian history is applied to 2 Cor 1013, we see Paul confronted with heretical Jews--probably Jerusalem Jews
and even Jews deputized by the original apostles-whose "another Jesus" and
"a different gospel" are heretical doctrines of a Judaizing stamp.
What, then, will 2 Cor 10-13 look like viewed through this lens? (a) Paul is
perceived as a theologian, a systematic thinker, whose gospel is "theology,"
not pastoral preaching. (b) Paul presentsorthodox theological positions,
implying that his opponents must be heterodox. (c) Paul is Saint Paul; that
is, his views are unimpeachable, his actions beyond reproach, and his
motives and strategies divinely authorized. This can only lead to seeing the
"super-apostles" and the "false prophets" as heretics, whose "another
Jesus" and "a different gospel" must be heterodox, and whose motives and
tactics must be base and illegitimate. This conclusion reduces complex
cultural and religious issues to simple questions of black and white, and is,
moreover, uncritically prejudiced in favor of an "intellectual" Paul.
It is not the point of this study to inform the reader of the sustained and
telling criticism which has been leveled against this model of New Testament
history, but rather to suggest how a model can determine one's exegetical
perception and how it leads one to view the text in certain ways. I suggest
another model for assessing what is happening in 2 Cor 10-13, a model
which may not settle specific historical issues, but which might allow us to
read the text more accurately, less anachronistically, and without the
distorting lens of continental polemics.
II. A NEWER MODEL
1024

Baur's historical model took as its starting point Paul's designation of his
opponents as "super-apostles" and their "another Jesus" as heresy. In the
text, Paul labelled his opponents as "false apostles" who disguise themselves
just as Satan disguised himself as an angel of light to seduce Eve (2 Cor
11:13-15; see 11:2-3). According to an anthropological model which takes
historical questions into account, such descriptions of one's rivals may be
labelled as "witchcraft accusations," indicating a characteristic dynamic of
rivalry and competition in certain societies. I propose to assess 2 Cor 10-13
according to the cross-cultural model of "witchcraft" developed by
anthropologists, especially by Mary Douglas, whose works are increasingly
and successfully employed by New Testament scholars vis-a-vis the biblical
text.
Douglas' study of witchcraft accusations in diverse cultures has been
synthesized into a model which seeks to describe and predict the cosmology
of a given social unit and to explain how accusations of witchcraft or
demonic possession function within it. As Douglas notes, witchcraft
accusations indicate a certain cultural view of the world, and reflect an
important mode of social behavior within that cultural context. Douglas
investigates certain regular features of all social groups, which she calls
"explorations in cosmology." Naturally, not all societies give the same
importance to authority, roles, rituals, etc., so Douglas has been careful to
sketch a typical witchcraft cosmology which encompasses specific social
attitudes toward seven areas characteristic of social life: (1) purity
(order/system), (2) ritual, (3) identity, (4) body, (5) sin, (6) cosmology and (7)
suffering/misfortune.
A. WITCHCRAFT COSMOLOGY
Let us briefly set out the typical features of a witchcraft cosmology as
described by Douglas:
1. Purity. This refers to a group's sense of right social structure, and is
heavily stressed: Persons, places, things, and times are strongly classified,
i.e., "a place for everything and everything in its place." Yet despite this
sense of and a desire for an ordered cosmos, people feel evil attacking the
borders of their structures; a pollution threatens to corrupt order and
integrity.
2. Ritual. A central and characteristic activity here is boundary making and
maintenance, i.e., determining who is "in" and who is "out" of the group.
The threat to boundaries indicates that social energy is focused there, trying
to determine where a break might have occurred and how to expel the
1025

polluting invader. Identifying the invader, however, constitutes a major

problem because the group's internal classification--especially the lines
defining the authority structure of the group and the social ranking of its
members--are chronically ambiguous.
3. Personal Identity is dyadic; the individual's identity is basically that of a
member of a group, e.g., family, clan, or village. Since the lines of internal
classification are blurred, socially defined roles and social location are
confused. Members of the group sense an important distinction between
external appearance and internal states; things are not what they seem;
deceit (witchcraft) may be at work.
4. Body. As the social body experiences controlling structures, so this is
mirrored in the strong social control of the individual physical body,
especially its boundaries, i.e. its surfaces and orifices. Group members sense
that pollutants are attacking these boundaries, threatening corruption and
evil.
5. Sin. A group with a strong sense of "purity" is also concerned with formal
rules, the violation of which constitutes sin. Yet sin is perceived here
primarily as a pollution which enters both individuals and the group like a
disease. And since external appearances are deceitfully misleading, sin tends
to be located in internal states and attitudes.
6. Cosmology. The world is perceived anthropomorphically, as causality is
predicated of personal forces ("Who did this to me?"). A witchcraft
cosmology sees warring forces in the cosmos, indicating a dualistic conflict of
good and evil. The threatening pollution is the attack of evil "personal"
forces on the good, ordered world.
7. Suffering and Misfortune. Because of cosmic, warring forces, the universe
is considered unjust: the good do not necessarily prosper, and the wicked are
not automatically punished. In fact, suffering is regularly attributed to these
invading malevolent forces. A witchcraft cosmology, then, views the world as
under seige in a dualistic and ambiguous cosmos.
B. WITCHCRAFT SOCIETY
To this general description of a witchcraft cosmology, let us add Douglas'
specific features of a witchcraft society: (1) specific characteristics of

1026

witchcraft societies (2) an anthropological definition of a "witch," and (3)

the social function of witchcraft accusations.
1. Specific Characteristics:
(a) External boundaries are clearly marked; there is a clear sense of who
belongs
to
the
group
and
who
does
not.
(b) Yet internal relations are confused: internal lines which classify, rank, and
locate people (especially hierarchical lines of authority and status) are
confused.
(c) A witchcraft society is a small group, living in close and unavoidable
interaction, e.g., drawing from the same well, foraging in the same forest, or
shopping
in
the
same
marketsquare.
(d) Within this group, tension-relieving techniques are underdeveloped; there
are no, or very weak, procedures for distancing, regulating, or reconciling
conflicts.
(e) Weak authority characterizes this type of group. Access to power or status
is ambiguous because the routes of access are unclear, as are the factors
which
legitimate
acquisition
of
power
and
authority.
(f) Intense and disorderly competition best characterizes this group.
2. Anthropological Definition of a "Witch"
The cosmos is perceived in dualistic terms as an arena of warring forces.
In a milieu in which pollution is attacking, there is a painful ambiguity
between what is external and internal: the attacking evil is disguised as a
wolf in sheep's clothing. In this context of ambiguity and deception, a
"witch" may be defined as someone:
(a)
whose inside is corrupt,
(b) who is a perverted figure, a reversal of the way things should be,
a deceiver whose normal appearance masks a corrupt interior,
(c) who attacks either by poisoning or soul-sucking.
3. The Social Function of Witchcraft Accusations
From the group's point of view, pollutants which have deceptively and
secretly crept into a pure body should be identified by an accusation of
pollution and expelled (see 1 Cor 5: 1-13). But when such a situation is
viewed from an anthropologist's point of view, a witchcraft accusation serves
a different sort of function. Douglas indicates that witchcraft accusations
function in terms of the intense and disorderly competition within this
group. The accusation serves as an idiom of control, denigrating rivals and
pulling them down in the competition for leadership. Accusations made
against rivals label what appears to be a successful person as a disguised
deceiver or agent of evil who is attacking the group. If successful, the
1027

accusation would force the expulsion of the alleged witch. Often, however,
the label does not stick, and the rivalrous factions continue their disorderly
competition
for
leadership
in
the
group.
From the native's point of view, a witchcraft society is a threatening place
where deceit reigns and attack is the order of the day. Seen through an
anthropologist's lens, however, such a society is really a place of disorderly
rivalry and competition on a grand scale. Hence, in 2 Cor. 10-13, Paul may
be using the coded language of witchcraft accusation to describe the
situation as he perceives it. This code, however, can be interpreted in
anthropological terms to describe the inner dynamics of a social world which
employs witchcraft accusations as a functional device in the competition for
power and authority within the group which employs them.
III. THE NEWER MODEL APPLIED
The first step in applying Douglas' model to 2 Cor 10-13 requires
searching the text for clues which might provide a fuller description of its
cosmology.
1. Purity. Evidence of a strong purity system can be found in Paul's remark
about "the gospel of Christ" (10:14; see 10:16), a remark which presupposes
an extensive, articulated kerygma about Jesus. On one hand, Paul's use of
Jer 9:24 in 10:17 suggests the continuing value of the Hebrew Scriptures as
normative for Paul's world, as do the allusions to the Genesis story of Satan
and Eve in 11:14. On the other hand, Christian structures are assumed in
the typical reference to financial support of apostolic preachers (11:7-9; see 1
Cor 9:3-12). Paul, then, senses an orderly, structured Christian cosmos. Yet,
despite his desire for an ordered world, Paul speaks of threats to it and of
pollutants attacking it. He speaks, for example, of a state of warfare in which
he is engaged, referring to his "weapons of warfare," his attempts to
"destroy strongholds" and his "taking captive" opposing thoughts (10:4-5).
The threat disturbing him most is the pollutant of heresy, i.e., the preaching
of "another Jesus. ..a different gospel" (11:4), which he claims the false
apostles preach to seduce the pure bride of Christ (11 :2, 13-15). Pollution
threatens the physical as well as the social body. Just as the social body's
unity is attacked by "quarreling, jealousy, slander," etc. (12:20), so the
individual's physical body is correspondingly polluted by "impurity,
immorality and licentiousness" (12:21). Paul sees the Christian world
seriously imperiled by insidious forces on the attack.
2. Ritual. Belief in Jesus as God's Son, Christ, and agent of the true covenant
constitutes the main boundary distinguishing Christian insiders from all
1028

others. Yet the crisis resides not at these boundaries since all parties to the
dispute are "Christians." Rather, the pollution has already breached this
boundary; so, the conflict resides in the ambiguous internal relationships,
viz., the question of legitimated leadership. As founder of the church at
Corinth, Paul repeatedly claims to be the group's head and "father" (12:14;
see 1 Thess 2:11), as well as the parent who betrothed it to Christ (11: 2). The
legitimacy of Paul's claims rests partly on his: (1) initial, but past, apostolic
actions (2) claims of pedigree (11:22), and (3) claims to have suffered like
Jesus (11:23-33; 13:3-4). (4) Covering other bases, Paul claims legitimation
through heavenly revelations (12:1-4; see 1 Cor 2:6-16; Gal 1:15-16),
suggesting that his role is that of a prophet, since "apostle" is a disputed role
or title for him. Yet Paul has been, is, and will remain absent from this group
over which he claims absolute and enduring authority. Other leaders,
however, have moved into this vacuum to preach in and administer the
Corinthian church. Paul denigrates these rivals in highly polemical terms,
calling them "super-apostles" (11:5), "false apostles, deceitful workmen"
(11:13), "boastful persons" (10:12-13; 11:16-19,22), and "seductive suitors"
(11:3, 12-15). He speaks from a sense of Corinth as his turf. These rival
preachers have crossed into that turf: "We are not overextending
ourselves...we do not boast beyond limit in another's labors ...our field...we
may preach the gospel in lands beyond you, without boasting of work
already done in another's field" (10:14-16; see Rom 15:20 and 1 Cor 3:1015). Paul, moreover, interprets the presence of rivals on his turf as a
pollutant which has breached the social and individual bodies' boundaries
and threatens a fatal corruption. Paul vs. "super-apostles"--the critical issue
rests in the confused roles and ambiguous status of the rival preachers at
Corinth, including Paul himself.
3. Personal Identity. Both Paul and his rivals are dyadic personalities, taking
their identity as members of Christ's church and as servants of his gospel.
More importantly, Paul readily makes keen distinctions between exterior
and interior, and between appearances and reality. Paul repeats the
invaders' own accusations against him, i.e., that he is duplicitous: "I 'who
am humble when face to face with you, but bold when I am away'..." (10:1),
and "They say 'his letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is
weak, and his speech is of no account' " (10:10). Paul, then, has many faces
(see 1 Cor 9: 19-23). For his own part, Paul accuses his accusers of duplicity,
calling them "deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of
Christ" (11:13). Having compared their tactics with Satan's deceit in his
seduction of Eve, Paul concludes: "It is not strange if his [Satan's] servants
also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness" (11:15).
Under the rubric of personal identity, we should examine the numerous
1029

claims of Paul to be "weak." Paul occasionally claims legitimacy through

boasts of charismatic strength and power (Gal 3:3-5; 1 Thess 1:5; 1 Cor
14:18); yet on the whole it would seem that his presentation of himself and
his gospel was, as 2 Corinthians indicates, "weak...of no account" (2 Cor
10:10; see 1 Cor 2:1-5; Gal 4:13-14). Paul, however, boasts that appearances
may be deceiving, for "weakness is strength," just as "foolishness is
wisdom" (13:3-4; see 1 Cor 1:18-25). The boast of physical sufferings for the
gospel in 11:23-33 is a further example of the ambiguity of appearances (see
6:4-10 and 1 Cor 4:8-13). Paul's sufferings, humiliations, and weakness
become in his eyes signs of his legitimation, not of his disqualification, as
seems to have been thought at Corinth (see 1 Cor 1:17; 2:3-5; 2 Cor 4:7-11).
The plausible explanation for the confusion of appearance and reality most
likely stems from Paul's preaching of the Crucified Christ as God's power
and wisdom against the celebration of pneumatic power as the source of
legitimation of authority (1 Cor 1:18-25). Yet, as Paul clearly proclaimed
even of himself, things are not as they seem. Thus, Paul's own world remains
fundamentally ambiguous.
4. Body. In 1 Cor 6 and 12, Paul compared the church to a physical body, a
metaphor which yields in 2 Cor 11 to the church as the spotless bride of
Christ. Stringent bodily control is an appropriate defensive strategy for a
holy body or a spotless bride. Control takes the form of guarding the bodily
orifices,
especially ears (against
seductive
flattery,
11:4,
13-15)
andgenitals (where sexual pollution symbolizes doctrinal pollution). Yet Paul
charges that this body is already being seduced and polluted (11:13-15).
5. Sin. Although Paul acknowledges in 1 Cor 6:9-10 that sin is the formal
violation of the Ten Commandments, in 2 Cor sin is perceived primarily as
pollution, seduction, and heresy (see Paul's remarks on "leaven" in 1 Cor
5:8).
6. Cosmology. Recalling Paul's sense of war in the cosmos (10:1-6), we note
his thoroughly dualistic view of the cosmos completely as polarized into
opposing forces of good and evil. Two warring camps are locked in mortal
combat: Paul the Apostle...vs...Super Apostles/False Apostles; The Gospel of
Christ...vs ...Another Jesus/ A Different Gospel; Authorized Preacher from
God...vs...Unauthorized Agents from Satan; Paul vs. rival preachers; he is
legitimate, they are not; his doctrine is authentic, theirs is not; his spirit is
pure, theirs is demonic and polluted. He is spiritual, they are worldly; he is
God's representative, they are Satan's henchmen.

1030

7. Suffering and Misfortune. Paul sees the world as unjust. After all, God's
authorized agent, Paul, suffers terribly as he preaches the gospel, while the
"super-apostles" are legitimated by worldly recommendations (10:17-18),
boasts (11:18), and mighty works (12:11-12). Suffering is unfair: God's
agent, Paul, even on the occasion of his great revelations, was given a thorn
in the flesh, a painful experience which was not suffering merited by sin
(12:7-10).
The various details provided by Paul in 2 Cor 10-13 correspond quite
closely to the general profile of a witchcraft society. The net impression is
that of (a) a system threatened and under siege (b) a sense of pollution
infiltrating boundaries (c) a cosmos where ambiguity and deceit reign, and
(d) a world where evil is pervasive and of cosmic proportions. In short,
Paul's is a dualistic world characterized by conflict and threat.
IV. FURTHER APPLICATIONS
Applying Douglas' model more precisely, let us test to see if 2 Cor 10-13
displays any of the specific characteristics of a witchcraft society. In these
terms, it may be said that (a) Paul addresses a small group whose external
boundaries are tightly drawn: they are the church of Christ at Corinth. (b)
Although all are Christians, the internal relations are confused, as the issues
of role, office, and authority surface. Legitimation has become the
overarching problem! Paul seems always to be intensely self-conscious of
this issue (see 1 Cor 9:1-2; 15:8-10; Gal 1:1). He seems to live in a state of
rivalry with other preachers (see Phil 1:15-18; I Cor 1:12; 3:4; Gal 1:6-9),
indicating a persistent problem with legitimation. (c) Paul is absent from the
churches to which he writes, an absence quite permanent despite his
protestations of an imminent return (see 1:16-17; 13:2, 10). Yet he stays in
close, unavoidable conflict through letters and emissaries to and from
Corinth (I Cor 1:11; 11:18 and 16:10). (d) We have scant information about
any tension-relieving techniques for the conflicts described in his letters. How
is authority legitimated? Paul does not appeal to Jerusalem and its apostolic
leadership to validate the legitimacy of his claims (Gal 1:16-17). Paul
occasionally claims Jesus' direct designation of him as an "apostle" (I Cor 9:
1); but, when faced with pneumatic rivals, he claims legitimation through
spiritual credentials (I Cor 2:6-16; 14:18; see 2 Cor 12:1-4). At other times,
he presents himself as a "prophet" (Gal I:15). Considerable evidence
suggests that Paul was not readily accepted as a true "apostle" on a par with
the pillars of the church (see I Cor 9:2). In I Cor 15:8-9, he speaks of himself
as the "runt of the litter," not worthy to be called an apostle. From this we
learn that Paul's identity as an apostle and legitimation of his apostolic
1031

authority remained a continual problem. There seems to have been no

definitive criterion in Corinth (or elsewhere) for determining the legitimacy
either of the absent Paul or his present rivals. (e) Paul speaks openly of
authority: either God's authority, Christ's authority, or that of husbands (I
Cor 11:3; 15:22-28); yet authority is weak in the Pauline churches. First of
all, Paul himself is absent; apparently he did not name successors, except
Stephanus (I Cor 16:15-18). Into this vacuum moved other leaders, persons
who appear to have been pneumatic, eloquent, powerful figures, and whom
Paul refused to acknowledge as legitimate, but whom he seems unable to
unseat
or
discredit.
(f)
Evidence
of intense and disorderly
competition surfaces as a palpable feature of Paul's correspondence. He
battles constantly with other preachers: pneumatics, Judaizers, superapostles,
rival
preachers,
Apollos,
etc.
Paul regularly describes his rivals in accord with the characteristics of a
witch listed by anthropologists: (a) Their inside is corrupt; they are "false"
apostles (11:13) and act out of perverse motives (11:20; see Phil 1:15). (b)
They are perverted figures, deceivers who mask their corruption in a show of
wisdom and power: "Such men are...deceitful workmen, disguising
themselves as apostles of Christ" (11: 13). They are compared with Satan
who "disguised himself as an angel of light" (11: 15). They are, in effect,
Satan's very agents. Paul's charges against his rivals in 11:3, 13-15 are
classic examples of "witchcraft accusations" in form and function. (c) As
secret witches, the rival preachers are said to attack by poisoning their
victims with heresy ("another Jesus...a different gospel," 11:4). They seduce
their victims, offering tainted doctrine for the truth, thus corrupting the
church's "pure and sincere devotion to Christ" (11:3). From an
anthropological perspective, then, Paul perceives his rivals as "witches," and
labels
them
as
such
with
"witchcraft
accusations."
The social function of typical witchcraft accusations applies to the charges
made in 2 Cor 10-13. By calling public attention to the "pollutions" of his
rivals, Paul expects them to be discredited and dismissed from the church.
His accusations function as an idiom of control in the competition for
leadership of the Corinthian church. In the intense and disorderly
competition, Paul's labeling of his rivals, if successful, would destroy them,
and leave him in the field to face successive new challenges to his authority.
V. CONCLUSION
To say the least, Baur's historical model and Douglas' witchcraft model
yield quite different readings of2 Cor 10-13. The strengths of Douglas' model
are that it is cross-cultural, based on wide-ranging anthropological data, and
of sufficient complexity and flexibility that it has been successfully used for
1032

analyses of witchcraft accusations past and present. It can be applied with

considerable accuracy to the accusations of demonic possession in Matthew,
John and 1 John as well as in early Christianity. It can explain more of the
text than Baur's model; in addition, it can yield a coherent sense of the
cultural dynamics of Paul's world which is not available from Baur's model.
Although the word "witchcraft" may initially sound disturbing, the model
reveals typical mythological codes of perception, and allows us to glimpse
the inner social dynamics of a group which employs such language and
symbols. The model's significance for Paul, moreover, finds support in more
traditional, contemporary Pauline scholarship: (a) instead of considering
him a systematic theologian, Paul is better viewed as a pastoral preacher with
a flexible message (1 Cor 9: 19-23); (b) his letters are not so much systematic
theological tracts as occasional pieces written in response to a wide range of
specific situations and issues; (c) he often expresses himself inhyperbole,
exaggerating and overstating issues; (d) he was by no means the enemy of
Peter or the Jerusalem church, as his collection for the poor in Jerusalem
clearly indicates. Even if it cannot solve specific historical problems,
Douglas' model allows us to see more accurately into the social dynamics of
Paul's world, and so should be a welcome contribution to the quest for the
historical Paul.
Works Consulted
Barrett,
1982 Essays on Paul. Philadelphia: Westminster 60-207.

C.K.

Douglas,
Mary
1963 "Techniques in Sorcery Control," Witchcraft and Sorcery in East
Africa (ed. J. F. M. Middleton and E. H. Winter). London: Routledge and
Kegan
Paul
123-41.
1967
"Witch
Beliefs
in
Central
Africa," Africa 37
72-80.
1970 "Thirty Years after Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic," Witchcraft
Confessions and Accusations. New York: Tavistock xiii-xxxviii.
1982 Natural Symbols. Explorations in Cosmology. New York: Pantheon.
Douglas,
Mary
and
Wildavsky,
1983 Risk and Culture. Berkeley: U. California Press.
Furnish,
Victor
1984 II Corinthians. Anchor Bible 32A; Garden City: Doubleday.

1033

Aaron
Paul

Georgi,
Dieter
1964 Die Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korinthcrbrief. Neukirchen- Vluyn.
Gunther,
1973 St. Paul's Opponents and Their Background. Leiden: Brill.

JohnJ.

Isenberg,
Sheldon
and
Owen,
Dennis
1977 "Bodies Natural and Contrived: The Works of Mary
Douglas," RSR 31-16.
Kee,
Doyle
1980 "Who Were the 'Super-Apostles' of2 Corinthians 10-13?" RQ 2365-76.
Mair,
Lucy
1969 Witchcraft. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Return

to

Selection

of

Jerome

H.

Neyrey's

Articles

Return to Jerome H. Neyrey's HomePage

Call and Commission in the New Testament

Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J.
University of Notre Dame

1. What Were They Talking About?

Vocations in the New Testament? No, and yes.

There is no lexical term in Greek for this phenomenon, although many instances of the
phenomenon can be found. For example, individual NT characters say of themselves or
others that they are sent (Matt 10:5; Mark 1:1; John 3:17), called (Matt 4:21; Gal 1:15)
set part (Acts 13:2; Rom 1:1; Gal 1:15), received grace and apostleship (Rom 1:5; Gal
2:8), called by the will of God an apostle (1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1), and chosen
as apostle of God and servant of Christ Jesus (Tit 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1). Moreover, the Jesus
1034

groups are also called: called to be saints (1 Cor 1:2) and [to] those who are called,
beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ (Jude 1). Thus vocation refers to
individuals whom God authorizes for a specific task and to groups who are gathered and
groomed by God. The writers of the New Testament emphatically state that mortals should
never presume to take these honors to themselves (Heb 5:4), but are clients of a generous
God who alone can ascribe such honors. The grace to call or chose is Gods alone to
bestow.
2. Jesus Vocation. Jesus too experienced a call which tradition identifies as his
baptism. A pious person like Jesus heard of a prophet who was mighty in word and deed:
Why then did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet
(Matt 11:9). Jesus joined others and made a pilgrimage to the Jordan to hear John. All of
these pilgrim separated from their families and homes to enter into a liminal process
typical of status transformation rituals. We assume that Jesus and many others remained
with John for some time, during which they heard him preaching a baptism of repentance
for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4) and proclaiming Repent, for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand (Matt 3:2). John was distinguished for purificatory rites, which took the
place of sin offerings in the Temple. Like all prophets, he could read hearts and see through
hypocrisy (Matt 3:7-10). We assume that Jesus observed all of this, and in doing so he
himself learned to be a prophet, which in ritual studies is called the liminal state leading to
a status transformation. At the appropriate time, Jesus presented himself to John, his
mentor, for some conclusion of his stay. John declared that baptism for the forgiveness of
sins was not appropriate for Jesus, the initiand. Jesus, like all those coming to John, is
unlike them because he is fundamentally pious and reverent. Nevertheless, he enters the
waters, which John poured over him. At this moment, Jesus ends his initiation, for God
speaks to him, giving him a new role and status: This is my beloved Son, with whom I am
well pleased (3:17). God, who is the premier reader of hearts, knows the stuff Jesus is
1035

made of. Hence of Jesus God says that he is Gods beloved one, of whom God is well
pleased. Since this event at the Jordan is the first narrative about Jesus in public,
minimally we think of Jesus now beginning his life as an elder (30 years old), who now is
graced with a prophetic call from God. Gods voice and the descent of the Spirit set Jesus
apart for a new role (prophet mighty in word and deed, Luke 24:19) and a new status,
highly God-favored (beloved son...well pleased). His role, moreover, is that of a warrior
or champion. Since the descending Spirit is clean and holy, Jesus is empowered to war
on the unclean spirits, especially those who harm and injure Gods people. He is then, a
warrior liberating Gods people. His baptism, then, may be seen as a status
transformation ritual whereby this pious person was taught to be a prophet and finally
established as a God-favored person with heavenly power to battle Evil and Satan.
3. Volunteers? Recall the pattern seen earlier that God calls, blesses, sets apart, etc. Honor
in this case, moreover, is bestowed by God as grace. Those called are passive recipients,
because in terms of call, it would be presumptive and thus shameful to anticipate Gods
pleasure. But may one volunteer? No, it was shameful to do so! Why? Whats at stake
here? The answer lies deep in the culture of the New Testament world, which was
dominated by the value of honor. Honor refers to the reputation, respect, or worth of a
person. The sources of honor are basically twofold: honor is either bestowed or earned.
Regarding bestowed honor, persons born of noble families automatically enjoy the respect
and reputation of their tribes and clans. Similarly, people are authorized by superiors for
special tasks, such as the procurator whom Caesar sent out to Palestine. Some people
experience the laying on of hands, authorizing them for a task. This honor is bestowed on
individuals, not earned. This bestowed honor describes both the variety of people called
and even Jesus, set aside by God. Yet others earn their reputation the old fashion way: they
work for it. Prowess was always honored, prowess from military, athletic, aesthetic and

1036

dramatic achievements. Finally, people earn honor by challenging others and taking it from
them, either by putting them in ones debt or diminishing them in the eyes of others.
No one in the New Testament volunteers, and those who try are dismissed. Take, for
example, Matt 8:18-22 where two people come to Jesus and offer their services. To the
person who volunteers to follow you where ever you go, Jesus says that unlike the birds,
he (and his followers) has no place to lay his head, i.e., no family, no home. A second
volunteer wants to follow, but begs time to attend to his family and home, i.e., to bury his
father, the kind of thing for which Jesus warned off the first volunteer. Jesus demands that
he turn his back on his family and follow Jesus. Both volunteers fail, but why? Volunteers
belong to the same class of people who compliment someone, make requests or them, or
proffer gifts to them. The ancients interpreted these actions as seeking to impose on
someone, to get something from him, to put him in their debt, and so find some social
advantage. Jesus refuses the compliment Good teacher (Matt 19:16-17); people endlessly
make requests of him, many of which he refuses (Mark 7:27; 10:35-38; John 4:47-49).
There are no narratives of people offering Jesus gifts (i.e., bribes). But as we all know from
our lobbyists scandals, such people surely expect something in return, maybe not right
now, but later. Volunteers are the same: Jesus is put on the spot: does he care to have such
people as his disciples? After all, he seems quite selective of his closest disciple (Matt 10:14). Volunteers, then, challenge Jesus in a positive way, not to embarrass him or send him
packing in shame. But they are putting him on the spot, trying to get some advantage from
him. Jesus dispenses the honor and grace to his discipleship; they will not earn respect and
reputation at his expense. In the ancient world, then, volunteering does not to measure up to
the premier criterion of a vocation, namely being called as given a gift. Volunteering
presumes to role and status (Heb 5:4), which dishonors Jesus and his Father.

1037

4. The Rich (Young) Man. As Jesus travels on the way to Jerusalem (directional), he
teaches his way of thinking, acting and valuing (spiritual way) . The episode of the rich
man occurs in this context as Jesus repeatedly teaches the way of non-honor, that is, of
being least, last, non-honored by others. The rich man comes to Jesus, itself a significant
point. He makes no request, but he begins praising Jesus (Good Teacher), a compliment
which Jesus rejects: No one is good but God alone (Mark 10:18). The mans question is
self-evident: What must I do to be saved? Jesus repeats the way of Israel, the Ten
Commandments which all should know. Confessing that he has kept them all from his
youth, the man gave cause for Jesus to love him. Here is a very good man, who is
observant, loyal, faithful, evidently a paragon of patriarchal virtue. Thus far there is no
call nor is the man a volunteer. But Jesus next words are an invitation to walk in his own
way, that is, the non-honor achieved by the shedding of the sources of honor: wealth. But
the man left sorrowful, because he had great possessions.
A vocation story? On the one hand it confirms one of the critical criteria for
discipleship, namely, freedom from family and land, a key aspect of the way of Jesus.
On the other hand, he came to Jesus and asked the question of questions: What must I do
to be saved? He is no volunteer but a person in search of wisdom and grace. Jesus calls
him to belong to his group: Go, sell what you have. . .and come follow me (Mark 10:21).
This is a call to discipleship; nothing is said about a new role. He indeed hears Jesus
invitation to join his group, but the cost proves too dear.
Therefore, let us put the story in context as one of the many aspects of Jesus way.
That way turns from honor as the world defines it to non-honor as a disciple, who
foreswears the honor games played in the village and the honor value given to land, family,
wealth, etc. This becomes clear in the following discourse between Jesus and Peter over
wealth and the honor that comes from giving up all to be Jesus disciple. As such, the rich

1038

man is asked to do what all the disciples have done: leave family, lands, wealth. A call to
discipleship refused.
5. Jesus Calls Others. Whom does Jesus call? The synoptics narrate that Jesus first called
Peter and Andrew and give them a new role, to fish for people to join his group (Matt 4:1822). Similarly the brothers, James and John, followed him. The evangelists consider this an
important narrative because they situate it at the start of Jesus public career. We note that
both pairs of brothers immediately responded, suggesting an ideal response for the
encouragement of the audience. Moreover, they seemingly separated from their families,
their wives, their parents, and their trade/livelihood. This identifies them as special people
who put everything else in second place, to gain the prize of being Jesus disciples.
Is it likely that Jesus just showed up and called strangers who responded positively?
Some describe the situation this way. Jesus, a worker in wood, came to the place where his
skill was needed. Fishermen fish from boats which are made of wood (although very else
was made of wood). So, Jesus presumably had prior acquaintance with the two sets of
brothers. Hence, when Jesus calls them, they already have many stands of attachment
with him. What seems important here is that most (!) people who are called in the gospels
are recruited by people who know them already. Follow me is but the latest, albeit the
most powerful, thread in the tapestry.
This is by no means far fetched, for the same pattern is repeated in the Fourth
Gospel (1:35-51). First, a brother calls his brother: Andrew first found his brother Simon
and said, We have found the Messiah. We do not know who recruited, but there is a
definite geographical connection: Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and
Peter (1:44). Finally Philip called Nathanael, whom we learn later is from Cana in Galilee
(21:2). There seem to be many kinds of ties binding these figures: kinship (brothers); social

1039

(same town and same area). They are not strangers to each other, which facilitates how and
why they contacted one another.
The Fourth Gospel, moreover, describes a type of liminal process that initiands go
through. First, they are all separated from their previous place and tasks: Come! See!
Second, they are instructed about Jesus in a statement of his role and status, which
instruction is characteristic of transformation rituals. Third, proof of their transformation to
the role and status of disciple rests in Jesus word to each, indicating that the liminal
process succeeded. Andrew heard the word from John, his old mentor, Behold the Lamb of
God; he separated from John and attached himself to Jesus, whom he labeled Rabbi. His
liminal period was they stayed with him that day (1:39). Jesus own invitation to Andrew
to Come! See! succeeded and Andrew became a disciple, proof of which is found in his
catechizing Peter. Andrew announces a discipleship word (We have found the Messiah)
and invites Peter to separate himself and enter a liminal period, after which Jesus proclaims
his transformation to a new role: You will be called Cephas (which means Peter). Philip,
whose recruitment is difficult to discern in 1:43-44, proves that he is an insider by telling
Nathanael that We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets
wrote, Jesus of Nazareth (1:45). But now we meet resistance: the man from Cana looks
down on Nazareth, thus putting an obstacle in the way. But his very struggle becomes his
badge of honor. Come and See, said Philip. Nathanael separated himself from the fig
tree and came to learn of Jesus, for which he is praised by Jesus, a distinction bestowed on
no one else. And in a reversal of the recruitment process, he acknowledges Jesus as Son of
God, King of Israel. Jesus confirms him as an insider by promising that he will see
greater things than these (1:50). Thus vocation/recruitment is initiated by persons who
are already believers, who inform close associates about Jesus under some title and invite
them to Come and see. The invitee experiences a status transformation by separation
from ordinary life and by entrance into a liminal period of development. Jesus
1040

acknowledges this change in a face-to-face exchange during which he names the person
anew or bestows praises and promises.
6. Saul/Paul. Paul wrote his own version of his call in Gal 1-2, which we will use for this
article, instead of Acts 9, 21, 26. The form of Pauls narrative derives from the encomium,
the genre which instructs authors how to praise some one and whence to find the grounds
for praise. The encomium contains five basic topics: 1. origins, 2. nurture and training, 3.
achievements, 4. deeds of the soul, and 5. death. The first four are in view in Gal 1-2.
Peoples origins speak to their. Geography looks to ethnos or homeland: Greeks are more
noble than barbarians; city folk, superior to country folk. While Paul comes from a no
low-status city (Acts 21:39), Nathanael knows that nothing good can come from Nazareth
(John 1:46)? Generation looks to descent from a noble family, tribe or clan, and Paul enjoys
an honorable pedigree: of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of
Hebrews (Phil 3:5). Yet even in this orthodox matrix, God had already called Paul: God
had set me apart before I was born, and called me through his grace (Gal 1:15). From
before he was born, then, he had a vocation from God. As regards his training, Paul was
brought up as a Pharisees Pharisee: I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age,
so zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers (1:14; see Phil 3:6). As regards deeds, he
was convinced that he served God most faithfully when he persecuted the deviant followers
of Jesus: I persecuted the church of God and violently tried to destroy it (Gal 1:13). But
God changed him. Consistency was the great virtue of noble folk; change was not desirable
or expected. In general change is taken as a weakness or a fault. However, in Pauls case,
God instigates the change by illuminating Paul with favored knowledge. Previously Paul
considered Jesus as a maverick, a sinner whose poison in Israel he must expel. But God
revealed his Son to me (1:16), causing Paul to change his mind about Jesus, now
acknowledging Jesus as Son (and Christ, Lord). We note the important elements of a
vocation here: divine favor and grace. This means a change of theology, and a
1041

commissioning all worked by God. Paul states the purpose of Gods revelation, In order
that I might preach him among the Gentiles (1:16), a role which the Jerusalem church
ultimately acknowledged (2:7-9). Pauls experience is often called a conversion, but he
does not change from being zealous for God; conversion, the experts tell us, means moving
loyalty from one god to another. Paul had no such conversion. God shows him that his
zeal should now be directed to proclaiming Jesus as holy, kosher, etc. Thus it is better to say
that Paul enjoyed a vocation, a grace and favor from God than that he was converted.
God chose him, revealed his son to him, changed him and commissioned him. As such,
then, Pauls account of his vocation coheres with all he data seen above: it is God who
calls Paul, who sets him apart, and who freely pours his spirit on Paul.
6. The Risen Lord and the Disciples. Finally, let us examine the commissioning of the
disciples. Although Mark reported no appearances of the risen Jesus, the other evangelists
do. When the Risen Jesus appears in them, these appearances function to commission those
to whom he appears. It is our good fortune that scholars have examined the call narratives
in the Bible, which typically structure the call and consecration of people who are set aside
for sacred duties; they contain: 1. an introduction, 2. confirmation, reaction, and
reassurance, 3. a commission, 4. an objection, reassurance, and sign, and 5. a conclusion.
This form splendidly interprets the commissioning of Moses (Exod3:13-4:9), Gideon
(Judges 6:11-35); Jeremiah (Jer 1:1-10); and the disciples of Jesus. Introduction: Who is
standing where, doing what, when? Confirmation-Reaction-Reassurance: When the
heavenly world enters ours, it typically occasions fear and terror, which the appearing
figure removes by asserting the benign nature of the visitation: Peace be with
you. Commission: Moses is sent to Egypt; Gideon to battle the Philistines; and Jeremiah to
build up and tear down. Objection-Reassurance-Sign: Yet Moses objects and suggests that
Aaron go; Gideon objects that a mere 300 Israelites can battle thousands of he Philistines.
God reassures with another Peace be with you. A heavenly sign solve the objections:
1042

Moses does tricks with his rod; Gideon plays games with the fleece. Thus do the people of
the bible narrate divine commissionings.
Apropos of the resurrection stories in the New Testament, this call narrative form
serves as an indispensable tool for interpreting

the appearances of the risen

Jesus. Introductions vary: Jerusalem or Galilee? same day or later? to male disciples or
female ones? Reaction-Reassuraance. When Jesus appears, he says, Peace be with you;
nevertheless they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit (Luke
24:36-37). Commission. Immediately follows the climax of the appearance: their
commission by Jesus. To the disciples Matthews Jesus commands: Go, make disciples of
all nations, baptizing. . .teaching all that I have commanded you (Matt 28:19-20). After
teaching the disciples how to read Scripture, Lukes Jesus authorizes them: You are
witnesses of these things (24:48). Johns Jesus likewise commissions the disciples: As the
Father has sent me, even so I send you. . .If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if
you retain the sins of any, they are retained (20:23). There are objections: Jesus has to eat
before Lukes disciples to acknowledge that he is no spirit (24:41-43). But Thomas voices
the premier objection: Unless I see in his hands. . .place my finger. . . place my hand
(20:25). Jesus answers this insulting objection by appearing before Thomas and inviting
him to do what he demanded of Jesus (20:27). The point is that most of the resurrection
appearances by the risen Jesus function to commission certain select people to tasks both
outside the group and inside it too. This pattern would be true of the commissioning of
Peter in John 21:15-18 and, I believe, of Paul according to 1 Cor 15:5-10. Thus what the
ancients describe as a call narrative is an excellent illustration of what we understand by
vocation.
8. Summary

1043

1. Roles. To what roles are people set aside and commissioned? As Jesus was sent,
the primary role is that of apostle, i.e., one who is sent. The duties of this role are directed
both to the outside (preaching the gospel about Jesus) and to the inside (administering a
church gathered in Jesus name, e.g., release/retain sins). Paul was sent not to baptize, but
to preach (1 Cor 1:17), which means that he recruited the Corinthians by his word and
continued to instruct the growing church. Although mandated by Jesus to serve tables (Luke
22:27), the apostles authorized a new arrangement. They declared that they would now
devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word (Acts 6:4), while others were
picked by the church to serve the tables (6:3). If this is accurate, the apostles changed the
instructions of Jesus. Apostle is only one role to which people were called and
commissioned. The Twelve were sent as prophets: to preach the kingdom and to work
wonders (Matt 10:5-15). But a true apostle is authorized by God and sent by Jesus; this is
always a commissioning, a grace, a role given them.
2. Role of the Church. We do not know how people became prophets and
teachers, but of their number the Holy Spirit said, Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for
the work to which I have called them (Acts 13:2). After the churchs fasting and prayer,
others laid their hands on them and sent them off (13:3). The the Church acknowledges
and confirms what God has started. Were there lone rangers who set out on their own?
Evidently, as we find in the Pastorals and the Johannine epistles. But there is always a
debate over their legitimacy.
3. God Calls, but We Recruit. God declares people like Paul to be prophets and/or
apostles. But the disciples recruit others to join them. We are passive recipients of Gods
call, since God is bestowing a grace and showing a favor by this call. Conversely, those
recruited must voluntarily accept this task, unlike Jonah who fled from Gods call. Paul
cites both his call and the election of the Galations as examples of Gods pervasive grace

1044

and favor. Since the calls are generally to labor in bringing others to insight, wholeness and
holiness, those called become brokers of Gods benefaction. God, of course, is the Patron
and Benefactor; the church is his client, a typical relationship understood throughout
antiquity. But brokers abound. Jesus was the primary broker, mediator, intermediary, priest
between God Patron and the clients of God. Hence all who are called and set aside for
sacred duties assume a brokers role, including Peter, Paul, and the Twelve.
4. Status Transformation Rituals. The recruitment scenes in the New Testament are
structured as transformation rituals: separation, liminal period (a time of learning,
discipline), ritual of change and acknowledgment of the new role by others. Pauls
experience in Acts 9 is told in such a way as to appear as a transformation ritual. Moreover,
when the risen Jesus commissions the Twelve it would appear that the liminal period of his
arrest, trial, crucifixion and burial are the moments of learning, praying and practicing
humility and lowliness which equip them for their commissioning as Christ-bearers.

God, Benefactor and Patron:

The Major Cultural Model for Interpreting the Deity in
Greco-Roman Antiquity
Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J.
University of Notre Dame

ABSTRACT:

This study contributes to a renewed interest in the Christian Deity

by employing the cultural model of benefactor-client relations. What is fresh here is an

enlarged model of this pattern of social relations and fresh, apt, and plentiful illustrations of
it in antiquity. The patron-client model is expanded by concern for types of reciprocity and
classification of what is exchanged. Typical titles of God-as-benefactor are examined in
1045

light of media of exchange, especially power, knowledge, and material benefaction. Then
several leading questions are asked: Why does God indeed give benefaction? What kind of
reciprocity is in view? What kind of debt is incurred? Finally, what do clients return to
God? Elites in antiquity state that God wants nothing and needs nothing. Yet mortals have
offered sacrifice, a form of inducement, which practice Christians and philosophers
rejected.
1.0 State of the Question, Thesis and Plan of Development
Nils Dahl published a short article in a small journal on a major topic, The
Neglected Factor in New Testament Theology, namely God. 1 Since then, only occasional
studies have appeared, leaving the neglected factor still quite neglected. Scholars who
took up Dahls challenge tended to go about their task in an impressionistic manner, with
little fresh data or appropriate models for interpretation. Most recent studies of God in early
Christianity have tended to ignore cultural and social materials.
This study, however, takes up the consideration of the Deity in antiquity by means
of the cultural model of benefactor- client relations. Scholarship of course already provides
a rich body of anthropological materials on patron-client relations,2 as well as historical
investigations of benefactor/patron and client relationships in Greece and Rome. 3 But we
will make three significant contributions to the study of God as benefactor-patron in
antiquity. First, we supplement the prevailing model of patron-client relations with
materials about types of reciprocity and classification of benefits bestowed and returned..
Second, this study contains a fresh cache of primary material from antiquity illustrative of
the benefaction model. Thus, readers have access to a rich database of ancient discourse
about gods. Finally, whereas most studies of benefaction treat only the relationship of
mortal benefactor and mortal client, we focus on the discourse about a divine Benefactor
with mortal clients.4 Therefore this study enlarges our cultural model of benefaction,
1046

illustrates it with fresh data, and surfaces pertinent ancient discourse about God-Benefactor
and mortal clients. The materials presented here mostly come from Greco-Roman sources
about the gods of antiquity. While we do not suggest that Israelite materials were
unimportant for interpreting New Testament and early church discourse on the God of
Israel, this study focuses on the Greco-Roman influence on and contribution to God-talk in
Christianity.
2.0 Model of Benefactor/Patron - Client Relations
Social historians of ancient benefactor- client relations as well as modern
anthropologists provide the basis for our model. In fact, many social historians have
themselves made extensive use of the work of the anthropologists, with the result that the
current consensus on the topic represents an confluence of precise historical data and exact
theoretical interpretation. The model informs the historian of what data is likely to appear
and how to interpret it when discovered. Our presentation of the model of benefactor client relations contains three major components: 1. characteristics of patron - client
relationship, 2. types of reciprocity which characterize the exchange between patron and
client, and 3. classification of what is exchanged in the relationship.
2.1 Patronage. The following definition broadly describes patronage as an interpretative
model which explains and interprets a wide spectrum of relationships.
Patronage is a model or analytical construct which the social scientist applies in order to
understand and explain a range of apparent different social relationships: God - man, saint devotee, godfather - godchild, lord - vassal, landlord - tenant, politician - voter,
professor - student, and so forth..5

1047

Anthropologists and historians agree upon the following elements characteristic of

benefactorclient relations. This list, based on the classic exposition in Eisenstadt and
Roniger,6 contains suggestions and clarifications made by other scholars.7
1. Asymmetrical relationship, i.e. between parties of different status, thus representing a
vertical dimension of superior and inferior relationships.8
2. Simultaneous exchange of different types of resources, above all instrumental, economic
and political ones by the benefactor, in response to which the client promises reciprocity,
solidarity and loyalty..
3 Interpersonal obligation is prevalent, couched in terms of personal loyalty or attachment
between patrons and clients.9
4. Favoritism is frequently present.10
5. Reciprocity:

as

basic

goods

and

services

are

exchanged,

clear

notions

of reciprocity arise; the client who incurs a debt has obligations to the patron.11
6. Kinship glaze over the relationship reduces the crassness of the exchange; the patron is
father to the client. 12
7. Honor, both given and received, is a significant feature of these relationships.13
Human benefactor-client relationships tend to be asymmetrical, reciprocal, voluntary, often
including favoritism, focused on honor and respect, and held together by good will or
faithfulness. As we shall see, changes will occur when this scheme is applied to the
relationship of gods and mortals.

1048

2.2 Reciprocity, Types of. To understand what patrons and clients exchange, let us first
consider the very phenomenon of reciprocity: what types are there and between what
kinds of partners is each type practiced? Bruce Malina 14 mediates to biblical scholarship
cultural theories of exchange, especially that of Marshall Sahlins. 15 Theorists identify three
types of reciprocity pertinent to the ancient Mediterranean:
1. generalized reciprocity, the solidarity extreme
2. balanced reciprocity, the midpoint
3. negative reciprocity, the unsocial extreme.16
Generalized reciprocity describes "altruistic" interactions whereby the
interests of "the other are primary"(i.e., solidarity extreme). It is
generally extended to kin-group members (i.e., "charity begins at
home") and is illustrated in Matt 7:11. Balanced reciprocity looks to
mutual interests, in a balanced fashion (i.e., quid-pro-quo exchange). It
has one's neighbors and villagers in view; illustrations of it include 1 Cor
9:3-12; Matt 10:10. Negative reciprocity seeks self- interest at the
expense of "the other," who probably is a stranger or an enemy; hence it
is the unsocial extreme. Parables such as Luke 10:30 and 19:22
illustrate it.
Philo describes these three abstract types of reciprocity when he asks the
question: Why did God create? Philo begins with a text, Noah found grace with the Lord
God (Gen 6:8), then asks about this grace, whether it was something earned or deserved,
and thus expressive of a balanced reciprocity between God and Noah. He rejected any
notion of balance here, and offered another explanation.

1049

The second explanation (he was thought worthy of grace) is founded on a not
unreasonable idea, that the Cause judges those worthy of His gifts, who do not deface with
base practices the coin within them which bears the stamp of God, even the sacred mind.
And yet perhaps that explanation is not the true one.17
Since no balanced reciprocity whatsoever is appropriate, Philo offers a third explanation,
which turns to a different form of reciprocity, not balanced, but generalized:
[Moses] . . .found this to be the highest truth, that all things are the grace or gift of
God earth, water, air, fire, sun, stars, heaven, all plants and animals. . .But God has given
His good things in abundance, not because He judged anything worthy of grace, but
looking to His eternal goodness, and thinking that to be beneficent was incumbent upon His
blessed and happy nature. So that if anyone should ask me what was the motive for the
creation of the world, I will answer that it was the goodness of the Existent, that goodness
which is the oldest of His bounties and itself the source of others (Unchangeableness of
God 107-108).
Thus creation was a singular act of generalized reciprocity, which most appropriately suits
God: to be beneficent was incumbent upon His blessed and happy nature. To be God
means to bestow unmerited blessings and to act according to the solidarity extreme.
2.3 What Is Exchanged?

Our last critical task is to finish our model by considering what

kinds of favors are bestowed or exchanged in generalized and balanced reciprocity in

benefactor- client relations One could attempt a comprehensive compilation of things for
which mortals petition the gods and for which benefactor are praised. Comprehensive, yes;
but helter-skelter. What is needed is a way to classify the materials in these exchanges.
Fortunately theorists provide us with a model for classifying the various items in our
ancient lists so as to bring greater clarity and understanding to them. The primary architect
1050

of this model is Talcott Parsons, whose work has been digested for biblical scholars by
Bruce Malina.18
When people seek to have an effect on others, their general means of achieving that
can

be

abstracted

into

four "general

symbolic

media,

1. power,192. commitment.203. material goods and 4.influence.21 Because

of their power, kings and generals can protect and deliver their subjects.
Gifts

of

seed,

food,

dowries

for

daughters,

and

hospitality

illustrate inducement. As regards influence, teachers give instruction to

students; people who consult the sybils, the oracles or the prophets are
seeking

both

influence-as-knowledge

and

influence-as-access.

Finally commitment refers to faithfulness, loyalty, obedience, as well as

to fictive-kin bonds, grants of honor and respect (i.e., doxologies and
hymns to the gods), as well as the language of friends and friendship.
Consider

one

example:

Romes

legions

risk

their

lives

for

it

(commitment) and so participate in extending Romes power, in

recompense for which Rome grants them pensions or lands in a colony
(inducement) and perhaps public honoring, such as a Roman triumph
(commitment).
3.0 God as Benefactor/Patron.
While there is a technical Greek term for benefactor (), it would be a
mistake to collect instances of it alone and to conduct our examination of god as
benefactor based only on that term.22 Three observations are in order: 1) the ancients
used many synonyms for benefactor; 2) they combined certain titles apropos of
benefactor, such as savior and benefactor; and 3) they strung together many titles of a
deity. , then, is neither the only nor even the most significant title when
1051

considering god as Benefactor. Thus we shall examine individually the six most frequent,
significant names expressive of benefaction, and then consider a deity adorned with many
or all of them.
1. King(). When Dio calls Zeus king, he refers to the positive results
of his rule: In like manner do the gods act, and especially the great King of Kings
( ), Zeus, who is the common protector and father ( )
of men and gods (Oration 2.75). Often king and father are found in combination,
suggesting the positive governance by a benefactor: Yet all these poets . . . call the first
and greatest god Father of the whole rational family collectively, yes, and King besides. . .
men erect altars to Zeus the King and, what is more, some do not hesitate even to call him
Father in their prayers (Dio Chrysostom, Oration 36.35-36).
2. Father (). Greeks and Semites frequently call god Father. For
example, Dio Chrysostom states: At that time, the Creator and Father (
) of the World, beholding the work of his hands. . . (Oration 36.60). Cicero
comments: . . .the poets call him father of gods and men, and our ancestors entitled him
best and greatest, putting the title best, that is most beneficent, before that of greatest,
because universal beneficence is greater, or at least more loveable, than the possession of
great wealth (Nature of the Gods 1.64). The meaning of this title, however, must be
derived from examination of the paternal role, that is, the rights and duties of earthly
fathers. The duties of a father include socialization of his children, protection and nurture
of them, and the like.23 It is his right that his children acknowledge him, as in Honor your
father and your mother. In time Caesar described himself as the Pater Patriae, clearly
extending the notion of domestic benefactor to the political arena. 24 Father, then, was a
term most suitable to a Benefactor.

1052

3. Savior () The various studies of savior indicate that it enjoyed a wide

range of meaning.25 A savior is one who: 1) rescues another from danger and peril, such
as war, illness, judicial condemnation, floods and famines; 2) protects and preserves the
polis and its citizens; 3) inaugurates a golden age;26 and 4) benefits others.27 In this vein
Foerster cites an inscription how on the annual feast of Zeus the priests of
Magnesia prayed for the of the city, country, citizens, wives, children and other
residents, for peace, for wealth, for the growth of the grain and other fruits and
cattle.28 Thus without specification, it will be difficult to know just what nuance of
savior an author has in mind. If it refers to rescue, then the deitys power is in view; if
maintenance of good status or general benefaction, then inducement.
4. Benefactor () Like Savior, this is a term of many meanings. As
one scholar noted, Gods and heroes, kings and statesmen, philosophers, inventors and
physicians are hailed as benefactors because of their contributions to the development of
the race.29 While kings exercise power benevolently and philosophers provide wisdom,
most benefactors bestowed material benefits, that is, inducement. Finally, although he is by
no means the only one to say so, Philo calls attention to the benefaction of commitment
which God cultivates:
He [God] shall no longer exhibit toward me the masterfulness that characterizes the rule of
an autocrat, but the readiness to bless that marks the power that is in every way kindly, and
bent on the welfare of men. He shall do away with the fear we feel before Him as Master,
and implant in the soul the loyalty and affection that goes out to Him as Benefactor
() (Noah as Planter 90, emphasis added).
In addition, we commonly find in combination with other titles, often with
, a pattern common among mortals30 and immortals.31

1053

5. Creator () Whereas served as the a common Greek

description of the deitys creative activity, the LXX totally avoided it and chose instead
.32 Although ripened in meaning over the years, it never lost its sense
of builder or workman (i.e., God builds the city, Heb 11:10). 33 In terms of general
symbolic media, creator contains power (to order and maintain the cosmos), inducement
(foods and animals for human use), commitment (faithfulness in maintaining a world fit for
gods offspring), and influence (wisdom which is imbedded in creation). Like other
synonyms of benefactor, appears in combination. For example, All of these
things did the great Creator and Master of the universe (
) ordain to be in peace (1 Clement 20.11); also, At that time, the Creator
and Father ( ) of the World, beholding the work of his hands. . .
(Dio Chrysostom, Oration 36.60).
6. Sovereign (). This is an unusual term for a benefactor for it often
describes the relation of master to slave (e.g., Philo, Moses 1.201). It expresses above all
power, and fear (see Philo,Heir 22-23). Yet it is frequently found in Hellenistic prayers,
perhaps because it emphasizes the dependence of the person petitioning the deity.34 Some
writers used it lin combination with other benefactor terms, thus softening its hard
edges.35 Christian usage, however, generally connotes divine benevolence and power. For
example, Simeon prays after blessing Jesus, Lord (), now let your servant depart
in peace. . .for my eyes have seen your salvation (Luke 2:29; see Acts 4:24). The clearest
use of the benevolent connotation of this name occurs in 1 Clement: Let us learn that in
generation after generation the Master () has given a place of repentance to those
who turn to him (7:5); and Through Noah the Master () saved the living
creatures which entered in concord into the Ark (9:4; see also 11:1; 36:2).

1054

Benefactor titles are not just paired, but often strung together. For example, Plutarch
quotes a Stoic about God: Zeus the Savior and Sire, the Father of Right, of Order and of
Peace (Stoic Self-Contradictions 1049A) and Savior, Gracious, Averter of Evil
(Common Conceptions 1076B). We find formal reflection on this piling up of titles in still
another title,

many-named ().36Finally, Seneca provides the perfect

illustration:
You may address this being who is the author of this world of ours by different names; it
will be right for you to call him Jupiter Best and Greatest, and the Thunderer and the
Stayer. . .Any name you choose will be properly applied to him if it connotes some force
that operates in the domain of heaven his titles may be as countless as are his benefits
(Benefits 4.7.1).37
Although we focus here on the role of patron in the ancient system of patronage and
clientelism, another figure needs be mentioned, even if briefly, namely, the broker,
whom the ancients understood according to a variety of names and functions. Patrons
and/or clients frequently used forms of brokerage and mediation, which we examine to see
where and how a broker intercedes, brokers, and serves as go-between for heavenly Patron
or earthly clients.38
Greco-Roman deities often employed intermediaries to communicate with and
effect mortals, such as Hermes/Mercury39 or oracles/prophets or sybils.40 Mortals in turn
employed persons whom we call priests to sacrifice, petition, and consult the deity; the
Romans had a colleges of priests in charge of civic religion, whose head was known as
the pontifex maximus. On the strictly human level, morals used mediators and go-betweens
for purposes of trade, politics, legal matters, and the like.41

1055

Who made a good broker? Why be a broker? The best broker was a person trusted
by both patron and client. He had a foot in both worlds, so that he appreciated the interests
of both parties and strove to bridge them effectively. Why be a broker? If typical patrons
expected some return for patronage, so too the broker received a tariff for services
rendered. Why are brokers necessary at all? If the ancient deities were inaccessible, so too
earthly monarchs; then some go-between was necessary safely and honorably to approach
the one who lives in unapproachable light. Similarly the blessed gods might be thought to
be above direct involvement in human affairs, for which purpose they employed angels,
minor gods and the like.
The place were brokerage material effects New Testament scholarship is the
interpretation of Jesus as the unique and necessary mediator. He is formally honored as the
one mediator (1 Tim 2:5), as well as the consummate priest, who not only has made
purification for sins (Heb 1:3) but lives forever to make intercession on our behalf (Heb
7:25). The etic term, mediator, includes emic functions such as Prophet, King, Messiah,
Priest and the like. Moreover, Jesus bridges the heavenly and earthly worlds. God, the
heavenly benefactor, has bestowed on us all benefaction through Jesus (e.g. Eph 1:3-10).
Similar, all mortal prayers are made to God through Jesus, either petitionary prayers (Rom
1 :8, 7:25; 1 Cor 15:57) or doxologies (Heb 13:20-21; Jude 25). Jesus, then, mediates the
heavenly patronage of God to us, even as he functions to mediate earthly petition and praise
to the heavenly patron. Moreover, not only is the first creation said to be achieved through
Jesus (John 1:13), but especially the new creation (1 Cor 8:6). Likewise at the great assize,
God will through Jesus bring with him those who have fallen asleep (1 Thess 4:14) and
. . .judge the secrets of men through Jesus Christ (Rom 2:16). But since our focus in on
God as broker, we return to that central topic.
4.0 What Does a Benefactor God Bestow?

1056

We could compile a database of benefaction from two sources: 1) petitions made to

the deity and 2) virtues for which benefactor-deities are praised. For example, Norman
Johnson catalogues the aims of the prayers found in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha,
and so provides the following list of potential benefactions: 1) help in warfare, 2)
deliverance from enemies outside of war, 3) safe journey, 4) rain, 5) food and drink, 6)
health, 7) demon riddance, 8) procreation, 9) establishing/restoring the nation, 10) the
Temple and its sacrifices, and 11) righteousness and justice. 42 Similarly, Jon
Mikalson43 undertook the same task for Greek prayers and lists the following: 1) good
will of the god, 2) success in battle, 3) information, 4) agriculture, 5) health and
healing, 6) wealth,44 and 7) ripe old age. Whether petition or praise, mortals consistently
credit their gods with the ability to grant certain benefactions.
We have a many composite statements illustrative of the benefactions which deities
bestow on mortals. The following prayer represents

a compendium of the

petitions/benefactions for which Greeks might petition their deity.

I start cultivating the good will of the gods. And I try to behave so that it may be right for
me when I pray, to acquire good health (), physical strength (), distinction in
the city ( ), good will among friends ( ,), survival with honour
in war ( ), and wealth () that has been increased by honest
means (Xenophon, Oec 11.8; see Seneca Benefits3.9.2 ).
Three symbolic media are in view: commitment (distinction in the city and good
will), power (survival in war), and inducement (good health, physical strength and
wealth).

1057

Besides composite petitions to the Deity, scrutiny of Gods praises also enriches our
database. Diodorus of Sicily praises the god Uranus for the following benefactions; we
have added the numbering and emphasis to facilitate the grasp of the benefactions:
Their first king was Uranus, and he [1] gathered the human beings within the shelter of a
walled city and [2] caused his subjects to cease lawless ways and bestial manner of
living, discovering for them the uses of cultivated fruits, how to store them up, and not a
few other things of benefit to man; [3] he subdued the larger part of the inhabited earth. . .
[4] And since he was a careful observer of the stars heforetold many things which would
take place throughout the world; [5] and for the common people he introduced the year on
the basis of the movement of the sun and the months on that of the moon (3.56.3-5).
The Deity, therefore, bestowed on mortals an orderly life: inducement (dwelling in cities,
agriculture, possession of habitable land); influence (ability to read the patterns of stars and
the sky, and a calendar which regulated annual and monthly life); power (shelter and
protection of a walled city); commitment (benevolent, overarching reason for doing any of
this)..
Similarly, Dio Chrysostom comprehensively praises Zeus. After praising him as
many-named,45 Dio then explains each title, formally linking it with it corresponding
benefaction.
He is addressed as King because of his dominion and power; as Father,on
account of his solicitude and gentleness; as Protector of Cities in that he upholds the law
and the commonweal; as Guardian of the Race on account of the tie of kinship which
unites gods and men; as Lord of Friends and Comrades because he brings all men
together and wills that they be friendly. . .as Protector of Suppliants since he inclines his
ear and is gracious to men when they pray; as God of Refuge because he gives refuge
1058

from evil; as God of Hospitality because it is the very beginning of friendship not to be
unmindful of strangers. . .and as God of Wealth and Increase since he causes all fruitage
and is the giver of wealth and sustenance (Oration 1.40-41; see Oration 39.8)
Using the classification of power, commitment, inducement, and influence, let us
abstract Dios remarks about Zeus and classify them appropriately.46

Medium of Exchange Title of Zeus

Reasons for the Title

Power

1. King

1. He has dominion and power

2. Protector of Cities

2. He upholds the law and commonweal

3. God of Refuge

3. He gives refuge from evil

1. Father

1. He shows solicitousness and gentleness

2. Lord of Friends

2. He brings all men together and wills that they be

Commitment

friendly to one another and never enemy or foe

3. Protector of Suppliants
3. He inclines his ear and is gracious to men when
they pray

Inducement

1. God of Hospitality

1. It is the very beginning of friendship not to be

unmindful of strangers or to regard any human being

2. God of Wealth and

Increase

1059

as an alien

2. He causes all fruitage and is the giver of wealth and

sustenance, not of poverty and want.

Influence

oddly absent

Moreover, in their treatment of epideictic rhetoric, rhetorical handbooks instruct

authors on how to praise a god, which praise is based on the benefactions of the deity. For
example, Quintilian first specifies that attention be focused on the special power of the
individual god and the discoveries whereby he has benefitted the human race (Inst.
Orat. 3.7.6)which he then illustrates:
In the case of Jupiter, we extol his power as manifested in the governance of all things, with
Mars we praise his power in war, with Neptune his power over the sea; as regards
inventions, we celebrate Minerva's discovery of the arts, Mercury's discovery of letters,
Apollo's of medicine, Ceres' of the fruits of the earth, Bacchus' of wine (Inst. Orat. 3.7.69).47
Thus, processing the powers and discoveries which benefitted
humanity, we learn:

General

SymbolicDeity

Description of Benefit

Media

Power

1. Jupiter

- governance of all

2. Mars

- power in war

1060

Influence

Inducement

Commitment

3. Neptune

- power over the sea

1. Minerva

- arts

2. Mercury

- letters

3. Apollo

- medicine

1. Ceres

- fruits of the earth

2. Bacchus

- wine

oddly absent

Because attempts were made to rank benefactions in terms of worth,

further observations seem warranted. Plutarch provides a classification in which
he touts virtue as the superior benefaction. Benefits are neither good nor bad, such as
wealth and health and bodily strength, because they can be put to good use or bad;
consequently none of these things is good. Hence
. . .if god does not give men virtue . . .and does give wealth and health without virtue, he
gives these to men who will put them not to good use but to bad. . . Yet if the gods are able
to grant virtue, they are not benignant if they do not grant it; and if they are not able to
make men virtuous, they are not able to benefit them either, if in fact anything else is good
or beneficial (Plutarch, Stoic Self-Contradictions1048D; see Seneca, Benefits 1.11.1-4).

1061

Thus philosophical discussion of benefaction adds a new dimension to our investigation of

what God or the gods bestow. Benefactions may be ranked and even devalued vis-B-vis
virtue which the deity should bestow above all other benefactions.
5.0 Why Do Gods Give Benefaction? What Kind of Reciprocity Is in View?
Our model considers reciprocity a fixed, ubiquitous element of benefactor-client
relationships.48 Some evidence points to a contest of benefaction: who can give the most
and best benefits.49Winners receive rewards. Even those obliged to perform liturgies
could expect many returns for their benefactions. 50 We know how clients disliked being in
any debt to their benefactors, for this debt implies an expected recompense to the
benefactor.51 Moreover, many benefactors bestowed their largesse with the clear
expectation of some return, as we learn from Cicero (Duties 1.15.47-48) and Pliny
(Letters 9.30.1-4). For example, the inscriptions collected by Danker and others regularly
attest that benefactors were awarded public honoring, 52 which if withheld would insult the
benefactor. Surviving benefactor inscriptions themselves give evidence of this reciprocity.
Yet we find a debate among Greco-Roman philosophers on the proper motive for
giving benefaction, and so the ideal type of reciprocity. Seneca, for example, insists that the
motive of bestowing benefaction must be altruistic; no reciprocity is envisioned.
When a man bestows a benefit, what does he aim at? To be of service and to give pleasure
to the one to whom he gives. If his intention is conveyed to me and stirs in me a joyful
response, he gets what he sought. For he had no wish that I should give him anything in
exchange. Otherwise, it would have been, not a benefaction, but a bargaining (Benefits,
2.31.2).
Insisting that benefaction is not bargaining, Seneca then contrasts his ideal benefaction
with commerce: No one enters his benefactions in his account-book, or like a greedy tax1062

collector calls for payment upon a set day, at a set hour. The good man never thinks of them
unless he is reminded of them by having them returned; otherwise, they transform
themselves into a loan (Benefits, 1.2.3). A benefactor is not a money-lender ( Benefits,
4.2.3), nor does keep track of is benefactions: In benefits the book-keeping is simple so
much is paid out; if anything comes back, it is gain, if nothing comes back, there is no loss.
I made the gift for the sake of the giving(Benefits 1.2.2-3).
When this model of benefaction is projected on the gods, much ink is spilt about
the motive for Gods benefaction. Seneca, for example, insists that divine favor is
altruistic and so generalized reciprocity best characterizes God. For example, he voices
Stoic belief that to give benefaction is an essential characteristic of the nature of god.
God seeks no servants. He himself does service to mankind, everywhere and to all he is at
hand to help. . .a man will never make sufficient progress until he has conceived a right
idea of God, regarding Him as one who possesses all things, and allots all things, and
bestows them without price. And what reason have the gods for doing deeds of kindness? It
is their nature (Ep. 95.48-49; see Philo, Planter130).
Since no motive prompts Gods benefaction, God does not engage in any type of
reciprocity: God can hope for no advantage from us, then no motive is found for Gods
giving a benefit (Benefits, 4.3.3).53 God, he says, bestows on us very many and very
great benefits, with no thought for any return, since he has no need of having anything
bestowed, nor are we capable of bestowing anything on him (Benefits, 4.9.1). The ideal
earthly benefaction is to follow the example of the gods who show kindness without any
motive of reward and without attaining any advantage for themselves (4.25.3). Among
elite thinkers, then, divine benefaction is ideally described as altruistic, which we label as
generalized reciprocity.

1063

6.0 What Do Clients Return to God, Benefactor and Patron?

Mortal patrons and clients accepted the reciprocal nature of their relationship. Thus
clients knew what patrons expected of them in return. Contrary to what we just saw in
Seneca, Suzanne Dixon argues that typical patrons in the Roman world bestowed benefits
for the expressed purpose of some return, normally understood as praise and honor.54 In
this regard, she cites Ciceros critique of patronage: A great many people do many things
that seem to be inspired more by a spirit of ostentation (gloria) than by heart-felt kindness;
for such people are not really generous but are rather influenced by a sort of ambition to
make a show of being open-handed (Duties 1.44). Thus patrons tend to act out of some
form of balanced reciprocity, expecting a return of praise and respect from their clients.
Moreover, ingratitude ranked as one of the worst interpersonal evils. For example, on
Senecas axis of evil he argues that ingrates are the worst of a very bad lot: Homicides,
tyrants, thieves, adulterers, robbers, sacrilegious men, and traitors there always will be; but
worse than all these is the crime of ingratitude (Benefits 1.10.4).55 Earthly patrons and
clients understand that this is how the game is played, and so project this sense of duty and
debt to heavenly benefactors and mortal clients. Mortals adept at the earthly game of
patronage could not help but presume that the same rules applied to the heavenly version.
Such, indeed, was the view of most ancients, with the exception of a few elites who
engaged in a philosophical critique of popular religion. Clients, then, owe the Deity honor
and praise.
Although popular piety presumes that God wants or needs a return such as sacrifice,
honor and gratitude, the critics of popular religion shout a resounding Nothing! God and
the gods need nothing (). This statement, found as early as Euripides (God
wants for nothing if hes truly god, Hercules Furens 1345) and the product of Greco-

1064

Roman philosophical god-talk (Plutarch, Stoic Self-Contraditions 1052E),56 seems to have

become widely accepted, especially by Israelite and early Christian authors.
Israelite use of this expression honors God as being so perfect and superior to
mortals that God does not want anything (Ep. Aristeas 211), which becomes part of the
praise of God in prayer. But if God needs nothing, Gods clients do: O Lord of all, who
has need of nothing (). . .keep undefiled for ever this house, so recently purified
(2 Macc 14:35-36).57 Philo states that one way of honoring Gods benefaction is to stress
that as Giver, God gave all to mortals but himself needs nothing: But God has bestowed
no gift of grace on Himself, for He does not need it, but He has given the world to the
world (Unchangeableness 107; see Moses 1.157). Joseph uss remark explicitly comes in
the context of reciprocity to the deity for benefaction: Not by deeds is it possible for men
to return thanks to God, for the Deity stands in need of nothing () and is above
all such recompense (Josephus, Ant. 8.111).
Although the New Testament contains no instances of needs nothing, we find it
often in Christian authors with evident Greco-Roman background. Irenaeus, for example,
four times insists that God needs nothing, although he mandates as a response a
sacrifice of praise.
The prophets indicate that God stood in no need of their slavish obedience. . .God needed
not their oblation, but [demanded it], on account of man himself who offers it. Because
God stands in need of nothing. . .reject those things by which sinners imagined they could
propitiate God, and show that He does Himself stand in need of nothing. (Adv Her. 4.17.1,
emphasis added).58
Irenaeus strove to protect the deity from being propitiated and thus manipulated. Finally,
Justin provides a summary of the materials we have been studying: But we have received
1065

by tradition that God does not need the material offerings which men can give, seeing,
indeed, that He Himself is the provider of all things (Justin, 1st Apology 10).
7.0 Again, What Do Clients Render to God-Benefactor and Why?
Most earthly clients thought that they must make a response, but what do they
render to God-Benefactor? What do they think the heavenly Benefactor wishes? First, what
folly to think that mortals could give the deity power; who is himself almighty
(). But inducement was universally thought of as an appropriate response to
the Deity. Bruce Malinas definition of inducement serves us well here, for it includes
sacrifice.
If subordinates sought to have effect on their superiors, they had recourse to inducement
and influence. Inducement included all sorts of gifts, services, presents, while influence
entailed reasons for doing what one wanted, hence requests, petitions, entreaties and the
like. In language of embedded religion, inducement is called sacrifice, influence is called
prayer. Sacrifice of any sort is a form of inducement directed to the deity.59
When we speak of sacrifice, we mean inducement. Then why do earthly clients offer
sacrifice? Theophrastus classifies sacrifice according to three formal ends: There are three
reasons to sacrifice to the gods: either to honor them, or to thank them or to ask them for
good things.60 This reduces to either praise/gratitude or petition. Thus clients might
activate the relationship by offering a sacrifice in petition of benefaction or respond to
benefaction with a sacrifice of praise for favors received. Given the ubiquity and duration
of sacrifice in the ancient world, earthly clients considered it proper and necessary to
offer inducement to their heavenly patrons.
Nevertheless, some thinkers began to critique the propriety of offering sacrifice.
The two most telling arguments against sacrifice focus on the unseemliness of thinking that
1066

the gods 1) wanted blood and flesh or 2) bartered with mortals, a form of balanced
reciprocity. Lucian provides a grand satire of this aspect of sacrifice.
So nothing that they [the gods] do is done without compensation. They sell men their
blessings, and one can buy from them health, it may be, for a calf, wealth for four oxen, a
royal throne for a hundred, a safe return from Troy to Pylos for nine bulls, and a fair voyage
from Aulis to Troy for a kings daughter! Hecuba, you know, purchased temporary
immunity for Troy from Athena for twelve oxen and a frock. One may imagine, too, that
they have many things on sale for the price of a cock or a wreath or nothing more than
incense (Lucian, On Sacrifices 2).
The gods, he mocks, do nothing without compensation, suggesting that, whether they are
needy or greedy, they engage in some form of barter or exchange. Moreover, according to
Lucians satire, mortals are by far the better trading partners, obtaining things of significant
worth for mere bagatelles. Alas, he implies, the gods can be controlled and manipulated.
Authors with philosophical backgrounds, such as Philo and Seneca, offered
important critiques of sacrifice. Philo, for example, contrasts Gods nature with that of
mortals: God alone is the giver; we do not give. . .I know that God can be conceived of as
giving and bestowing, but being given this I cannot even conceive of.. . .it is
absolutely necessary for the Truly Existing One to be active, not passive (Worse
Attacks 161-62). Thus mortals, even when making some response to the deity, do not
give anything to God-who-alone-is-Giver. Mortal clients, then, should not attempt to
have an impact on their Immortal Patron by means of inducement. But of course they did,
and they were in the majority.
It is widely attested that the only proper response that mortals can render to God is
some form of praise, honor and gratitude, which we classify as commitment. Josephus, who
1067

claims that Thanksgiving is a natural duty (Ant. 4.212), also says of gratitude: But with
that (gift of speech), O Lord, we cannot but praise Thy greatness and give thanks for Thy
kindnesses to our house and the Hebrew people. . .And so with my voice I render thanks to
Thee (Ant 8.111). Philo goes further in his discussion of offering honor and gratitude to
God by elevating thanksgiving to pre-eminent status among the virtues:
Each of the virtues is a holy matter, but thanksgiving is pre-eminently so. But it is not
possible to express our gratitude to God by means of buildings and oblations and sacrifices.
. . for even the whole world were not a temple adequate to yield the honour due to Him.
Nay, it must be expressed by means of hymns of praise. . . (Philo, Planter 126).
Temples and sacrificial systems, Philo argues, are inadequate to express requisite
gratitude, which can only be done by hymns of praise. Thus no inducement is proper,
only commitment, praise and gratitude. Philo later rephrases the exchange between Godbenefactor and mortals-clients:
. . .the work most appropriate to God is conferring boons, that most fitting to creation
giving thanks, seeing that it has no power to render in return anything beyond this; for,
whatever else it may have thought of giving in requital, this it will find to be the property of
the Maker of all things, and not of the being that brings it. . .in all that has to do with
shewing honour to God, one work only is incumbent upon us, namely thanksgiving
(Planter 130-31).
Gods give, but mortals give thanks. For, mortals have no power to render in return
anything beyond it and the property (inducement-as-sacrifice) already belongs to God.
All that is left iscommitment, that is, thanksgiving (praise and gratitude).
We saw above that according to Seneca the worst possible action of a client was
ingratitude (Benefits 1.10.4). Patrons expected some from of commitment, an expectation
1068

clear to all clients. However, let us not confuse praise and gratitude with thanks,as J. H.
Quincey warns us not to do:
The Greek habit in accepting an offer, service, etc., was to confer praise and not thanks. The
Englishman with his Thank you! is content to express his feelings, the Greeks. . .saw an
obligation created by a favour received and sought, in their practical way, to discharge it.
And since praise was a commodity of which all men had an infinite supply and which all
men valued, the obligation could always be discharged immediately.61
The mortal-to-mortal exchange was consciously discharged as quickly as possible.
Obligation incurred was repaid by praise and honor,62 a commodity more precious than
gold. Some mortals surely dealt with their benefactor gods in this fashion, but others were
more sensitive to cultivate and maintain the relationship by means of commitment, that is
expressions of gratitude or sacrifices of praise.63
For example, Justin Martyr argues that the Maker neither needs nor wants sacrifices
(inducement), for the only honor worthy of God is gratitude (commitment):
What man will not acknowledge that we are not atheists, but declare that He has no need of
streams of blood and libations and incense; whom we praise to the utmost of our power by
the exercise of prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are supplied, as we
have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of Him is not to consume by fire what
He has brought into being for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who
need, and with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns for our creation
(1st Apology 13).
But honor, gratitude and thanksgiving are all prayers of commitment, which
acknowledge Gods worth; they are not grants of something God lacks or needs. Moreover,
Justin envisions a cycle in which benefaction (creation) is constantly received from the
1069

Benefactor and enjoyed by the clients. And since ourselves and those who need will
always want benefaction, the prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are
supplied will be a constant response to God. Thus commitment is understood here: God
gives, we return honor and gratitude to the Benefactor who continues his benefaction thus
loyalty and faithfulness are shown by both parties, that is, commitment. But is this now
balanced reciprocity on our part?
Finally, it would seem that influence also plays a role in the response of clients to
their heavenly benefactors when we consider the reasons why clients honor benefactors and
give gratitude for benefits. Some authors cited above consider their sacrifice of praise to
be disinterested honoring of God, such that there seems to be little exchange expressed by
this commitment. But other authors state that testimonials of honor and gratitude also serve
as motives, reasons and reminders to the heavenly Patrons to maintain their benefaction,
which we call influence. Thus commitment offered in this manner contains a strong
element of balanced reciprocity. Concerning influence, we recall how Malina contrasted it
with inducement. Inducement refers to material offerings, such as sacrifices, gifts, and
presents, whereas influence describes reasons for doing what is wanted, hence requests,
petitions and entreaties. In terms of worship, sacrifice is inducement, but influence is
prayer.64
We

find

evidence

that

the

ancients

appreciated

how commitment

contains influence and so is offered to secure future benefaction. For example, Josephus
illustrates this nexus:
Twice each day, at the dawn and when the hour comes for turning to repose, let all
acknowledge before God the bounties which He has bestowed on them through his
deliverance from the land of Egypt: thanksgiving is a natural duty, and is rendered alike in
gratitude for past mercies and to incline the giver to others yet to come (Ant. 4.212).
1070

While twice daily likely refers to temple sacrifices (inducement), they are infused with
thanksgiving (commitment), which functions in gratitude for past merciesbut also for
the purpose of inclining

the giver to [give] others yet to come (influence).

Thus commitment (thanksgiving) is joined with influence (petition), that is, reasons to
continue benefaction. The deity, while being honored, is also challenged by praise to act
anew.
What, then, do mortals return to their heavenly Benefactor? Of the four
classifications

of

things

exchanged,

god inducement (sacrifice), commitment (praise,

gratitude,

mortals
loyalty

offer
and

to

faithfulness)

and influence (motives and reasons for benefaction). Moreover, the materials surveyed
indicate that mortals offer honor and praise in two different modes, either as a true
acknowledgment of the patrons goodness or in the expectation that they will excite the
patron to renewed benefaction. The former resembles generalized reciprocity, the latter
balanced exchange. Philo is obviously aware of this as he makes the same distinction:
My first prizes will be set apart for those who honour Me for Myself alone, the second to
those who honour Me for their own sakes, either hoping to win blessings or expecting to
obtain remission of punishments. . .The prizes set aside for those who honour Me for
Myself will be gifts of friendship; to those whose motive is self-interest they do not show
friendship but that I do not count them as aliens (Abraham 128-29; see Unchange-ableness
of God 69).
Those who honour Me for Myself alone relate to God with commitment, which is
altruistic in that it is utterly God-centered. To them God extends gifts of friendship,
which is both Gods inducementand especially commitment. But those who honour Me for
their own sakes return a kind of commitment diluted by anticipation of balanced

1071

reciprocity. For, failing to relate to the Deity in terms of friendship they do not receive it
from God.
8.0 What Do We Know If We Know This?
Inasmuch as there are few studies of god in terms of the benefactor-client model, we
hope to have filled that lacuna and brought fresh insight into Greco-Roman god-talk. The
model of benefactor-client relations used here is basically that found in classical studies,
now expanded by consideration of two topics taken from the social sciences, types of
reciprocity (generalized, balanced and negative) and general symbolic media (power,
commitment, inducement and influence). The basic model, then, is productively expanded.
This expanded model allowed for a harvest of primary data, as it both identified materials
generally ignored and facilitated in classifying and so interpreting them more accurately.
The data simply would not have been visible without the expanded model to provide the
needed perspective. Thus, readers should benefit both from a fresh study of the Deity and
from a new, improved model of patron-client relations. But something is missing.
This article necessarily operates at a high level of abstraction, which might leave
New Testament readers wondering about the utility and suitability of this material for
understanding the Christian scriptures. The following comments are intended to suggest
where the contents of this study impact critical interpretation of the New Testament.
Suggestions, alas, not full discourse. Semantic word fields are often valuable to identifying
technical terms and their synonyms. Although the term benefactor occurs in Luke 22:25,
it does not refer to God; but as we shall see, benefactor is known by other names.
Moreover, the terms for benefaction are many and rich. Bruce Malina identifies, at least in
Paul, the dominant terms for patronage: Of course the vocabulary of grace
(charizomai, charis, charisma) belongs to the favoritism of patronage. I suggest

1072

that charizomai refers to showing patronage, charis to willingness to be a patron,

and charisma to the outcomes of patronage.65
1. God as Benefactor and Patron. Like many Greco-Roman deities, the God of Jesus
Christ is many named. Not all names of God reflect a relationship of patron to clients, but
the following six names do. All of these names directly communicate that God shows
various types of favor, blessing, benefaction and patronage to mortals.
Creator:

Acts 17:24; Rom 1:19-22; 1 Cor 8:6

Father: Matt 6:9-12; Eph 1:3; 3:14-16; Gal 4:6

King:

1 Tim 1:17; Rev 15:3; 19:16

Lord:

Luke 1:32, 68; Acts 3:22; 17:14; Rev 4:8, 11

Master: Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24

Savior: Luke 1:47; 1 Tim 1:3; 2:10; 3:4; Jude 24
2. What Benefactions Does God Give: The following diagram focuses only on
Matthew, but it provides a suitable example of the range of benefaction God gives. It can
server as a model for retrieval of divine benefaction in other gospels and letters.
Power:

Commitment

rescue of Jesus in Matt 2

covenant of promises: Son of Abraham, Son of

Spirit of power descends upon Jesus at Jordan

David (1:1)

all miracles of Jesus = Gods power, especially

election of Jesus and support of him: Baptism and

when evil spirits are silenced & expelled

12:18-21; Transfiguration, Death, Resurrection

power to raise the dead (22:23-33)

clients worth more than sparrows (10:32- 33)

12 legions of Gods angels available (26:53)

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice" (9:13; 12:8// Hos 6:6)

vindication of Jesus (21:42ff; 22:44; 27:50-54)

-- forgiveness by God (6:13-14; 9:2-8; 18:22-35)

1073

 praise and honor from God (5:1-12); reward of honor

from God (6:1, 4, 6, 14, 18)
recipients of Gods benefaction: Magi, Galilee
of the Gentiles, Syro-Phoenician woman,
all nations

Inducement

Influence

daily bread (Our Father 6:9-13)

knowledge and secrets revealed (11:25-27;

seek first the kingdom, food and clothing will be

13:10-17; 16:17; 24:36)

provided (6:25-33)

dreams (1:18-25; 2:12,13,19; 27:19)

multiplication of loaves & fishes (14:13-21;

-- stars (2:1ff, 9)

15:32-39)

hidden prophetic meaning of the Scriptures, esp.

promise of hundred fold (19:29)

Isaiah (1:22-23; 2:6,17,23; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:18-21;

eating at the table of God (22:1-10)

13:14, 35; 21:4-5; 27:9)

special speech revealed (10:19-20)
parables (13:3-9, 31-32, 33, 44-50)

3. Types of Reciprocity. As one would expect, God acts out of altruistic generosity,
as parent do to their children (e.g. Matt 5:45-48). The premier expression of divine altruism
is surely God so loved the world that he gave his only son (John 3:16; see Rom 5:8; 8:3133 and Luke 14:12-14). Despite the fact that Jesus is called a thief, neither he nor God
practice negative reciprocity. Balanced reciprocity, however, is another matter. We suggest
that Paul understands the debate over faith vs law as the insistence by some on a form
of balanced reciprocity between mortals and God. After citing Gen 15:6 (Abraham
believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness), Paul contrasts what is earned
(balanced reciprocity) with what is given as gift (altruistic reciprocity): Now to one who
1074

works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. And to one who does not work
but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness (Rom 4:45). In fact, it would utterly dishonorable for a mortal to make a claim on God or to consider
God in ones debt, which is what happens when mortals interpret their interaction with God
in terms of balanced reciprocity (see Gal 2:16-4:31; Phil 3:2-20). Finally, a recent book on
God treats many gospels, Acts and Pauline letters in the light of patron-client relations.
Hence that very study may serve as in indicator of the importance of the patron-client
model and a model for investigation of other New Testament documents.66

1075

NOTES

1. "The Neglected Factor in New Testament Theology," Reflections 73 (1975) 5-8.

2. For a survey of the literature on patron-client relations, see John H. Elliott, Patronage
and Clientage, in The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, (ed. Richard L.
Rohrbaugh; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996) 142-56; see also Steffen W. Schmidt, James
C. Scott, Carl Land and Laura Guasti, eds., Friends, Followers and Factions. A Reader in
Political Clientelism (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1977; S. N. Eisenstadt
and L. Roniger, Patrons, Clients and Friends. Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of
Trust in Society (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1984); and Ernst Gellner and
John Waterbury, eds., Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies (London: Duckworth,
1977).
3. See Richard P. Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1982); Paul Veyne, Bread and Circuses. Historical Sociology
and

Political

Pluralism (London:

Penguin

Press

1990);

and

Frederick

W.

Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic

Field (St. Louis, MO: Clayton Publishing House, 1982).
4.Previous study of God-as-Benefactor is quite limited. See Stephen C. Mott, The Greek
Benefactor and Deliverance from Moral Distress (unpublished dissertation: Harvard
University, 1971) 74-82 and 345-53 and Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion: The
Philonic Background of Titus II 10-14 and III 3-7, NovT 20 (1978) 36-46; Bruce J.
Malina, Patron and Client. The Analogy behind Synoptic Theology, pp. 143-75 in his The
Social World of Jesus (London: Routledge, 1996).
1076

5. A. Blok, Variations in Patronage, Sociologische Gids 16 (1969) 366; see also

Gellner, Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies, 1-7.
6. S. N. Eisenstadt and L. Roniger, Patrons, Clients and Friends, 43-64, esp. 48-49.
7. For authors who list formal characteristics of the relationship, see Bruce J.
Malina, Patron and Client. The Analogy behind Synoptic Theology, 143-45, and Halvor
Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1988) 40-47;
Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, Patronage in Ancient Society (London: Routledge, 1990) 1-8.
8. See Gellner and Waterbury, Patrons and Clients, 4; Saller, Personal Patronage under the
Early Empire, 1-2. Dionysius of Halicarnassus description of Roman patron-client
relations, begins with acknowledgment of the unequal status of the two members: After
Romulus had distinguished those of superior rank from their inferiors, he next established
laws by which the duties of each were prescribed (2.9.10).
9. John Rich (Patronage and Interstate Relations in the Roman Republic, in Patronage in
Ancient Society [ed., Andrew Wallace-Hadrill; London: Routledge, 1990] 128) describes
the importance of loyalty/faithfulness in the patron-client relation: In one of the most
important of its many uses fides means protection. The weaker party is said to be in
the fides of the stronger. At the formation of such a relationship, the weaker party is said to
give himself into or entrust himself to the fides of the stronger and the stronger to receive
the weaker into his fides.
10. Richard Saller, Patronage and Friendship in Early Imperial Rome: Drawing the
Distinction, in Patronage in Ancient Society (ed., Andrew Wallace-Hadrill; London:
Routledge, 1990) 52-53. Plutarch states:There are favors that involve causing no offence,
such as giving a friend preferential help in obtaining a post, putting some prestigious

1077

administrative function into his hands, or a friendly embassy (Precepts for Politicians 1920).
11. Richard Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, 21 and 27-29.
12. Dionysus of Halicarnassus narrates that Romulus wished patron-client relations in
Rome not to resemble the harshness shown by the Greeks: The Athenians called their
clients thetes or hirelings, because they served for hire, and the Thessalians called theirs
penestai or toilers, by the very name reproaching them with their condition (2.9). So
he recommended that the poor and lowly be described by a handsome designation,
namely patronage.
13. Veyne, Bread and Circuses, 124-30.
14. Bruce J. Malina, Cultural Anthropology and Christian Origins (Atlanta, GA: John Knox
Press, 1986) 98-106.
15. Marshall Sahlins, Stone-Age Economics (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton Press, 1972) 185230.
16. Sahlins, Stone-Age Economics, 193-96.
17. Unchangeableness of God, 105. All texts and translations are from the Loeb Classical
Library.
18. Talcott Parsons, Politics and Social Structure (New York: The Free Press, 1969); see
Terence S. Turner, "Parsons' Concept of 'Generalized Media of Social Interaction' and its
Relevance for Social Anthropology," Sociological Inquiry 39 (1968) 121-34. See also
Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 77-87.
19. Parsons, Politics and Social Structure, 352-404, originally published as "On the
Concept of Political Power," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107
(1963) 232-62.
1078

20. Parsons, Politics and Social Structure, 439-72.

21. Parsons, Politics and Social Structure, 405-29, originally published as "On the Concept
of Influence," Public Opinion Quarterly 27 (1963) 37-62.
22 The semantic word field for benefactor/patron is very rich, and
includes most notably the following terms: 1. technical terms for
benefactor
(, , , , l ,
, , ;
2. synonyms for
benefactor
(, , , ;
Patronus, patrocinium, amicus,
praeses,
clientela;
praesidium,
beneficum);
and
3. related
attitributes (/ ; , ;
liberalis, benignus, beneficus).
23 See Jerome Neyrey, Father, The Collegeville Pastoral Dictionary of
Biblical Theology (ed. Carroll Stuhlmuller; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press 1996) 315-19. See also John J. Pilch, Beat His Ribs While He is Young
(Sir 30:12): A Window on the Mediterranean World, BTB 23 (1993) 101-13.
24 See Mary Rose DAngelo, Abba and Father: Imperial Theology and
the Jesus Traditions, JBL 111 (1992) 611-30.
25

Paul Wendland, , ZNW 5 (1904) 335-53; Georg Fohrer,

, TDNT 7.1003-23; F. F. Bruce, Our God and Saviour: A

Recurring Biblical Pattern,in The Savior God (ed. S.G.B. Brandon;
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1963) 51-66.
26 Fohrer, , 1012.
27 Arthur Darby Nock (Soter and Euergetes, Essays on Religion and the
Ancient World [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972] 2.721)
notes gods acted as saviors: Zeus as father of men and gods, was
strong to aid; Artemis protected women in childbirth; Athena guarded
1079

the Acropolis. . .In fact, any deity was credited with powers which men
lacked, and could aid as humanity could not.
28 Werner Foerster, , , TDNT 7.967; the original citation is
found in Ditt. Syll3 II.589, 26-31.
29 Georg Bertram, , TDNT 2.654.
30 Plutarch describes how some men vainly present themselves: Yet
other persons publicly styled themselves Benefactors (),
Conquerors (), Saviors () or the Great ()
(Plutarch, On the Fortune of Alexander 338C; see also Polybius, Hist.
9.36.5).
31 Again,

Philo, Allegorical

Laws 2.57;

3.137; Special

Laws 1.300; Embassy to Gaius 118; and Decalogue 41.

32 Werner Foerster, , TDNT 3.1024. Foester (p. 1026) notes
that Philo makes the same distinction: God, when He gave birth to all
things, not only brought them into sight, but also made things which
before were not, not just handling material as an artificer ()
but being Himself its creator () (Dreams 1.76).
33 Harry A. Wolfson comments on Philos use of : Since God
alone is a creator, he applied to Him exclusively the Platonic terms
Demiurge (Leg. All. 2.3.1), that is Craftsman, Maker (,Spec 1.30),
Planter (, Conf. 38, 196), Parent (, Spec. 2.198),
Father (, Opif. 24, 74) and Cause (, Somn. 1.67). Some of
these terms, such as Father, Maker, Parent, Planter are also to be found

1080

in Scripture (Philo [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948]

1.211).
34 Karl Rengstorf, , TDNT 2.44-45. This is Josephus favorite
title for praying to God: Lord () of all the ages and Creator of
universal being. . .confirm these promises (Ant 1.272; see also
4.40; 5.41; 11.64; 11.162; 20.90).
35 Philo reflects Greco-Roman usage when he speaks about reverence for
the emperor as Master and Benefactor and Saviour and the like
( ) (Flaccus 126).
36 An

inscription

concerning

Klarian

Apollo

reads:

self-existent,

untaught, without a mother, undisturbed, of many names (l)

although not spreading abroad his name, dwelling in fire. . . in G.H.R.
Horsley, NDIEC 2 (1982) 39. Moreover, a poem describes Artemis as a
little girl on her fathers lap, asking for a gift that would put her on a par
with her brother; she asked Give me many-namedness ()
cited by J. M. Bremer, Greek Hymns, in Faith, Hope and Worship.
Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (ed. H. S. Versnel;
Leiden: Brill, 1981) 194-95.
37 Philosophical critique of popular god-talk argued that god is unnameable (). See Harry A. Wolfson, The Knowability
and Describability of God in Plato and Aristotle, HSCP 57 (1947) 233-47
and Albinus and Plotinus on Divine Attributes, HTR 45 (1952) 115-16.

1081

38On the place of brokerage in patron-client relations, see Eisenstadt and

Roniger, Patrons,

Clients

and

Friends,

228-45;

Andrew

Wallace-

Hadrill, Patronage in Ancient Society, 81-84, 226.

39John N. Collins, Diakonia.. Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1990) 90-92.

Plinys comment on the

mediating role of Fate/Fortune is worth noting:

Nevertheless mortality has rendered our guesses about God even more
obscure by inventing for itself a deity intermediate between these two
conceptions. Everywhere in the whole world at every hour by all mens
voices Fortune alone is invoked and named, alone accused, alone
impeached, alone pondered, alone applauded, alone rebuked and visited
with reproaches. . .To her is debited all that is spent and credited all that
is received, she alone fills both pages in the whole of mortals account
(N. H 2.5.22).
40 David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient
Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983) 23-79.
41 A. Oepke, , TDNT IV 599-601 and 609-11. Collins, (Diakonia,
96-132, 133-49) has two chapters on words and deeds of the gobetweens which serve as excellent summaries of the types of brokerage
found in the ancient world.
42 Norman B. Johnson, Prayer in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. A
Study of the Jewish Concept of God

JBL Monograph Series II

(Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1948) 7-34.

1082

43 John D. Mikalson, Athenian Popular Religion (Chapel Hill, NC: UNC

Press, 1985) 18-26 and 39-49.
44 See Aristophanes, Birds, 591-601.
45
Zeus alone of the gods has the epithets of Father and King,
Protector of Cities, Lord of Friends and Comrades, Guardian of the
Race, and also protector of Suppliants, God of Refuge, and God of
Hospitality, these and his countless other titles signifying goodness and
the fount of goodness (Oration 1.39)
46 In Benefits 4.5.1 6.6, Seneca provides a useful list of divine
benefaction: 1. various foods, 2. creatures on land, in sea and in air, 3.
land, 4. vast deposits of gold, silver, copper, iron, 5. a mansion (the
sky), and 6. breath, life, blood, and freedom ).
47
In his instructions on how to praise a benefactor deity, Alexander, son of
Numenius, says: You should consider his power, what it is and what
works prove it; then the sovereignty of the god and the subjects of his
rule, heavenly, marine, and earthly. Then his relation to art should be
mentioned, as Athena is over all the arts, and Zeus and Apollo over
divination. Then what discoveries the god has made. Then whatever
works he has done among the gods or for the gods, as Zeus has primacy
of power and Hermes heraldry.

Then his philanthropy. (Rhetores

Graeci III.4-6); see F. C. Grant, Hellenistic Religions (Indianapolis, IN: The

Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1953) 166-67.

1083

48 A. R. Hands, Giving for a Return in his Charities and Social Aid in

Greece and Rome (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1968) 26-48;
Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, 15-25.
49 Seneca speaks of a most honorable rivalry in outdoing benefits by
benefits (Benefits 1.4.4; see Isocrates 1.26); see Hands, Charities and
Social Aid in Greece and Rome, 31.
50 See S. R. Llewlyn, The Development
Liturgies, NDIEC 7 (1994) 93-111.

of

the

System

of

51 "They who consider themselves wealthy, honored, the favorites of fortune, do not wish
ever to be put under obligations by our kind services. They suspect that a claim is thereby
set up against them or that something is expected in return. It is bitter death to them to have
accepted a patron or to be called clients" (Cicero, Duties 2.20.69).
52 Danker, Benefactor; see also Hands, Charities and Social Aid in Greece
and Rome, 175-209. Note the following benefaction inscription: . . .the
kings most important reward ( ) is praise, universal fame,
reverence for his benefactions, statues and temples and shrines
bestowed on him by his subjects all these are payment () for the
thought and care which such men evidence in their continual watch over
the common weal and its improvement (Lucian, Apology 13), cited in J.
R. Harrison, Benefaction Ideology and Christian Responsibility for
Widows, NDIEC 8 (1998) 110-111.
53 Seneca compares types of reciprocity: If it were only self-interest that
moved us to help others, those who could most easily dispense benefits,
such as the rich and powerful and kings, would not be under the least
obligation to bestow them; nor indeed would the gods bestow countless
1084

gifts, for their own nature is sufficient to them. . .if the only reason for
giving a benefit is the advantage of the giver, and if God can hope for no
advantage from us, then no motive is found for Gods giving a benefit
(Benefits, 4.3.2-3).
54

Suzanne Dixon, The Meaning of Gift and Debt in the Roman

Elite, Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views 12 (1993) 451-64.

Lucian (Apology 13) states that no one does anything without pay.
55
See Suzanne Dixon, A Lousy Ingrate: Honour and Patronage in the
American Mafia and Ancient Rome, International Journal of Moral and
Social Studies 8 (1993) 61-64. Cicero says: No duty is more imperative
than

that

of

proving

ones

gratitude

(Duties 1.15.47);

see

Seneca, Benefits 4.20.3; 7.31.1-3.

56 Again Seneca: Whoever teaches men to be grateful, pleads the
cause both of men and of the gods, to whom, although there is no thing
that they have need of since they have been placed beyond all desire,
we can nevertheless offer our gratitude (Benefits 2.30.2).
57 Similarly: You, O King. . .you have no need of anything ()
(3 Macc 2:9).
58 See 1 Clement 52:1-4 and Philo, Spec. Laws 271.
59 Bruce J. Malina, Mediterranean Sacrifice: Dimensions of Domestic
and Political Religion, BTB 26 (1996) 29 (emphasis added).

1085

60 Cited by Simon Pulleyn, Prayer in Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1997) 55. Philo says: If anyone examines the motives which led
men to resort to sacrifices as a medium of prayer and thanksgiving, he
will find that two hold the highest place. One is the rendering of honour
to God for the sake of Him only and with no other motive. . .The other is
the benefit which is twofold, on one side directed to obtaining a share in
blessings, on the other to release from evils (Spec. Laws 1.195).
61 J. H. Quincey, Greek Expressions of Thanks, JHS 86 (1966) 157. On
this point, see John J. Pilch, No Thank You! Bible Today 40 (2002) 49-53.
62 On the prevalence of praise/honor over thanks in Greek religion,
see H. S. Versnel, Religious Mentality in Ancient Prayer, 43-53; J. H.
Quincey, Greek Expressions of Thanks, 133-58
63 In addition to sacrifices of thanksgiving, i.e., animal sacrifices
(Versnel, Faith, Hope and Worship, 42-47), we find mention of sacrifice
of praise; see Everett Ferguson, Spiritual Sacrifice in Early Christianity
and Its Environment, ANRW 2.23.2. 1151-89.
64 Malina, Mediterranean Sacrifice: Dimensions of Domestic and Political
Religion, 29.
65 Malina, Patron and Client, 171-73.
66 Jerome H. Neyrey, Render to God. New Testament Understandings of
the Divine (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004).

First, Only, One of a Few, and No One Else:

The Rhetoric of Uniqueness and the Doxologies in 1
Timothy
1086

Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J.

University of Notre Dame

You alone are the Holy One,

You alone are the Lord,
You alone are the Most High ( [1] )
1.0 Introduction

Conversation on Scriptural doxologies includes in particular the work of Eric Werner and
Matthew Black ( [2] ), who analyzed the typical forms of doxologies in the Hebrew and
Christian Scriptures. Scholarship on the Pastoral Epistles provides specific Greco-Roman
or Israelite background of the names and attributes of God found in them ( [3] ). The
distinctive contribution of this study, however, brings into discussion two fresh lines of
inquiry. First, we examine the rhetoric of praise and its modes of amplification. Particular
attention will be paid to the principle of uniqueness, that is, the process of amplifying
significant actions into grants of honor because the actor is the first or only or one of a
few or the one who most performed them. For example, Alcibiades chariots won first,
second and fourth places in one race: he is the first and only man ever to do this
(Isocrates, Team of Horses 34); or, one might amplify his uniqueness by claiming that no
one else has ever done thus and such. Second, all doxologies address God in formal terms
of great respect, especially rendering to God o , terms which express honor,
worthiness, renown, and the like ( [4] ). Honor, moreover, is considered the pivotal value
of the ancient world. Hence, one needs to appreciate the social importance of honor to
understand doxologies. Therefore, doxologies are ideal places to observe the operation of
1087

rhetoric and cultural values. Thus we bring to an analysis of the doxologies in 1 Timothy
the rhetorical language of praise, especially the theme of uniqueness, which will be
assessed in terms of the cultural model of honor, well known in both classical and biblical
studies ( [5] ).

Uniqueness appears in ancient rhetorical handbooks in discussion of the rhetoric of praise

and blame. The data base contains Aristotles On Rhetoric, Rhetoric to Herennius,
Ciceros De Inventione and De Oratore, Quintilians Institutio Oratoriae, as well as
progymnastic authors such as Aelius Theon and Menander Rhetor ( [6] ). Next we will
examine examples of the theory actually expressed in Greek funeral oratory and prayers,
and then in the Old Testament and the LXX. Informed by this material, we are prepared to
interpret the doxologies in 1 Timothy 1,17 and 6,15-16 where the language of uniqueness is
used in praise of God. The result should be a greater appreciation of the influence of
epideictic rhetoric on the way Christians shaped their God-talk.
2.0 Rhetorical Theory
Aristotles On Rhetoric is the earliest extant exposition of rhetorical theory. Although Greek
orators before him frequently employ the formulae of uniqueness, we begin with Aristotle
simply because he was the first consciously to classify, systematize, and situate uniqueness
within a complete theory of rhetoric. In short, in his rhetorical rules he consciously tells us
what he and others meant by the criteria of uniqueness. Like Gaul, rhetoric was
traditionally divided into three parts, forensic, deliberative and epideictic, each
distinguished by its purpose and aim. In Aristotles exposition of epideictic rhetoric, he
instructs orators how to amplify praise, how to elaborate on a praiseworthy deed, what

1088

strategies to use to convince us that so-and-so deserves our respect? It is here that Aristotle
explains the principle of uniqueness:
[In epideictic] one should also use many kinds of amplification, for example if the subject
[of praise] is the only (ovo) one or the first (o) or one of a few ( v) or the
one who most () has done something; for all these things are honorable (Rhet.
1.9.38 emphasis added; see also Rhet. 2.7.2).

Four amplifications of praise are mentioned, each of which stresses some form of
uniqueness. As we shall see, being the first or only person to achieve something constitutes
the most common forms of amplification in the rhetoric of praise.
Centuries later, Cicero provides a Roman witness to the principle of uniqueness. Speaking
about what deserves an orators praise, he cites virtue, benefaction, endurance, and unique
deeds:
And one must select achievements that are of outstanding importance (magnitudine
praestabiles) or unprecedented (novitate primae) or unparalleled in their actual character
(genere singulares); for small achievements or those that are not unusual or out of the
ordinary are not as a rule felt to be specifically admirable or to deserve praise at all (De
Orat. 2.85.347).
Unprecedented sounds like first in Aristotles catalogue; thus an unprecedented deed,
which has never before been done, is unique. Unparalleled suggests only, in the sense
that this person is the only one ever to do such-and-such. Although Ciceros tag of
outstanding importance does not automatically signal unique or exclusive, it sets
unique actions apart from small achievements, from what are not unusual ... not out of
the ordinary. And so, it might be said that an action, if not done by this man alone, was
rare and done by one of a few ( [7] ).
Quintilians rhetorical treatise contains remarks on uniqueness similar to Aristotles:
1089

... what most pleases an audience is the celebration of deeds which our hero
was first (primus) or only (solus) man or at any rate one of the very few (cum paucis) to
perform: and to these we must add any other achievements which surpassed hope or
expectation (super spem aut expectationem) (Inst. Orat. 3.7.16, emphasis added).
His criteria of uniqueness, moreover, are clear and traditional: only, first, one of a
few or surpassing expectation.
If Quintilian articulates the criteria for praise among the Roman elite, Aelius Theon
represents this same epideictic tradition in regard to the second level of education ( [8] ) His
progymnasmata contain formal instructions for writing an encomium, domesticates
epideictic rhetoric for school purposes. Theons importance consists in two facts: (1) he
represents a rhetorical tradition which is ancient and consistent over time; and (2) his rules
for an encomium indicate that knowledge and practice of the art of praise was widespread
and conventional. His contribution is as follows:
Praiseworthy actions are also those occurring in a timely manner, and if one
acted alone (ovo), or first (o) or when no one acted (o), or more than
others (ov
v v),
or
with
a few( v),
or beyond
ones
age ( v), or exceeding expectation ( ), or with hard work, or what
was done most easily and quickly (Theon, 9.35-38, emphasis added) ( [9] ).

The marked terms indicate what Theon understands as grounds for praise, what we call the
criterion of uniqueness.. It may refer to what is absolutely unique, such as when one acted
alone or first or with a few. Great praise is also warranted for those who set new personal
standards, such as acting beyond ones age or exceeding expectations. Finally, certain
deeds were greatly admired such as those performed effortlessly (done most easily) and
timely (quickly).

1090

Finally, in his rhetoric of praise , Menander Rhetor presents a different look at the tradition.
His remarks, not so theoretical as those of other rhetoricians, focus on the particular
manner of amplifying praise for the gods of a city.
... [W]e have to show that the greatest number (o) or the best (o) of the
gods have honoured the city with the greatest () or the first () or the most
numerous () honours. Most numerous gods applies to the Athenians: it is said
that Dionysus, Apollo, Poseidon, Athena, Hephaestus, and Ares all of these or most of
them have honoured Athens. Best gods applies to Zeus at Olympia and Nemea.
Greatest honours is applicable to the Athenians because they claim that every provision
comes from the gods. Most necessary honours are to be found in the case of the
Egyptians, who claim that astronomy and geometry came from the gods. Most ... applies
to eloquence and philosophy; these are considered especially the prerogatives of the
Athenians ( [10] ).
The traditional marks of uniqueness (best and first) are clear; but new ones are added,
greatest number of gods and best and most numerous benefits. Thus, Athens is
unique among the Greek cities: the best god, Zeus, honors her with his benefaction; and
the greatest number of gods labor to benefit the city (Dionysus, Apollo, Poseidon, Athena,
Hephaestus, and Ares). Athens was the first to be so honored, or to be honored with
the best benefactions, or to have received the most numerous honors ( [11] ).
In summary, we should give considerable weight to the way deeds are amplified in rhetoric,
because these criteria for praise represent the conscious, continuous articulation of the
rhetorical tradition. Writers such as Aristotle may be primarily codifying the practice of his
day; nonetheless he makes formal the general principle which others intuitively grasped or
observed occurring in actual literary and forensic practice.
3.0 Rhetorical Practice
3.1 Funeral Speeches. Athenian funeral speeches constitute a distinctive body of rhetoric
of praise, several of which Aristotle actually mentions in his Rhetoric. We visit them to
examine their use of amplification by uniqueness. Together with rhetorical theory cited
1091

above, these examples attest that the principle of uniqueness was a constant literary
tradition from Athens golden age down to the age of the progymnasmata.
In his funeral oration, Lysias (459-380 BCE) follows a convention whereby people were
praised in terms of geography, generation and gender ( [12] ). When celebrating Athens as
the polis of the deceased, he implies that the dead whom he eulogizes share its virtues. His
encomium for the fallen, then, is based on praise of their geographical mother, Athens, and
the generational ancestors who ennobled the city.
It was natural to our ancestors ... to fight the battles of justice, for the very beginning of
their life was just.... They were the first and only (o ovo) people in that time to
drive out the ruling classes ... and establish a democracy (Funeral Oration 17-18, emphasis
added).
Ancestors of these dead fought for Athens freedom, just as their descendants now have; but
these recently fallen are uniquely honorable: they were the first and only to fight (Funeral
Oration 23) in these circumstances. No Greeks elsewhere (o) would dare to attempt
the deliverance of others. Nowhere else in Greece could one find a government such as
Athens had; no other peoples enjoyed such freedom; no one else lived in a democracy.
About the fallen, Lysias continued, it was one thing for them to share their death with
many, but prowess with a few (Funeral Oration 24). Thus men of Athens past and present
are honored as the first and only or one of a few.
Thucydides (455-400) praises Athens as the geographical source of nobility of those
commemorated in his funeral oration (2.35).

In praising those who fell in the

Peloponnesian War, he amplifies their greatness by extolling that of Athens, who is the
mother of heroes because she is a uniquely noble city: Athenians alone regard the man
who takes no part in public affairs, not as one who minds his own business, but as good for
nothing (2.40.2). He continues, we alone confer benefits without fear of consequences,

1092

not upon a calculation of the advantage we shall gain, but with confidence in the spirit of
liberality which activates us (2.40.5). And finally, he states:
For Athens alone (ov) among her contemporaries ... is superior (v) to the report
of her, and she alone (ov) neither affords to the enemy who comes against her cause for
irritation at the character of the foe by whom he is defeated, nor to her subjects cause for
complaint that his masters are unworthy (2.41.3, emphasis added).
Whereas we have been examining the amplification of uniqueness expressed as the first
and only, clearly we have a variant form of it in the praise heaped on Athens as the only
one to act nobly in civic life and military campaigns.
Finally, Platos (429-347) Menexenus witnesses to amplification by uniqueness. Socrates
delivers to Menexenus a funeral oration embodying all of the rhetorical conventions of the
day. Not surprisingly, a persons geography provides a major source of honor, which of
course is Athens. Socrates lists a host of reasons for Athens honor, especially its
uniqueness: [Our country] was the only and first (ov ... ) in that time to produce
human nourishment (Menex. 237e; see Demosthenes, Funeral Oration LX. 5). Athens
soldiers, moreover, by the victory which they gained over the barbarians first taught other
men that the power of the Persians was not invincible (Menex. 240d). Noble soldiers then
died in the battle of Oenophyta, thus becoming the first to be buried by the city in this
tomb (Menex. 242b). Uniqueness, then, rests in being the first and only to do
something ( [13] ). Thus, we conclude that the criteria of uniqueness became a regular part of
the rhetoric of funeral orations.
3.2 Greek Hymns and Prayers. Greek hymns and prayers also embody amplification by
uniqueness in regard to praise of the gods. Greek prayers tend to have a tripartite structure:
(1) invocation (the deity is addressed by means of name, surname, epithets and descriptive
predicates); (2) discourse (pray-ers explain why they call on this particular god, what their
relationship to the deity is, and why they think they can count on the gods assistance); and
1093

(3) petition (content of the address) ( [14] ). Not surprisingly, we find uniqueness primarily in
the prayers invocation. For example, Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus:
Most glorious of immortals

vv

honored under many names

ov

O Zeus, first cause of nature

guiding all things through law

voo v vv ( [15] ).

Zeus is unique, for he is most glorious even among the immortals, hence the apex of an
already elite group. Concerning Zeus being many named, Dio Chrysostom provides an
apt illustration of this ( [16]).
Consider whether you will not find that the statue is in keeping with all the titles by which
Zeus is known. For he alone of the gods is entitled Father and King, Protector of Cities,
God of Friendship, God of Comradeship, and also Protector of Suppliants, God of
Hospitality, Giver of Increase (Or. 12.75).
Being many named, then, Zeus is honored as the distinctive and exclusive deity of
Cleanthes and the Stoics. By addressing Zeus as first cause of nature, the hymn honors
Zeus as the unique giver of reason and rationality which makes the world accessible to
human minds. And finally Zeus serves as master and guide over all things, indicating his
unique sovereignty and power. Thus Zeus honor is expressed in his unique status even
among the gods, his many names and his exclusive role in making and governing the
universe.
In a different mode, an aretalogy of Isis claims uniqueness. Although spoken by the
goddess, the hymn invites its audience to honor Isis for the items listed.
I am Isis, queen of every land ( ),
who was taught by Hermes,
and whatever laws I have ordained,
1094

these no one can abrogate (o v ).

I am the oldest daughter of the youngest god, Kronos.
I am wife and sister of king Osiris.
I am the first one () to discover corn for humans.
I am mother of the king Horus ( [17] ).
Elite roles of very high status belong to Isis: queen, oldest daughter, wife-sister and mother.
One or two might warrant praise, but the variety of kinship roles and their connection to the
important Egyptian gods constitute the exclusive and unique honor of Isis. Her sovereignty
extends over every land; she is not a mere local goddess. She was taught by the best of
teachers, Hermes. Her law in a world where male, not female, rulers were the norm is
unique, and no one can abrogate it. Moreover she is the first to discover corn, which
sets her above all others in this category.
The Orphic Hymns provide a third example of Greek hymns and amplification by
uniqueness ( [18] ). The following summary of them was made with an eye to the rhetoric of
uniqueness, both the familiar items and other materials in the hymns which function in the
same way. While first is rarely used (38.6; 40.8) ( [19] ), only/alone occurs quite
frequently ( [20] ). Use of superlatives to emphasize a gods uniqueness is present, but not
common ( [21] ). More frequent are the titles and epithets not found in rhetoric: rare is the
deity who is not king of this or queen of that ( [22] ); some deities are acclaimed as sovereign
over all, such as father of all (4.1; 6.3; 13.1; 20.5), mother of all (9.5; 10.1), lord of
all (12.4) and master of all (45.2). Often one finds mention of the extent of the domain
of this or that god: Helios begets both dawn and night (8.4); Zeus presides over earth, sea
and sky (15.4-5). Thus the gods are honored in terms of their unique roles and statuses as
well as the geographical domain of their sovereignty. As befits only gods, their eternity
( [23] ) and deathlessness are proclaimed: Ouranos, eternal cosmic element, is primeval as
1095

well as beginning of all and end of all (4.1-2); Zeus, too, is father of all and beginning
and end of all (15.7). The deities are often called blessed (, o) which
distinguishes their blissful lot from the turmoil of mortals ( [24] ).
The epithets of the deities are easily grouped into two categories: those using negative
predicates to distinguish gods from mortals and those using some form of v. Examples of
the former include: un-conquerable (, 4.7; 12.2; 65.2), in-effable (o,
12.4; 19.11); un-tiring (, 8.4); un-conquerable (o, 15.1); un-breakable
(o, 65.1) and in-vincible (vov, 19.9). These distinguish the deities from
mortals who are subject to the very things from which the gods are immune. Thus the gods
belong to an exclusive group of persons, one of a few. Epithets employing some form of
v include: all-seeing (v, 4.8; 9.7); all-conquering (v, 11.3); and
all-mighty (vo, 10.4). Hephaistos at one point is called highest of all, alleating and all hunting (66.5).
Therefore, while labels such as first, only and one of a few occur, the hymns declare
the uniqueness of the gods in terms of role (king, queen), status (mistress of
all), domain under their unique control (earth, sea, sky) and benefactions tied exclusively to
them. Negative predication immediately distinguishes the gods from mortals. Thus each
god has his or her exclusive niche in the cosmos, with unique territory and function.
4.0 Uniqueness in the Hebrew Bible
In 1966 a classic study on the incomparability of Israels God appeared ( [25] ), which
identified diverse ways of praising Gods uniqueness. The most common expression of
incomparability is embodied in declarative statements such as There is none like X. For
example, Hannah prays: There is none like the Lord, there is none beside thee, there is no
rock like our God (1 Sam 2,2; see also Exod 8,6; Ps 86,6). Biblical authors used this same
1096

formula to praise mortals as well as God, i.e., Solomon (1 Kgs 3,12.13; Neh 13,26);
Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18,5); Josiah (2 Kgs 23,25); and Job (Job 1,8; 2,3). Incomparability,
moreover, was also expressed by rhetorical questions: Who is like X? No One! For
example,
Ps 35,10

Yahweh, who is like you?

Ps 89,9

O Lord God of hosts, who is mighty as you are, O Lord?

Exod 15,11

Who is like you among the gods, Yahweh, who is like you ( [26] )?

No one, of course, because God is unique in what God does.

A later study incomparability focused on the praise accorded select monarchs who found
favor in the eyes of the writer ( [27] ). Of Solomon, it says: I give you also what you have
not asked. . .so that no other king shall compare with you (1 Kgs 3,13; 10,23). Of
Hezekiah we read: He trusted in the Lord the God of Israel, so that there were none like
him among the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him (2 Kgs
18,5; see Josiah in 2 Kgs 23,25). The uniqueness expressed in this formula claims that these
monarchs are the best of Davids line. They are not praiseworthy because they were the
first or only ones, but because they are one of a few.
Labuschagne and Knoppers provide clear examples of what uniqueness looks like in the
Hebrew bible, namely, incomparability. Yet Morton Smith argued long ago that there was
a common theology in the ancient near east, which applies to God in Israels literature.
He noted that prayer and praise are usually directed to one god at a time ( [28] ), with the
result that the god is made unique, at least for the moment. He labels this as flattery:
Though he [a god] may occupy a minor position in the preserved mythological works, yet
in worship addressed to him he is regularly represented as greater than all other gods. It is
often said that he not only created the world, but also the other gods. He is the only true god
( [29] ).

1097

Smith argued that Israels religious language was itself not unique, but belonged to a larger
cultural area which can be said to have a common theology. Smiths study took no note
of divine incomparability, a lacuna which Labuschagne filled in with his study of the
motif, not only in the Hebrew bible, but also in Assyro-Babylonian, Egyptian, Ugaritic
religion ( [30] ).
5.0 Uniqueness in the LXX
To what extent was Israelite praise of God influenced by Greek idiom? Most aspects of
incomparability just observed were simply translated into Greek and contain none of the
Greek rhetorical buzz words for uniqueness. (1) Commonly we read negations that God
has any peer or rival, such as ... that you may know that there is not another such as I
(o v o) in all the earth (Exod 9,14). (2) We find rhetorical questions,
such as: O Lord, who is like you ( oo )? (Ps 35,10) or What God is there in
heaven or on earth, who will do as you have done? (Deut 3,23). (3) Other expressions of
incomparability contain the frequently appearing formula no other besides you, such as:
To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides
him (o v o) (Deut 4,35) ( [31] ).
Although 2 Maccabees was not part of the LXX, it contains some striking amplifications of
Gods uniqueness It claims that God alone (ovo) is Lord (or virtuous, mighty, etc.). In
some cases, alone or only (ovo) are part of a monotheistic confession, as in
Hezekiahs prayer: You are the only God (o ovo) in all the kingdoms of the earth (2
Kgs 19,15) ( [32] ). But occasionally it qualifies Gods virtues, such as we find in this prayer:
O Lord, Lord God, creator of all things,
Who art awe-inspiring and strong and just and merciful,
Who alone (ovo) art King and art kind,

1098

Who alone (ovo) art bountiful,

Who alone (ovo) art just and almighty and eternal (2 Macc 1,24-25).
Repeated labeling of God as only (ovo) is a Greek, not Israelite, rhetoric of praise.
Similarly, titles such as almighty (vo) and abstract predicates such as eternal
(vo) are appropriations of Hellenistic god-talk. Thus, except for 2 Maccabees, the
LXX gives little evidence of the influence of Greek rhetoric of uniqueness; rather, the
idioms in most cases are Hebrew thought patterns put into passable Greek.
6.0 Miscellaneous Instances of Uniqueness in the New Testament
6.1 Only (ovo). Christian authors generally declare Gods uniqueness with some form of
only or alone (ovo). In his temptations, Jesus affirms exclusive loyalty to God: You
shall worship the Lord your God, and him alone (ovo) you shall serve (Matt 4,10/Luke
4,8; Deut 6,13).Similarly, Jesus rebukes his audience for seeking the approval of its peers
and not seeking the glory that comes from theonly God (ovo o) (John 5,44; see
17,3). Jesus makes a striking confession about the unknowability of the coming of the end
time: But of that day and hour, no one (o) knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor
the Son, but the Father only (ovo) (Matt 24:36). Thus God alone enjoys unique
knowledge and does not share it with heavenly messengers or earthly messiahs ( [33] ).
We find expressions of Gods exclusivity in doxologies such as the one that ends the letter
to the Romans: ... to the only wise (ov o) God be glory for evermore! Amen
(Rom 16,27) ( [34] ). This unique wisdom of God summarizes the thrust of the whole
doxology: revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages, but is now
disclosed (16,25-26). Thus to the only wise God is glory due for the uniqueness of
wisdom now revealed.

1099

Mark and Luke record the controversy between some Scribes and Jesus over his declaration
of forgiveness of sins. In their eyes Jesus blasphemes or dishonors God by encroaching
upon Gods unique prerogative: Who can forgive sins but God alone? ( o,
Mark 2,7) or Who can forgive sins but God only? ( ovo o, Luke 5,21). But
God gave Jesus this power, so he in no way diminishes Gods uniqueness.
6.2 One (). Another traditional term, one (), expresses Gods exclusivity. Mark
narrates a remark by Jesus about the first law, in which Jesus himself endorses Israels the
monotheistic faith (Mark 12,29-30), which is a confession of Gods uniqueness. Jesus cites
the Shema (Deut 6,4-5): Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one ( o). His
questioner agrees with him by repeating Jesus words, confessing that He [God]
is one () and that there is no other (o v o v o) (12,32).
Mark records that a man asked Jesus what to do to gain eternal life, addressing Jesus as
Good Teacher. Jesus defers this to God: No one is good but God alone () (Mark
10,18). Mark expresses uniqueness both positively (God alone is good) and negatively
(no one (o) else is).
6.3 No One (o). But it is in relation to Jesus that this rhetorical form of uniqueness is
used most frequently. For example, Jesus informs his disciples:
All things have been given to me by my Father; and no one (o) knows the Son except
the Father, and no one (o ) knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the
son chooses to reveal him (Matt 11,17//Luke 10,22).
Jesus claims uniqueness: (1) all things have been given him by his Father-God; (2)
knowledge of him rests exclusively with God; and (3) knowledge of God belongs
exclusively to Jesus. Both Father and son enjoy unique knowledge shared only by the two
of them.

1100

We find in several early Christian writings honor claims made by Jesus and on his behalf
which rest upon his uniqueness, which no one else has. For example:
No one (o) has ever seen God; the only (ovov) ( [35] ) son ...
has made him known (John 1,18).
No one (o) has ascended into heaven but ( ) he who descended
from heaven (John 3,13).
No one (o) comes to the Father except ( ) by me (John 14,6) ( [36] ).
John 1,18 and 3,13 declare Jesus uniqueness by claiming that he is the only one who has
seen the invisible God or who has descended from heaven. No mortal on earth could make
such claims. In John 14,6 the evangelist declares Jesus uniqueness as the only way to come
to the Father, positioning him as the exclusive mediator or broker of God ( [37] ), which
uniqueness warrants great honor and respect for him. These examples are rhetorically
crafted to exclude all other claimants while affirming the uniqueness and exclusivity of
Jesus mediation.
This survey of the principle of uniqueness identifies in the gospels the same rhetorical
terms found in Greek rhetoric, funeral oratory, and prayers to amplify the honor of god. As
we turn to the doxologies in 1 Timothy, the language of praise and honor becomes quite
formal and standardized; but the principle of uniqueness continues to have a special place
in the shape and aim of the doxology, namely, the honor of God.
7.0 Gods Uniqueness in the Doxologies of 1 Timothy
7.1 The Doxology in 1 Tim 1,17. Doxologies ( [38] ) appear irregularly within letters, as in the
case of 1 Tim 1,17 and 6,15-16, as well as part of a letters ending ( [39] ). Matthew Black
revived a tradition which distinguished two types of biblical doxologies ( [40] ). In 1 Chr
1101

29,10-11 LXX Black finds both a Hebraic form beginning with Blessed (oo) are
you, O Lord God of Israel ... (29,10) ( [41] ) and then another type commencing with To
you ( ), O Lord, is greatness, power and glory ... (29,11). The second type occurs in
1 Tim 1,17 and 6,15-16. Most NT doxologies consists of four elements: (1) addressee, in
the dative case; (2) honor ascribed, either glory or honor or comparable terms;
(3) duration of praise, usually forever; and (4) Amen, an invitation to affirm the praise
([42] ). This urges us to focus on the first two elements as the likely places to observe the
rhetoric of uniqueness. As regards the form of the doxology mentioned in 1 Chr 29,11 LXX
( ov ), previous studies have convincingly argued that it is exclusively Hellenistic;
but the same judgment cannot be made in regard to the names and epithets of God in it.
And it is precisely here where we focus our attention.
(1) . The title King is commonly applied to God in the Hebrew Bible, although
rarely in the New Testament ( [43] ), and infrequently in the Greek Orphic hymns ( [44] ). But a
name such as the King of ages seems to be a distinctively Israelite formulation of Gods
eternity ( [45] ). Thus God is acclaimed unique both in terms of the power God exercises and
the endless duration of his sovereignty. Even if the precise term here is Israelite in
background, it gives glory and honor because it claims uniqueness for God. It is, moreover,
commonplace among commentators on the Pastorals to claim that the Christian author
wishes to counter the claims of the divinized Roman emperor ( [46] ) by acclaiming God as
king and eternally reigning. If we could be more certain of this, the comparison itself
would deserve to be taken as an instance of uniqueness in the sense that God is the first
God and the only God. No mere mortal man, emperor or not, can match God.
(2) o. Next the author ascribes to God three predicates which merit close
consideration: ... o ... ov . In regard to o, Greco-Roman
authors articulated a topos for a true deity, which claimed that a genuine god has no

1102

beginning in the past and is imperishable in the future ( [47] ). For example, when Diodor of
Sicily contrasts true gods with mortals made gods after death, he claims as the
distinguishing characteristic of a true god eternity of existence, both in the past and in the
future:
As regards the gods, men of ancient times have handed down to later generations two
different conceptions: Certain of the gods, they say, are eternal and imperishable (o
o) ... for each of these genesis and duration are from everlasting to everlasting
(6.1.2, emphasis added).
Similarly Sextus Empiricus declared: ... God is eternal (ov) and imperishable
(ov) and perfect in happiness (Adv. Phy. 1.45), a unique distinction which Plutarch
repeats: Now we hear the theologians affirming and reciting ... that the god is deathless
(o) and eternal (o) in his nature (E Delphi 388F) ( [48] ). Thus true deities are
distinguished from heroic mortals by virtue of their temporal uniqueness ( [49] ). This GrecoRoman expression, insofar as it compares true gods with heroized mortals, asserts
something which is rare and in the possession of very few, hence unique. It acknowledges
god as uniquely superior to all creatures who are born and die, as well as mortals made
gods after death.
(3) oo. Although the thought expressed here can be found in the Hebrew bible,
where it is claimed that God cannot be seen even by Israels most celebrated prophet Moses
(Exod 33,20), the precise term un-seen comes from the Greco-Roman world. When Philo
( [50] ) and Josephus ( [51] ) use oo, their usage reflects Greek god-talk, as does Pauls
claim that God is un-seeable (oo, Rom 1,20; Col 1,15; Heb 11,27) ( [52] ).
Both o and oo require us to enter the world of negative-predication of god in
the Greco-Roman world ( [53] ). In reaction to crass anthropomorphisms in Greek piety, some
philosophers developed a special god-talk that avoided such excesses and produced a
refined way to celebrate the uniqueness and excellence of god. Negative predication about
1103

god resulted from this process (e.g., some form of -). Epithets prefaced by a negative deny
imperfection in god and acclaim him superior to all things of this material world, mortals
included. Theophilus provides a particularly excellent example:
The appearance of God is ineffable (ov) and indescribable (vov) and cannot
be seen by eyes of flesh. In glory God is incomprehensible (o), in greatness
unfathomable (o), in height inconceivable (voo), in power
incomparable (o), in wisdom unrivaled (o), in goodness inimitable
(o), in kindness unutterable (vo) (To Autolycus1.3) ( [54] ).
This statement begins by claiming that God cannot be described or seen; hence God
belongs not to our material world, but to a higher one. In terms of virtues which warrant
praise and glory, God surpasses all mortal standards. Although tags such as first, only
and one who has done X the most are not here, negative predicates attest Gods
uniqueness in the universe. To God alone belongs glory, greatness, height, eternity, wisdom,
etc.
A second example argues more strongly that negative predication is a form of uniqueness.
The following is a piece of a synagogal prayer in which Gods uniqueness is first acclaimed
(the only Mighty One; there is no God beside you alone, there is no Holy One beside
you), after which follows a cascade of negative predicates declaring how God is honored
and exalted exceedingly:
Glorious and exceedingly exalted, invisible (oo) by nature, inscrutable
(vvo) in judgments, whose life is in want of nothing (vv), whose
continuity is unchangeable (o) and unceasing (v), whose activity is untiring
(o), whose majesty is not circumscribed (o), whose beauty is
everflowing (vo), whose habitation is inaccessible (oo), whose encamping is
unmoving (vo), whose knowledge is without beginning (o), whose
truth is unchangeable (voo), whose work is without mediation (ov),
whose might is not liable to attack (voov), whose monarchy is without successor
(oo), whose kingdom is without end (o), whose strength is irresistible
(vvvo) (7.35.9) ( [55] ).

1104

Again, the negative predicates deny that God has any weakness or limitation, such as all
earthly creatures have. Hence God is not merely the only Mighty One nor is there any
god beside him, but Gods uniqueness especially lies in his unique perfection, which is
expressed in the flood of negative predicates removing from him the physical and temporal
weaknesses to which all other beings are subject.
(4) ovo. Dellings study of ovo ( [56] ) distinguishes three usages of the term: (1) the
superlative expression of polytheistic piety, (2) the statement of philosophers, and (3) the
predication of monotheistic religion. In the exposition of god-talk in the Orphic Hymns
above, we observed that various gods were credited with unique tasks, an example of
Dellings first category:
Nike: she alone (ov) frees man from the eagerness for contest (33.2).
Eros: you alone (ovo) govern the course of all these (aether, land, and Tartarus, 58.8).
Nomos: he alone (ovo) steers the course of everything that breathes (64.8).
Leukothea: you alone (ov) save men from wretched death at sea (74.6).
Palaimon: you alone (ovo) appear incarnate to save men (75.7).
Sleep: you alone (ovo) are master of us all (85.3).
In this polytheistic context it is possible for one or another deity to be unique in one
function, situation, or domain. As regards Dellings second use of only, scholars
generally ascribe it to the purification of the notion of god by the philosophers, a liberation
from anthropomorphism to apophatic theology ( [57] ). Nothing more needs be said about it,
as it is adequately illustrated above. Finally, Israelite and Christian monotheism constitutes
Dellings third use of only. We recall the examples of this in the New Testament
discussion of only and one, to which we add two important verses from Deuteronomy,
4,35 and 6,4 (see also Isa 44-45) ( [58] ). The only God is unique because there is only one

1105

Deity, and so there cannot be any other beside him ( 61). Thus, returning to 1 Tim 1,17, we
recognize here Dellings third classification of only, Christian monotheism. In itself it
identifies God as unique, the one and only Deity ( 62). Yet commentators have long
argued that the use of only in regard to God is a polemical denial of the same role and
status to the deified Roman emperor (63).
(5) o . The doxology in 1 Tim 1,17 contains other traditional parts of the
doxological form: the giving of glory, its duration, usually forever, and the peoples
response, Amen. One would expect that in a doxology God is given glory, but in this case
God is ascribed o . We argue that in this context they are synonyms, both of
which denote esteem, reputation, praise, worth and honor. We remember Kittels argument
that the Greek understanding of o expresses the sense of opinion, that is, good
opinion, reputation, worth and repute (64). The other term, , expresses the value
or worth of something or someone; thus it may express praise and admiration for a persons
achievement, role and status, and reputation (65). Looking solely at doxologies in the New
Testament, we observe that most of them give only glory to God (Rom 11,36; 16,27; Gal
1,5; Eph 3,21; 2 Tim 4,18; Heb 13,21); several give glory and dominion (1 Tim 6,16; 1
Pet 4,11; Rev 1,6); still others declare glory and honor (1 Tim 1,17; Rev 4,11 and 5,13)
(66). However, other doxologies are quite expansive, ascribing to God glory, majesty,
dominion, and authority (Jude 25). This indicates the rhetorical function of ascribing titles
and epithets to God, namely honor, the aim of epideictic rhetoric. We have here, then, an
excellent native sense of what anthropologists call honor.
(6) o v v vv. In his article on the doxology in synagogue and early
church, Eric Werner seems embarrassed that this form contains only two elements, (1)
proclamation of Gods praise, (2) coupled with an affirmation of His infinity in
time (emphasis his) (67). It is easily observable that New Testament doxologies contain such

1106

affirmations of Gods infinity, although in a wide variety of expressions: (1) the simple
formula: o v (Rom 11,36; 16,27); (2) a more elaborate statement, such as we
see in 1 Tim 1,17: o v v vv (Gal 1,5; Phil 4,20; 2 Tim 4,18; 1 Pet
4,11); and (3) a very elaborate form: o vo o vo vv v o
v (Jude 25). This represents a Judean mode of expression, although there are GrecoRoman parallels. Some Greco-Roman deities were acclaimed as beginning of all and end
of all (Orphic Hymns 4.2; 15.7); others were said to have no beginning (10.10) and no end
(10.8) (68). Still others were declared incorruptible (o) or deathless (vo). And
as was noted in the topos for true deities, they are without beginning and without end ( 69).
The Hellenistic expression, we have seen, emerges in the philosophical refinement of the
concept of god. But there is no question that the infinity of God expressed by the
doxologies speaks to Gods uniqueness, for no one else can boast of such timelessness. God
is the only one who by virtue of Gods person will continue to exist forever.
7.2 The Doxology in 1 Tim 6,15-16. This second doxology contains an elaborate structure
and a rich series of names, titles and predicates, which deserve extended comment.
(1) o. Kelly argues that this attribute of God is common in Hellenistic Judaism
(70); Hauck rightly notes that God is not called o in the Bible, with the exception
of 1 Tim 1,11 and 6,15, the texts under discussion here ( 71). Moreover since we saw in the
Greek Orphic hymns that most of the gods there were acclaimed blessed, we find
considerable evidence which indicates that o was a common attribute of GrecoRoman gods and now of the Christian God . Blessedness constitutes a recurring theme in
Philos discussion of God. For example, But the nature of God is without grief (o) or
fear (oo), and wholly exempt (oo) from passion of any kind, and alone (ov)
partakes of perfect happiness (oo vo) and bliss (Abr. 202). This and
many more statements found in Philo derive from a philosophical tradition which talked

1107

about God in negative predicates and acclaimed Gods unique blessedness ( 72). Moreover,
Epicureans argued that god must be both o and o: A blessed (ov)
and eternal (ov) being has no trouble himself and brings no trouble upon other
beings (73). Uniqueness is contained in the attribute blessed, in that it distinguishes god
from mortals who labor, suffer and die, implying that god alone knows blessedness and is
not subject to changing fortunes. It represents, then, a quality unique to a deity.
(2) ovo v. This term is used of god both in Greek and Jewish literature. It comes
from the term used to describe any official in government, as, for example, a prince or
king (74), and thus it speaks to the role and status of someone with power, especially
supreme power, a most honorable quality in antiquity. Once more, commentators suggest
that ovo vs rhetorically serves to assert the Christian deitys superiority to all
other deities, especially Roman imperial claims (75). Yet, we add, that in the study of the
rhetoric of praise, ovo served as a successful claim for uniqueness by labeling the one
being honored as the first or only or one of a few. Here God alone is sovereign of all.
(3) B v ovv. Spicq argues that, although it is correct to identify this
predicate as part of Israelite traditions, it was also used extensively to describe assyrobabyloniens, perses, parthes, egyptiens rulers (76). In these, the ruler was uniquely
sovereign over his empire and made vassals of conquered kings. This common way of
addressing God was on occasion linked with God of gods (Deut 10,17; Ps 136,2; 3 Macc
5,35) (77).

(4) o v ovv. The three expressions, King of Kings, Lord of Lords and
God of gods, belong to the vocabulary of praise and honor for several reasons. First,
king, lord and god indicate roles of the highest status in both earthly and heavenly
1108

realms, and thus by this very fact warrant respect and praise (78). Moreover, all three
expressions claim uniqueness for God simply by being cast in the superlative mode. As we
saw in the list of grounds for praise, those who only or most do something deserve
respect and glory. Here God most acts like king, lord and god; or God is the ultimate or
unique sovereign (79). Finally, it was part of the ancient grammar of honor to exalt the name
of someone, just as it was shameful to have ones name slandered. In a study of the
doxologies and benedictions in Pauls letters, L. G. Champion pointed out how praise of the
name of God was a significant feature in the Old Testament and synagogue Judaism ( 80). In
comparison with synagogal and other Jewish prayers, New Testament doxologies are quite
modest in celebrating the name of God and attributing to God many titles and functions. 1
Tim 6,15-16 is unusual among NT doxologies precisely for its expansiveness in regard to
the names of God (81).
(5) ovo v vv. In 1,17, the author praised God as immortal (o),
whereas in 6,16 God is said to have immortality. Since we consider immortal and to
have immortality to be virtually the same predication of God, we ask readers to return to
the comments on o. As we saw, Epicurean theology regularly paired o and
o as the defining qualities of the philosophers god, thus distinguishing deathless
deities from mortals. Hence we assess Gods immortality in 1,17 and 6,16 as a singular
uniqueness, because God alone (ovo) enjoys this extraordinary quality (82).
(6) ov oov. We focus here on the sense of exclusivity contained in the
term oov. Ancient monarchs were notorious for limiting and denying access to
themselves as a mark of their worth and high status; hence, the more inaccessible, the more
honorable. To the body of negative predicates used to speak of the deity ( 83), we now
add oo. These predicates indicate uniqueness in very different ways: (1) o
maximizes the essential superiority of god over mortals: god is un-originated (vov),

1109

impassible (ov), unchanging (voov), and without end (ov). (2) But
predicates such as oo and oo have to do with gods unknowability, indicating
that the most noble faculty of humans cannot approach, much less comprehend the deity. If
mortals cannot obtain access to god, much less can they see or know god.
(7) v v o vv. This last amplification of Gods praise reflects the
negative predication of God as invisible or beyond mortal sight ( 84). Thus Gods
inaccessibility (oo) and invisibility (oo, 1 Tim 1,17; 6,16) speak to the
superiority of God to humans, especially in terms of mortals greatest power. The rhetorical
way of expressing this superiority is familiar to us in the formula no one (o) has
ever ... This expression praises someone because he alone achieved something, and no
one else has or can.. Thus in theory and in practice the formula no one ... claims praise
and honor for some unique quality or achievement. The doxology in 6,16 employs the same
rhetorical formula to underscore God is the uniquely superior to mortals, for not only is
God inaccessible (oo), but in fact, no one can see God. God, then, is unique
because God is completely other.
In conclusion, we have observed the traditional doxological form in 1,17 and 6,15-16.
Although we have researched the background of names, titles and predicates ascribed to
God as have commentators, our investigation did not merely present parallels, but tried to
assess their meanings in terms of the rhetorical principle of uniqueness. This focus, then,
highlights fresh aspects of the terminology in the doxology. First, we find two of the
rhetorical tags for uniqueness in evidence: the term only or alone (ovo) qualifying
God and his attributes, and no one (o) who is able to see the invisible God. Since the
doxologies are monotheistic, it is not surprising that other tags of uniqueness are absent.
For, if God is the only deity, then it makes no sense to claim that God is first or most
(in comparison with other gods) or one of a few. In addition to the rhetoric of uniqueness,

1110

we gave attention to the philosophers defense of god which purified god-talk of

anthropomorphisms. This resulted in emphasis on gods eternity, no beginning and no end;
also, god could only be talked about in ways which assert that god is utterly different from
mortals, hence the cascade of negative predication. But this development likewise honors
god because it sets god apart from us, celebrates his superiority over us, and testifies to the
inability of the human mind to grasp or circumscribe him. God, then, is one of a kind,
unique, exclusive, superior, etc.
8.0 Summary, Conclusions, and Further Questions
Our survey of the principle of uniqueness surfaced many forms of it. First and foremost we
note the formula first, only, one of a few ... celebrated in epideictic rhetoric as the ideal
way to amplify praise. In Greek hymns, the most frequent element of this formula was
alone/only; but we found in abundance negative predicates which exalted a god with
prefixes such as all- (all-powerful) and suffixes of -all (master-of-all). Before
documents such as 2 Maccabees, Israelite formulae of uniqueness generally celebrate
incomparability: there is no one like you; who is like you? and no one can compare
with you. Finally, Greek philosophical discourse refined a language of uniqueness
characterized by negative predication, which emphatically insisted on the incomparable
distance between immortals and mortals. Within this discovery of the principle of
uniqueness, we have focused on a conscious and consistent rhetorical tradition from
Aristotle down to Theon and Menander Rhetor about uniqueness as expressed in the
formula first, only, one of a few, the chief amplification of praise.
In regard to 1 Timothy, we saw that most of the modes of proclaiming uniqueness in
epideictic rhetoric are used in its two doxologies. God is the only (ovo) Deity (1,17)
and the only (ovo) sovereign (6,15), who alone (ovo) has immortality (6,16),
whom no one (o) can see. In addition, Gods uniqueness is also articulated in two
1111

other ways: (1) by the use of superlatives such as King of kings, Lord of lords (6,15)
which exalt God above all other rulers and (2) by the use of negative predicates such as immortal, in-visible, and un-approachable and the like. Shall we call this one of a kind?
Although the names confessed of God are not strictly shaped by the principle of
uniqueness, the piling up of names, titles and predicates points to the exclusive sense that
God most of all rules the cosmos: God of the ages, Sovereign, King, Lord, and
God. We recall, moreover, that in the Orphic hymns, gods were often called manynamed (ovo) (85).
Second, commentators rightly claim that the New Testament doxology is not a GrecoRoman, but Israelite form, evident in the archetype found in 1 Chr 29,11 LXX. Doxologies,
however, are distinct from a benediction, or berakah, which is typically introduced by the
term or oo (86). But in the case of 1 Tim 1,17 and 6,15-16, while the form
derives from Israelite/synagogue practice, the bulk of their contents are distinctively GrecoRoman modes of god-talk. Thus, the hands are the hands of Esau, but the voice is the voice
of Jacob.

Third, although doxologies normally contain some form of glory/o,

they need not. Eric Werner remarked that not every passage where there is an affirmation
of Gods glory can be termed a doxology ( 87). Thus 2 Cor 1,20 is not a doxology, although
it contains o and is in praise of God. Yet 1 Tim 6,16, which does not contain o, is a
true doxology (88). We find instead of o, which terms we argued earlier are virtual
synonyms. Doxologies may ascribe to God glory and honor, as well as eternal dominion
(1 Tim 6,16), majesty, dominion and authority (Jude 25), and glory, honor, power and
greatness and eternal dominion (1 Clem 65.2), all of which express various aspects of
honor. Thus praise, honor and glory are given to God, which helps us situate doxologies
under the umbrella of epideictic rhetoric, the rhetoric of praise.

1112

Fourth, several other avenues for observing the principle of uniqueness are opened by this
investigation. Other names of God might be traced, names with some form of all/v-,
such as all-creating (vo) God (Diog. 7.1), all-seeing (vo) God (1
Clem 64.1), and Father of all (v) (Orphic Hymns 4.1) (89). Similarly, the name
vo, which became quite common in the LXX as the translation for (90), is
a regular name of praise for God in Rev 1,8; 4,8 and 11,17, where it is linked with
profession of Gods uncreated and imperishable character. Moreover, Greek gods were
often praised with some form of much or many/o- such as Physis, resourceful (ov ) mother of all (-) ... rich (o-) divinity (Orphic Hymns 10.1-2),
Aphrodite, praised in many hymns (o-v) (Orphic Hymns 55.1), and (Physis)
many named (ov) (Orphic Hymns 10.13). Finally, other superlative nouns might
be traced, such as Most High, for which there is now Greco-Roman as well as Israelite
evidence (91). These express uniqueness by claiming that god or God has absolute sway or
power, or most of all, or as one of a few. In Christian doxologies, the monotheistic core
would claim for God total and complete sovereignty.
Fifth, we found no negative predication in any of the classical rhetorical materials studied,
simply because they deal with the praise of men, and do not reflect philosophical
discussions of god. Nevertheless, this sort of predication is prevalent in Greco-Roman
philosophy, and was evidently taken up by New Testament and second-century Christian
writers. In addition to the negative predicates we examined in the doxologies of 1 Timothy,
more attention should be given to a tradition which contains both positive and negative
predication of God at the same time. For example:
Recognize now that there is one God
... the Invisible (oo) who sees () all things;
the Incomprehensible (o) who comprehends () all things;

1113

the One who needs nothing (v),

of whom all things stand in need (),
the Uncreated (oo) who made (ov) all things by the word of his power (92).
Finally, throughout this examination of epideictic rhetoric and the principle of uniqueness,
we have been studying the cultural value of honor, so prevalent and so prized in both
Israelite and Greco-Roman antiquity. Honor, which refers to the worthiness of persons,
their reputation and the respect due to them, is contained in the names and titles of the gods
or God, their achievements, their benefactions, and the o ascribed to them at
the end of the prayers. But the honor of God is expressed most eloquently when Gods
uniqueness is noted, that God is the only deity or the most or has some role or attribute
or is distinguished entirely from mortals by negative predicates. Nothing is more honorable
than being glorified and praised.
Jerome H. Neyrey, S.J.
University of Notre Dame
Abstract

The distinctive way of honoring gods or God was to celebrate what is unique about them,
that is, praise of persons who were the first, only, or one of a few to do something.
Rhetoric from Aristotle to Quintilian expounded the theory of uniqueness, which the
authors of Greek hymns and prayers employed. One finds a Semitic counterpart in the
principle of incomparability describing Israelite kings. Uniqueness pervades the New
Testament, especially its doxologies. In them, uniqueness was richly expressed in

1114

rhetorical mode, as well as by predicates of negative theology which elevated the deity
above those praising.

1115

( [1] ) There are two doxologies in the early church, the Great Doxology
(Glory to God in the highest ... ) and the Lesser Doxology (Glory be to
the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit ... ); see J. A. JUNGMANN, The
Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (New York 1951) I,
346-359.
( [2] ) E. WERNER, The Doxology in Synagogue and Church. A LiturgicoMusical Study, HUCA 19 (1945-46) 275-351; M. BLACK, The Doxology
to the Pater Noster with a Note on Matthew 6:13B, A Tribute to Geza
Vermes (ed. P.R. DAVIES R. T. WHITE) (Sheffield 1990) 327-338.
( [3] ) For example, M. DIBELIUS, The Pastoral Epistles (Philadelphia 1972) 30-31.
( [4] ) It is well known that in the New Testament o is used synonymously with , with
the meaning esteem, honor. So G. KITTLE (o, TDNT II, 232-237) said of glory, ...
with the Homeric o and later , [glory] achieves central significance for the
Greeks. Supreme and ideal worth is summed up in the term. A mans worth is measured by
his repute (II, 235).
( [5] )See B.J.

MALINA, The

New

Testament

World.

Insights

from

Cultural

Anthropology (Louisville, KY 1993) 28-62; B.J. MALINA and J. H. NEYREY, Honor and
Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World, The Social World of
Luke-Acts. Models for Interpretation (ed. J. H. NEYREY) (Peabody, MA 1991) 25-66;
and J. H. NEYREY, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew(Louisville, KY 1998).

1116

( [6] ) All texts and translations are taken from the Loeb Classical Library, except those
specifically identified.
( [7] ) Augustus Caesar claimed maximum honor because of unique
benefactions to the army: I was the first and only one (primus atque
solus omnium) to do this of all those who up to my time settled colonies
of soldiers in Italy or in the provinces (Res Gestae 16). Plutarch states:
... in public life one must escape. . .from love of fame, the desire to
be first or greatest (ov ov) (Old Men in Public Affairs 788E).
( [8] ) Robert A. Kaster, Notes on Primary and Secondary Schools in Late
Antiquity, TAPA 113 [1983] 323-46; Martin Bloomer, Schooling in Persona: Imagination
and Subordination in Roman Education, Classical Antiquity 16 [1997] 57-78).
( [9] ) J. R. BUTTS, The Progymnasmataof Theon. A New Text with Translation and
Commentary (unpublished dissertation; Claremont Graduate School, 1987) 470-471.
( [10] ) D.A. RUSSELL and N.G. WILSON, Menander Rhetor (Oxford 1981) 1.362.4-20.
See also Plutarch, On the Fame of the Athenians 345F-346A.
( [11] ) Certain crimes and misdeeds were considered

unique in wickedness; for

example Rhetoric to Herennius: We show that it is not a common but a unique (singular)
crime, base, nefarious, and unheard-of (in-usitatum), and therefore must be the more
promptly and drastically avenged (2.30.49, emphasis added; see also Cicero, de
Inventione 1.54.103).
( [12] ) See B.J. MALINA and J. H. NEYREY, Portraits of Paul. An Archeology of
Ancient

Personality

(Louisville,

KY

1117

1996)

3-4,

113-125;

see

also NEYREY, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew, 78-80 and 9497.
( [13] ) Isocrates (436-388) says to a relative of the deceased: ... you,
Nicocles, are the first and the only (o ovo) one of those who
possess royal power, wealth, and luxury who has undertaken to pursue
the study of philosophy (Evag. 78).
( [14] ) H.S. VERSNEL, Religious Mentality in Ancient Prayer, Faith, Hope and Worship.
Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (ed. H.S. VERSNEL) (Leiden 1981)
2. See also L. ALDERINK and L. MARTIN, Prayer in Greco-Roman Religions, Prayer
from Alexander to Constantine. A Critical Anthology (ed. M. KILEY) (London 1997) 123127.
( [15] ) The text is that of A.C. PEARSON, The Fragments of Zeno and Cleanthes (New York
1973) 274-275; see also VON ARNIM, SVF I, 121-122, frag. 537.
( [16] ) Young Artemis asked her father for a gift that would put her on a par with her brother:
Give

me

many-namedness

(ovv)

cited

by J.M.

BREMER,

Greek

Hymns, Faith, Hope and Worship, 194-195. See also the cultural study of names by D.
EICKELMAN, The Middle East. An Anthropological Approach (Englewood Cliffs, NJ
1989) 55-59; and NEYREY, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew, 55-60.
( [17] ) For Greek text see Diodor of Sicily, 1.27.4; the translation is by M. GUSTAFSON,
The Isis Hymn of Diodorus of Sicily (1.27.3)in ed., Mark Kiley, Prayer from Alexander
to Constantine, 155-158.
( [18] ) The

text

and

ATHANASSAKIS, The

translation
Orphic

Hymns.
1118

used
Text,

here

is

Translation

that
and

of A.N.
Notes

(Missoula, MT 1977). See also M.L. WEST, The Orphic Poems(Oxford

1983).
( [19] ) Variations of first include oldest of all (10.2) and first born
(10.5).
( [20] ) Hymns 33.2; 58.8; 61.1; 64.8; 68.11; 74.6; 75.7; 85.3; 87.8.
Persephone and Athena are the only-begotten (ovov) offspring of
Demeter and Zeus respectively (29.2; 32.1).
( [21] ) Adonis is called best god (, 56.1); Okeanos, highest divine
purifier (ov, 83.6); Dream, greatest prophet to mortals (,
86.2).
( [22] ) For example, moon is divine queen (9.1); Pan is queen of all
(11.2); Zeus, of course, is king (15.2) in one place and begetter of all
and great king (20.5); Hera, queen of all and consort of Zeus (16.2).
( [23] ) Variations of eternity include self-born (8.3) or self-fathered
(10.10); end that has no end (10.8); as well as note of a gods
everlasting life (10.27; 11.3).
( [24] ) For example, Orphic Hymns 4.4, 8; 6.3, 10; 8.1; 9.11; 12.14; 13.1;
16.2; 22.10; 28.6; 32.3; 33.9; 34.1; 45.1; 52.1.
( [25] ) C.J. LABUSCHAGNE, The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament (Leiden
1966).
( [26] ) See also Pss 71,19 and 113,5; see LABUSCHAGNE, Incomparability of Yahweh, 1622.
1119

( [27] ) G. N. KNOPPERS, There Was None Like Him: Incomparability in the Books of
Kings, CBQ 54 (1992) 411-431.
( [28] ) M. SMITH, The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East, JBL 71 (1952) 137.
( [29] ) SMITH, Common Theology, 139. The truth of the predication of uniqueness is not
the point, but rather the rhetorical manner in which it is expressed.
( [30] ) LABUSCHAGNE, Incomparability of Yahweh, 33-63.
( [31] ) For example, Deut 4,39; 1 Sam 2,2; 1 Kgs 8,23; 2 Kgs 5,15; Isa 43,10-13; 45,5-6
LXX.
( [32] ) See also: Deut 6,13; 10,20; Judg 10,16; 1 Sam 7,3; 1 Kgs 18,37; Pss 71,16; Isa
37,16.
( [33] )For example: the only High One (ovo o) ... the only finder (ovov
v) ... the only God ( o ovo) (1 Clement 59.3).
( [34] )

See J.

DUPONT,

ov o , EThL 22

(1964)

362-375; E.

NORDEN, Agnostos Theos (Darmstadt 1956), 240-251.

( [35] ) Many translate ovov as only or single; see P. WINTER, ovov
o, ZRGG 5 (1953) 335-365. G. PENDRICK, ovov, NTS 5 (1995) 587-600,
provides data urging that the proper translation be the only one of its kind or unique.
But see J. V. DAHMS, The Johannine Use of Monogenes Reconsidered, NTS 29 (1983)
222-232.
( [36] ) Also: There is salvation in one else (v ov), for there is no (o) other
name under heaven ... by which we must be saved (Acts 4,12).

1120

( [37] )B. J. MALINA and R. L. ROHRBAUGH, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel

of John (Minneapolis 1998) 230-231.
( [38] ) See note 2 above. See G. DELLING, Worship in the New Testament (London 1962)
62-69; R.

DEICHGRBER, Gotteshymnus

and

Christushymnus

in

der

Frhen

Christenheit (Gttingen 1967) 24-107.

( [39] ) Doxologies appear irregularly in Rom 11,36; Gal 1,5; Phil 4,20; Eph 3,20-21 and 2
Tim 4,18; yet others serve as part of the end of letters: Rom 16,25-27; Jude 24-25; 2 Pet
3,18; 1 Clem 65.2.
( [40] ) BLACK, Doxology to the Pater Noster, 327-338.
( [41] ) New Testament addresses to God beginning with oo include: Luke 1,68; 2 Cor
1,3; 11,31; Rom 1,25; Eph 1,3; 1 Pet 1,3.
( [42] ) DEICHGRBER, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus, 25-40, 97-102. See also D.E.
AUNE, Revelation 1-5 (Dallas 1997) 43-46.
( [43] ) In fact, only 1 Tim 6,15; Rev 15,3, but see: Isa 6,5; Jer 10,10; Ps 74,12; and Sir 51,1.
( [44] ) For example, Zeus is king (15.3) and Korybas too (39.1); many female gods are
queens: Moon (9.1), Artemis (36.1), Semele (44.1), Nemesis (61.1).
( [45] ) See C. SPICQ, Les pitres Pastorales (Paris 1969) I, 346-347. See also Tob 13,7.11;
Sir 36,17; I.H. MARSHALL, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral
Epistles (Edinburgh 1999) 404.
( [46] ) See SPICQ, pitres Pastorales , I, 346 and 547; Y. REDALI, Paul aprs
Paul (Geneva 1994) 91.

1121

( [47] ) See C.H. TALBERT, What Is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels
(Philadelphia 1977); and J.H. NEYREY, Without Beginning of Days or End of Life
(Hebrews 7:3): Topos for a True Deity, CBQ 53 (1991) 441-444.
( [48] ) See also Diogenes Laertius, 7.137; Philo, Cher. 86; Justin, Dial. 5.
( [49] ) This material is intended to qualify MARSHALLs remark that o was used by
the Stoics and was taken into Judaism (Wis 12,1; Philo, Mos. 2.171; Immut. 26; Sac. 101)
(Pastoral Epistles, 405).
( [50] ) Although Philo uses oo to dismiss the idols of pagans (Leg. Gaium 290, 310,
318), he argues that this unseen God is unique in that he alone sees even the most secret of
things (Spec. Leg. 4.30) and that he is the un-seen seer (Op. 69); see also Spec.
Leg. 1.20; Abr. 75; Moses 2.171.
( [51] ) Josephus uses most of the unique epithets to describe the soul: ... it enjoys a blessed
() energy and a power untrammeled (ov) on every side, remaining, like
God Himself, invisible (oo) to human eyes ... itself of a nature one and incorruptible
(ov) (War 7.346-47; see also War 7.446). On the Greek character of this passage,
see A.T. HANSON, The Pastoral Epistles(Cambridge 1966) 29; G. HOLTZ, Die
Pastoralbriefe (Berlin 1966) 48.
( [52] ) See W. MICHAELIS, o, oo, TDNT V, 368-370. See also 2 Clem 20.5;
Diognetus 7.2; Ignatius, Mag. 3.2 and Poly. 3.2.
( [53] ) Useful studies on this topic include: H.A. WOLFSON, Albinus and Plotinus on
Divine Attributes, HThR 45 (1952) 115-130 and Negative Attributes in the Church
Fathers and the Gnostic Basilides, HThR 50 (1957) 145-156; F.M. YOUNG, The God of
the Greeks and the Nature of Religious Language, Early Church Literature and the
1122

Classical Intellectual Tradition (ed. W.R. SCHOEDEL R.L. WILKEN) (Paris 1979) 4573; W.R. SCHOEDEL, Enclosing, Not Enclosed: The Early Christian Doctrine of
God, Early Christian Literature, 75-86..
( [54] ) The text of Theophilus is that of M. MARKOVICH, Theophili Antiocheni ad
Autolycum (Berlin 1995) 18.
( [55] ) Apos. Const. 7.35.9; text and translation are by D.A. FIENSY, Prayers Alleged to be
Jewish. An Examination of the Constitutiones Apostolorum (Chico, CA 1985) 70-71; see
also D.A. FIENSY andD.R. DARNELL, Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, OTP II, 681682.
( [56] ) G. DELLING, ovo o, Studien zum Neuen Testament und zum hellenistischen
Judentum (Gttingen 1970) 391-400, reprinted from ThLZ 77 (1952) 470-475.
( [57] ) YOUNG, God of the Greeks, 48-53. See R.M. GRANT, Gods and the One
God (Philadelphia 1986) 75-83.
( [58] ) On Christian proclamations about God, see GRANT, Gods and the One God, 8494; J. BASSLER, God in the New Testament, AncBD II, 1048-1055.
(61) The LXX contains several patterns expressing monotheism: 1. who is like you? [No
one] ( oo o, Exod 15:11; 1 Sam 2:2; 2 Sam 22:32); 2. there is no other besides
you (o v v o); Deut 4:35, 39; 6:4; 32:39; 2 Sam 7:22; 1 Kgs 8:23; 2 Kgs
5:15); 3. you are the only God in all the kingdoms ( o ovo; 2 Kgs 19:15; Neh
9:6). Evidently ovo was hardly the sole way of expressing Gods uniqueness.
(62) For comparisons sake, we note the use of ovo in other doxologies: the only (ovo)
unbegotten and unruled ... the only (ovo) true, the only (ovo) wise, the one who alone
(ovo) is most high ... the only (ovo) good and incomparable (Apos. Const. 8.5.1
in FIENSY, Prayers Alleged to be Jewish, 90-91).

1123

(63) W. LOCK, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh
1924)

72; J.

ROLOFF, Der

Erste

Brief

an

Timotheus (Neukirchen

1988)

355; REDALI, Paul aprs Paul, 90.

(64) KITTLE, o, II, 233-237.
(65) J. SCHNEIDER , TDNT VIII, 169-180.
(66) In Rom 2,7.10 o and are used synonymously, similarly o and vo in
Phil 1,11 and 1 Pet 1,7. MARSHALL (The Pastoral Epistles, 405-406) considers o and
as synonyms, but claims that they go back to the LXX translation of the
Hebrew kabod, which seems excessively narrow in the light of Greek rhetoric of praise.
(67) WERNER, Doxology in Synagogue and Church, 275-351.
(68) About fate Philo says: Fate (v) has no beginning (vo)
or end (o) (Aet. 75); see Cicero, Nature of the Gods 1.24.68.
Tertullian reflects traditional god-talk when he speaks of Gods
eternity:I give that definition (of God) which all mens common sense
will accept, that God is supremely great, firmly established in eternity,
unbegotten, uncreated, without beginning and without end (sine initio,
sine fine) (Adv. Marc. 1.3); finally Theophilus say that the deity is
without beginning (vo) because He is unbegotten (vvo); and he
is unchangeable, because he is immortal (ad Autol. 1.4).
(69) NEYREY, Without Beginning of Days or End of Life, 440-447, esp. 444.
(70) J. N. D. KELLY, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (New York 1963) 46.
(71) F. HAUCK, o, TDNT IV, 363.
1124

(72) For example, Separate, my soul, all that is created, mortal, mutable, profane from thy
conception of God the uncreated (vo), unchangeable (o), the immortal
(o), the holy and solely blessed (ovo o) (Sacr. 101); see also Sacr.
95; Somn. 1.95; Sp. Leg. 1.329.
(73)See also Cicero, Nature of the Gods 1.45-49, 68, 85, 106-107; 3.3. Yet P.H.
TOWNER (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus [Downers Grove, IL 1994] 146) asserts that
blessed ... only comes out of intertestamental Judaism.
(74) D. ARICHEA and H. HATTON, A Handbook on Pauls Letters to Timothy and to
Titus (New York 1995) 158.
(75) See, ROLOFF, Der Erste Brief on Timotheus, 355; REDALI, Paul aprs Paul, 90.
(76) SPICQ, pitres Pastorales , I, 573. Diodor of Sicily relates the following inscription:
This land the King of Kings ( v) and Lord of Lords (o
ov), Sesoris, subdued with his own arms (1.55.7); see also Dio Cassius, Rom.
Hist. 49.41.1; and 37.6.1-2. See also G.K. BEALE, The Origin of the Title King of
King and Lord of Lords in Rev. 17.14, NTS 31 (1985) 618-620.
(77) For a complete list of this in the Hebrew bible, see BEALE, Origin of the Title King
of Kings and Lord of Lords, 619, n. 1.
(78) ARICHEA and HATTON state: Alternative ways to translate these two phrases are
The Greatest Ruler, the Mightiest King, The Lord and King of All, or The Most
Powerful Ruler and Highest Chief of All. (Pauls Letters to Timothy and to Titus, 158).
(79) G.W. KNIGHT (The Pastoral Epistles. A Commentary on the Greek Text [Grand
Rapids, MI 1992] 269) comments He [God] is sovereign over every other kind of

1125

rulership.... The statement in its entirety says that God is the possessor of the highest power
over all who possess power and has full control over all who exercise control.
(80) L.G. CHAMPION, Benedictions and Doxologies in the Epistle of Paul (unpublished
dissertation; Heidelberg, 1934).
(81) Compare 1 Timothy 6:15-16 with this: Blessed is the Lord of the Spirits the Lord of
kings, the Lord of rulers, and the Master of the rich the Lord of glory and the Lord of
wisdom (1 Enoch 63:2).
(82) It is generally conceded by the commentators to reflect Greco-Roman god-talk;
see SPICQ, pitres Pastorales , I, 547; REDALI, Paul aprs Paul, 91.
(83) See H.A. WOLFSON, The Knowability and Describability of God in Plato and
Aristotle, HSCP (1947) 233-247.
(84) See YOUNG, God of the Greeks, 50-54.
(85) An inscription concerning Klarian Apollo reads: self-existent, untaught, without a
mother, undisturbed, of many names (ovo) although not spreading abroad his
name, dwelling in fire ... inG.H.R. HORSLEY, NDIEC 2 (1982) 39.
(86) AUNE, Revelation, I, 43.
(87) WERNER, Doxology in Synagogue and Church, 277.
(88) WERNER, Doxology in Synagogue and Church, 277; see also AUNE, Revelation, I,
43-44.
(89) For example in the Orphic Hymns: Divine Earth. . .you nourish all (vo), you
give all (v) ... you destroy all (vo) (26.1-2); and highest of all
1126

(v), all eating (), all taming (v), and all consuming
(vo) (66.5).
(90) See W. MICHAELIS, vo, TDNT III, 914-915; H.W. PLEKET, Religious
History as the History of Mentality: The Believer as Servant of the Deity in the Greek
World, Faith, Hope and Worship, 171-173.
(91) Common in the Old Testament, it is found also in Luke 1,32.35.76; 6,35; Acts 7,48;
Heb 7,1; see also S. LLEWLYN, Dedications to The Most High God, NDIEC 1 (1981)
25-29 and A.D. NOCK, The Guild of Zeus Hypsistos, Essays on Religion and the
Ancient World (Cambridge, MA 1972) I, 414-443.
(92) See E. VON DOBSCHTZ, Das Kerygma Petri (TU 11; Leipzig 1893) 18-19; the
translation used here is taken from HENNECKEs NTA II, 99. See Plutarchs Dinner of the
Seven Wise Men 155A.

Josephus' Vita and

the
A
Native
Model
of
Jerome
University
Notre Dame, IN 46556

I. Focus

H.
of

Neyrey
Notre

and

Encomium:
Personality"
Dame

Hypothesis

How difficult it is to think about people different from ourselves. Many

students of the history and culture of the ancient eastern Mediterranean still
suffer from ethnocentrism, the phenomenon of perceiving or describing
people from a different culture according to our own image and likeness.
What The Ugly American exposed in regard to Western perceptions of the
1127

Vietnamese, recent events in the Middle East did for our difficulties in
understanding the cultures of the Persian Gulf. How can modern Westerners
avoid enthocentrism when we try to understand eastern Mediterranean
people from Greco-Roman times? We can find one important clue in the
ways the ancients themselves understood and described people in their own
culture. This study presents one particular native or emic model from the
ancient world on how to perceive and present a person, namely, the
encomium as described in the writing handbooks or progymnasmata.(1)
When instructing people to write, ancient teachers used exercise manuals
known as progymnasmata: "preliminary exercises . . . the elementary stage
of instruction in schools of rhetoric." (2) On route to formal studies in
rhetoric, students were initially taught to write and organize their remarks
on traditional topics defined in terms of conventional content.
Conventionality ruled the day: set topics with stereotyped parts were
developed in predictable ways. Thus by being taught to write encomia,
literate people were socialized in highly conventional terms to perceive and
describe people in their world according to culturally defined categories.
This study focuses primarily on the generalized instructions given for
describing people as found in the rules for an encomium in the
extant progymnasmata. For purposes of illustration, we will apply our study
of encomia as a template with which to analyze Josephus' presentation of
himself in his Vita. Thus we hope to gain a clear description of what the
ancients considered worth knowing about a person and an example of
Josephus' self-presentation in these conventional categories.
II. Progymnasmata

and

the

Encomium

The progymnasmata contain a list of genres in which students were to be

trained: (1) myths, (2) chreia and proverbs, (3) refutation and confirmation,
(4) commonplaces on virtues and vices, (5) encomium and vituperation, (6)
comparison, (7) prosopopoieia, (8) description, (9) thesis for or against
something, and (10) legislation, for or against a law. In terms of modern
scholarship, occasional critical attention has been paid to chreia,
(3)
comparison (synkrisis),(4) and encmium.(5) There are now several booklength discussions of the progymnasmata form itself,(6) as well as shorter
discussions of it.(7)
An encomium is a speech of praise, either of some person or place. In it
writers were instructed to speak about what was deemed culturally
important in knowing a person.(8) The ancients not only had a specific
1128

cultural meaning for "praise," but they perceived and expressed this in
terms of the following fixed categories:
I. Origin and Birth
A. Origin
- race
- country
- ancestors
- parents
B. Birth
- phenomena at birth
(stars, visions, etc.)
- family
II. Nurture and Training
A. Education
- teachers
- arts, skills
- laws
III. Accomplishments and Deeds
A. Deeds of the Body
- beauty
- strength
- agility

1129

- might
- health
B. Deeds of the Soul
- justice
- wisdom
- temperance
- manliness
- piety
C. Deeds of Fortune
- power
- wealth
- friends
- children: number & beauty of
- fame, fortune
- length of life
- happy death
IV. Comparison

These categories contain both the basic information thought relevant for
knowing a person in that culture and the sequence and form for describing
him.(9) To know this material was to know the person. Hence the
conventional elements of the encomium provide a native guide for perceiving
and appreciating any particular person.

1130

Since these conventional elements of an encomium also need to be

understood from the native's point of view, we offer the following
amplification and definition of them from Greek and Roman authors.
A. Origin and Birth (eugeneia). To know a person, ancient peoples thought it
essential to know that person's blood lines. (10) Hence notice of their
genealogy, ancestors, clan and parents constituted essential pieces of
information.(11) Plato stated it clearly "They were good because they sprang
from good fathers" (Menex. 237). Noble families, moreover, stem from noble
soil and live in noble cities,(12) which therefore should be noted. The converse
is equally true.(13)
This information presupposes that there are typical features, i.e.,
stereotypes, concerning a clan, a family, a race, and place. As Quintilian
noted:
"'Birth,' for persons are generally regarded as having some resemblance to
their parents and ancestors, a resemblance which sometimes leads to their
living disgracefully or honorably, as the case may be; then there is
nationality, for races have their own character, and the same action is not
probable in the case of a barbarian, a Roman and a Greek; country is
another, for there is a like diversity in the laws, institutions and opinions of
different states" (Inst. Orat. V.x.23-25).
Men, for example, were known as the sons of so-and-so, with the added
presumption that they are of the same trade or social rank as their father
(Deut 1:38; 1 Sam 14:1; 23:6; Prov 1:1; Matt 16:17). Concerning nation or
race Aeneas said of Sinon, the Greek: "Ab uno disce omnes" (Aen. 2.65).
The birth of an honorable person might be accompanied by visions, celestial
phenomena (stars, comets, lightning, etc.), that is, by signs and wonders
which testify to the exceptional status of the person whose birth they herald.
(14)

B. Nurture and Training (anathroph). Cicero provides a summary of this

topic:
"Under manner of life (in victu) should be considered with whom he was
reared, in what tradition and under whose direction, what teachers he had in
the liberal arts, what instructors in the art of living, with whom he associates
on terms of friendship, in what occupation, trade or profession he is

1131

engaged, how he manages his private fortune, and what is the character of
his home life" (De Inventione I.xxiv.35).(15)
Again, since ancients presume constancy of character, to know this
formative information about teachers, curriculum, and associates is to know
the individual.
C. Accomplishments (epitdeumata) and Deeds (praxeis). Before authors
catalogue a person's deeds, they should attend to "accomplishments"
(epitdeumata), that is, to the choices which reveal character. Cicero
describes this as the habitus of a person:
"By habit we mean a stable and absolute constitution of mind or body in
some particular, as, for example, the acquisition of some capacity or of an
art, or again some special knowledge, or some bodily dexterity not given by
nature but won by careful training and practice" (De Inventione I.xxiv.36).
(16)

After listing "accomplishments," the writer then turns to "actions"

(praxeis): "Next to 'accomplishments' now comes the topic of 'actions'"
(Treatise II.372.14). These deeds are classified according to three categories:
those of the body, the soul and Fortune.(17)
Deeds of the Body. The progymnasmata give only the barest hint of this:
Hermogenes: "beauty, stature, agility, might"
Aphthonius: "beauty, swiftness, strength"
Theon: "health, strength, beauty, quick sensibility"(18)
But Aristotle, an early witness to this topic, spells this out in greater detail:
"The excellence of the body is health; that is, a condition which allows us,
while keeping free from disease, to have the use of our bodies. . .
"Beauty varies with the time of life. In a young man beauty is the possession
of a body fit to endure the exertions of running and of contests of strength;
which means that he is pleasant to look at; and therefore all-round athletes
are the most beautiful, being naturally adapted both for contests of strength
and for speed also. For a man in his prime, beauty is fitness for the exertion
of warfare, together with a pleasant but at the same time formidable
appearance. For an old man, it is to be strong enough for such exertion as is
1132

necessary, and to be free from all those deformities of old age which cause
pain to others.
"Strength is the power of moving some one else at will; to do this, you must
either pull, push, lift, pin or grip him; thus you must be strong in all those
ways or at least in some. Excellence in size (stature) is to surpass ordinary
people in height, thickness, and breadth by just as much as will not make
one's movements slower in consequence. Athletic excellence (athletic powers)
of the body consists in size, strength, and swiftness; swiftness implying
strength. He who can fling forward his legs in a certain way, and move them
fast and far, is good at running; he who can grip and hold down is good at
wrestling; he who can drive an adversary from his ground with the right
blow is a good boxer; he who can do both the last is a good pancratiast,
while he who can do all is an 'all-round' athlete" (Rhet I.1361b.3-27).
Aristotle describes a male warrior and/or athlete who embodies what is
needed to be a public figure in his culture and gain public honor.(19) Health =
use of one's body; beauty = endurance and exertion in contests; strength =
power to impose one's will. Such a person is able to do heroic deeds, to act
assertively, and to claim honor and respect.
Deeds of the Soul. These are divided according to the topos of the four
classical virtues: wisdom (phronsis), temperance (sphrosyn), justice
(dikaiosyn) and courage (andreia).(20) Whereas Aristotle mentions only
"temperance and courage," Menander Rhetor instructs the author to
organize his material according to all four:
"Always divide the actions of those you are going to praise into the virtues
(there are four virtues: courage, justice, temperance, and wisdom) and see to
what virtues the actions belong and whether some of them, whether in war
or in peace, are common to a single virtue: e.g. wisdom, for it belongs to
wisdom both to command armies well in war and to legislate well and
dispose and arrange the affairs of subjects to advantage" (Treatise II. 373.514).
According to Quintilian, when it is time for this topic to be developed,
writers have the option of organizing their description of a person's life
either thematically (according to these four virtues) or chronologically:
It has always proved the more effective course to trace a man's life and
deeds in due chronological order, praising his natural gifts as a child, then
his progress at school, and finally the whole course of his life, including
1133

words as well as deeds. At times on the other hand it is well to divide our
praises, dealing separately with the various virtues, fortitude, justice, selfcontrol and the rest of them and to assign to each virtue the deeds performed
under its influence" (Inst. Orat. III.7.15).
This part of the encomium would seem to be of considerable importance to
Menander Rhetor for he repeats and develops it at considerable length.
When speaking of the accomplishments of cities, he notes that they would be
"assessed in terms of the virtues and their parts" (I.361.11-13). After naming
the four virtues, he then discusses the parts of each virtue, a topic which is
important for our grasp of the emic or native understanding of this material.
"The parts of justice are piety, fair dealing and reverence . . . There are two
tests of temperance, in public life and in private domesticity . . . Similarly
with prudence. In public affairs . . . On the private side . . . Courage is
assessed in peace and war" (I.361.17-365.4).(21)
It should be noted that other encomia in the extant progymnasmata have
longer lists of virtues as illustrations of the deeds of the soul. Besides the four
cardinal virtues, "piety, nobility and sense of greatness" and "pious free and
magnanimous" are noted.(22)
Deeds of Fortune. In the ancient world, wealth, land, social connections and
the like were important aspects of a person's status. They indicate, moreover,
that this person is divinely favored, thus indicating new aspects of the worth
and value of this person in the eyes of others.(23) We turn again to Aristotle
for a description of them. First he lists Fortune's parts: "plenty of friends,
good friends, wealth, good children, plenty of children, a happy old age . . .
fame, honour, good luck" (Rhet. I. 1360b.20-24), then describes the
components of each part:
"The phrases possession of good children and of many children bear a quite
clear meaning. Applied to a community, they mean that its young men are
numerous and of good quality: good in regard to bodily excellences, such as
stature, beauty, strength, athletic powers; and so in regard to the excellences
of the soul, which in a young man are temperance and courage. Applied to
an individual, they mean that his own children are numerous and have the
good qualities we have described. Both male and female are included here;
the excellences of the latter are, in body, beauty and stature; in soul, selfcommand and industry that is not sordid. Communities as well as
individuals should lack none of these perfections" (Rhet. I.1360b.391361a.11).
1134

"The constituents of wealth are: plenty of coined money and territory; the
ownership of numerous, large and beautiful estates; also the ownership of
numerous and beautiful implements, live stock, and slaves. . . Wealth as a
whole consists in using things rather than in owning them" (Rhet. I.1361.1324).
"Fame means being respected by everybody, or having some quality that is
desired by all men, or by most, or by the good, or by the wise. Honor is the
token of a man's being famous for doing good. It is chiefly and most
properly paid to those who have already done good . . . The constituents of
honour are: sacrifices; commemoration, in verse or prose; privileges; grants
of land; front seats at civic celebrations; state burial; statues; public
maintenance; among foreigners, obeisances and giving place; and such
presents as are among various bodies of men regarded as marks of honour.
For a present is not only a bestowal of a piece of property, but also a token of
honour." (Rhet. I.1361a.25-1361b.2).
"The terms possession of many friends and possession of good friends needs
no explanation; for we define a friend as one who will always try, for your
sake, to do what he takes to be good for you. The man towards whom many
feel thus has many friends; if these are worthy men, he has good friends"
(Rhet. I.1361b.35-39).
"Good luck means the acquisition or possession of all or most, or the most
important, of those good things which are due to luck . . . All such good
things as excite envy are, as a class, the outcome of good luck." (Rhet.
I.1361b.38-1362a.11).
Thus "deeds of fortune" tell us primarily about the social perception of a
person by others, the honor rating they enjoy in society, and the way they
fulfil the cultural expectations of nobility. The emphasis is exclusively on the
figure they cut in the world, not their personal or private character.
D. Comparison (synkrisis). In the progymnasmata, "comparison" comprises
a distinct form with its particular rules. (24) But it appears as a final element
in the encomium as well. On comparisons Menander Rhetor writes:
"You should then proceed to the most complete comparison, examining his
reign in comparison with preceding reigns, not disparaging them (that is bad
craftsmanship) but admiring them while granting perfection to the present.
You must not forget our previous proposition, namely that comparisons
should be made under each head; these comparisons, however, will be
1135

partial (e.g. education with education, temperance with temperance),

whereas the complete one will concern the whole subject, as when we
compare a reign as a whole and in sum with another reign, e.g. the reign of
Alexander with the present one" (Treatise II. 377.1-9; see II.421.1-10).
Therefore, we should have a grasp of the literary conventions for perceiving
and describing a person in the Greco-Roman world. To be certain the
encomium describes a person quite differently from modern western
concerns for individuals in their psychological uniqueness. All of the
elements of the encomium have to do with the public and honorable
character of a person; they seek to evaluate persons (in praise or blame) in
terms of the group's prevailing norms for honor. This native model allows us
to be quite certain about the cultural values and their structural implications
for the first-century world.(25) The model may be clear, but an illustration of
its use is necessary; for this purpose, let us examine Josephus' Vita in light of
this form.
III. Application to Josephus' Vita
The encomium offers a valuable native perspective on how people were
typically perceived in the ancient world and what was thought essential or
important about them. We use it as the template for viewing the selfpresentation of Josephus in his Vita.(26) The issues are: what is the formal
shape of Josephus' self-presentation? How does he understand himself and
how does he present himself in categories that others expect and will readily
recognize? Does his self presentation follow the general and specific
categories of how people are described in the encomia of
ancientprogymnasmata?(27)
A. Origin and Birth. Josephus(28) begins his Vita by identifying his family
and clan.(29) His is "no ignoble" ancestry, for on his father's side he belongs
to a priestly family. Moreover, among the twenty-four courses of priests, he
enjoys the "peculiar distinction" of belonging to the first, "the most eminent
of its constituent clans" (1).(30) On his mother's side, he is descended "of the
blood royal" of the Hasmonaean house. And so he boasts that his ancestors
were both kings and high priests.(31)
In citing his immediate genealogy, Josephus tell us that his greatgrandfather's grandfather, Simon the Stammerer, had nine children. One of
them, Matthias, married the daughter of Jonathan the high priest. Other
sons of this clan are named and socially located. Along with such illustrious
ancestors, he mentions his own father, Matthias, of whom he says:
1136

"Distinguished as he was by noble birth, my father Matthias was even more

esteemed for his upright character, being among the most notable men in
Jerusalem" (7). So at the conclusion of his description of clan, family and
parents, Josephus can claim: "With such a pedigree . . . I can take leave of
the would-be detractors of my family" (6).
Thus Josephus claims elite status by noting that his family and clan belong
to the most noble in the land, both kingly and priestly families. This
information identifies his status as that of the elite, the upper 2% of the
population; he is a genuine aristocrat. He resides, moreover, in Jerusalem,
"our greatest city."
In passing we note that not only does Josephus describe himself first and
foremost in terms of family and clan, he describes others in the same terms:
A. People Identified in Terms of Their Fathers:
Josephus, son of Matthias (5)
Compsus, son of Compsus (33)
Justus, son of Pistus (36, 390)
John, son of Levi (43, 122)
Philip, Son of Jacimus, (46, 178)
Jesus, son of Sapphias (134)
Jonathan, son of Sisenna (190)
Simon, son of Gamaliel (190, 309)
Jesus, son of Gamalas (193, 204)
B. People Identified in Terms of Clan or Family:
Joazar and Judas, priests (29)
C. People Identified in Terms of Place:
John of Gischala (217)
1137

D. People Identified in terms of ascribed authority:

a Jew named Crispus, a groom of the bedchamber (382)
wife of Ptolemy, the king's overseer (126)
Jesus, the chief magistrate (294)
Cestius Gallus, the governor of Syria (373)
Thus, the conventions which guide Josephus' description of himself also
govern the way he presents other characters in the story.
B. Nurture and Training. He makes the obligatory comment that he made
"great progress" in his education and "gained a reputation for an excellent
memory and understanding" (8). He notes, moreover, that when fourteen
years old, he "won universal applause for his love of letters." So much so,
"chief priests and leading men of the city used constantly to come to me for
precise information on some particular in our ordinances" (8-9). And so he
describes his early education with the resultant claim to public recognition
that he was a prodigy of industry and insight. (32) In the adult phase of his
formidable education, he investigated the manner of life of three leading
sects of his society (Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes) "so as to select the
best." Submitting himself to hard training and laborious exercises, he
completed all three courses. Subsequently he engaged as mentor a certain
Bannus and became schooled in the values and structures of the Jewish
purity system (11). Finishing his education, he chose to govern his life by
Pharisaic rules, which he indicates have much in common with the
honorable Greco-Roman philosophical school, the Stoics.
Thus Josephus follows the categories of the encomium and tells us his
teacher/mentor (Bannus), his skills (memory, understanding, love of letters),
and his laws (discipline of the sects, especially that of the Pharisees). He tells
us that he has both knowledge of and respect for the purity traditions
greatly revered by Temple and observant Jews. He describes himself as
knowing what an educated man of his culture would prize knowing. This
knowledge will come into play later in the narrative, when he describes his
concern for kosher and purity rules.(33)
C. Accomplishments and Deeds. Accomplishments (epitdeumata) are the
foundational choices which reveal character. Josephus chose to "begin to
govern my life by the rules of the Pharisees" (12). This is exemplified by his
1138

knowledge of and concern for Jewish purity rules, as noted above. He acted
upon this choice at age 26 when he went to Rome to defend certain priests
(13-14). His foundational choice to live the life of an observant Jew shaped
his behavior throughout his life. It was a noble and virtuous choice, which he
expected to draw praise and silence criticism.
Deeds are divided into three categories: deeds of the body, the soul and
Fortune. They may be arranged chronologically or according to certain
virtues. In the Vita, Josephus makes no mention of his health, strength,
beauty(34) or other deeds of the body. Yet they might be implied in the
stamina and vigor with which he pursued the war.
Deeds of the Soul. Although he follows a chronological sequence in his Vita,
Josephus seems to present his deeds of the soul according to the four
cardinal virtues.(35)
Courage (andreia). Rather than impose a modern or Western interpretation
of this virtue, let us see how the ancients understood "courage." Aristotle
defined it as ". . . the virtue that disposes men to do noble deeds in situations
of danger, in accordance with the law and in obedience to its commands"
(Rhet. I.1366b 12-14).(36) In Stoic terms, courage tends to have the element of
knowledge of or judgment about what must be endured and does not.
(37)
Thus, courage has to do with bold action in danger as well as obedience to
what cannot be avoided.
Josephus explicitly claims to have acted with courage in a variety of ways.
(38)
He impressed others with his readiness for action and intrepidity (119).
Considering flight undignified, he bravely devised "stratagems" to face
mobs, deflect assassins, overcome superior odds and survive perpetual
intrigue (146). Courage is manifest in his excellent generalship, both in his
ingenious planning and in his bold execution of strategy. Even when forced
to flee or withdraw, it was always understood as a strategic manoeuvre to
allow him to return boldly to the field of action.
Wisdom (phronsis). This is not sophia, but belongs more to the family of
prudence, cleverness or "street smarts." Aristotle defined it as, ". . . that
virtue of the understanding which enables men to come to wise decisions
about the relation to happiness of goods and evils" (Rhet. I.1366b.20-22).
Josephus reflects this specific cultural meaning of wisdom when he describes
a certain Simon as a man "highly gifted with intelligence and judgment, who
could by sheer genius retrieve an unfortunate situation in affairs of state"
(192).(39)
1139

In regard to himself, he seems to use a synonym of wisdom, namely

"stratagem" (stratgma). While this could be translated as trickery or ruse,
it embodies elements of cleverness and adroit judgment in crisis. At this,
Josephus was the king of "stratagems." It was by a clever "stratagem" that
he escaped a plot (148). Having recourse to a "ruse," he strategically took
prisoners (163, 168). By a prudent "manoeuvre" he guarded himself from
the imputation of initiating a civil war (265).
Temperance (sphrosyn). Aristotle defined this as, ". . .the virtue that
disposes us to obey the law where physical pleasures are concerned" (Rhet.
I.1366b.14-15). It might just as well be defined in terms of "self-control" or
"abstinence."(40) Josephus frequently describes himself as lacking certain
vices.(41) He lacks or avoids (1) the urge to revolt, (2) avarice, desire for loot,
bribes or spoils, and (3) the readiness to shed blood. In comparison he shows
that his rivals and enemies are rebellious, greedy and bloodthirsty.
Justice (dikaiosyn). Menander Rhetor describes the parts of justice: "The
parts of justice are piety, fair dealing, and reverence: piety towards the gods,
fair dealing towards men, reverence towards the departed" (Treatise I.1720). In another place, he says: "Under justice, you should include humanity
to subjects, gentleness of character and approachability, integrity and
incorruptibility in matters of justice, freedom from partiality and from
prejudice in giving judicial decisions, equal treatment of rich and poor,
encouragement of city development" (Treatise II.5-10). In short, justice
means loyalty (pistis) for the rights and status of others (gods, men,
ancestors) and payment of social obligations to them. Nothing to excess: no
partiality or prejudice.
First we follow the actual usage of the terms "just" and "justice" in
Josephus' Vita.(42) He notes that his father was pre-eminent for being a just
man (7); like father, like son. Then of himself he claims that he was loath to
join the revolutionaries who seemed bent on the destruction of lives and
property; he "resorted to arms only in just self-defense" (22). Later he
reports how Ananus defended him in Jerusalem; it was a dishonorable thing,
he notes, to accuse Josephus, "a man against whom no just charge could be
brought" (194). A just man himself, he charged others with the same task: he
reproached the Tiberians for their failure to honor their obligations and
loyalty to him (167); and he warned them that future leaders would suspect
them of disloyalty (93). Thus Josephus portrays himself as a just man, slow
to use force, loath to accept bribes, faithful to his commitments, and
respectful of the rights of others. In all of this he presents himself as a foil to
the revolutionaries.
1140

Piety (eusebeia, pistis) But it is in terms of piety and loyalty (pistis) that
Josephus defines his justice most clearly.(43) Recall that Menander Rhetor
stated that "the parts of justice are piety, fair dealing and reverence." To
understand piety and loyalty we must appreciate the native structure of
social relations: to whom should one be loyal? Loyalty to family members is
expected, and so is never mentioned or called into question. In
Vergil's Aeneid Aeneas is repeatedly described as pius Aeneas because of his
piety and loyalty to his aged father, Anchises, his son and to the clan and
family which will become Rome.
Loyalty outside the family means loyalty in terms of patron-client
relationships. On this Josephus is particularly clear. Himself a client of the
Roman and Herodian aristocracy, Josephus both praises the cities of Galilee
that maintained their loyalty to their political patrons and blames those who
did not. Time and again he praises the citizens of Sepphoris for their loyalty
to the Romans (30-31, 104, 346). Julius of Capellus, the leader of one faction
at Tiberias, urged that city to maintain its allegiance to the Romans and to
King Agrippa II (34). John, son of Levi, urged Gishala to be loyal to its
political patron, Rome (43). Gamala remained loyal (45), after much
reminding by Philip of the benefits conferred by the king (60-61). In
comparison, Josephus reproaches Justus for his disloyalty (349).
Patron-client relations are a key lens through which to view Josephus' own
relationship to the cities of Galilee. He notes how the "affection and loyalty"
of the citizens of Galilee to him excited the envy of John (84), thus
underscoring his own loyalty to them, which was duly and publicly
recognized. Even when faced with disloyalty, he presents himself as one who
overlooks past breaches if the guilty would show repentance and prove loyal
(110). A loyal and trusting person, Josephus claims that he always believed
the public protestations of loyalty from others, often with disappointing and
disastrous consequences (160). Tiberias most frequently turned on him and
revoked its loyalty to him without cause (167).
On still another level of patron-client relationships, Josephus boasts of
strong bonds of loyalty, namely, the relationship of general and soldiers. In a
context of intrigue and opportunistic alliances, such loyalty stands out as
proof that Josephus was himself loyal to them and they responded worthily
in kind. He notes that he could always trust his soldiers. James, for example,
was a faithful soldier, loyal and beyond bribery (240). He could trust the
inner circle of his soldiery to follow his commands exactly, thus protecting
him from assassination (241, 242, 253). At one critical meeting, he took only
1141

two of his bodyguards with him, "of the most approved courage (andreian)
and staunch loyalty (pistin)" (293).
Ethnic loyalty of Jew to Jew constitutes part of Josephus' presentation of
himself and others as just persons. His fairness with the Jewish population
in Galilee testifies to this. But he reproaches Scythopolis for coercing Jews
there to war on and execute other Jews not of their political persuasion; this
he labels disloyalty (27).
Deeds of Fortune. We recall that "deeds of Fortune" refer to the external
accomplishments which reflect what Josephus' culture thought about one's
honorable status in society, such as friends (patron-client relationships),
wealth, kin/household, fame/honor, fortune and the like. Josephus is careful
to present himself as one who had such endowments, often presenting
himself in contrast to others who either lacked them or distorted and
perverted them.
Friends Biblical scholars are becoming increasingly sensitive to the social
meaning of "friends" in terms of patron- client relationships. (44) One's social
standing was very much a function of "whom do you know?" Josephus
presents his "friends" or patron-client relationship in two ways: (a) the
imperial family as patrons and Josephus as their "friend" and (b) Josephus
himself as patron and his Galilean "friends."
In regard to imperial patronage, Josephus tells us that he enjoyed
"friendship" under four successive emperors. Through the brokerage of
Aliturus on his first journey to Rome, Josephus gained access to the circle of
Poppaea, Nero's wife. He both solicited her help for the release of certain
priests incarcerated in Rome and "received large gifts from Poppaea" (16).
Vespasian honored Josephus by arranging for him to take a wife (415). In
Rome, he gave Josephus the use of the house he had before becoming
emperor. After Vespasian's death, Titus "showed the same esteem for me as
did his father" (428). Because of his "friendship" with Titus Caesar, he both
interceded for certain countrymen's freedom and received as well the
"gracious favor of a gift of sacred books" (418). Josephus gives us a
summary of these benefactions:
"(Titus) gave me another parcel of ground in the plain. On his departure for
Rome, he took me with him on board, treating me with every mark of
respect. On our arrival in Rome I met with great consideration from
Vespasian. He gave me a lodging in the house which he had occupied before
he became Emperor; he honored me with the privilege of Roman
1142

citizenship; and he assigned me a pension. He continued to honour me up to

the time of this departure from this life, without any abatement in his
kindness toward me" (422-23).
This friendship was extended lastly by Domitian, who exempted Josephus'
property in Judea from taxation, "a mark of the highest honour to the
privileged individual" (429). Thus "friendship" with the imperial household
denoted extraordinary status, usually accessible only to the elite portion of
society. In claiming such, Josephus presents himself as a person of
exceptional social status, with connections to the highest levels of elite
society. Not only is Josephus a "friend" of noble patrons, he himself is an
honorable patron to others. He tells us that he treated prominent hostages as
"friends," thus offering protection and honor to those who were in turn
indebted to him (79). His "friends," moreover, were eager to fight to avenge
insults to their patron (99), which he suppressed; their loyalty, however, was
certainly praiseworthy. He is quite aware of the size of his entourage of
"friends"; many of the leading men of Galilee were among them (222). They
showed great loyalty to him (161, 163, 224, 234, 240) even as he
demonstrated loyalty to them (269). If a man is known by the company he
keeps, Josephus can claim to be connected with elites above him and with
loyal "friends" below him.
Wealth Josephus lived in a culture where a conspicuous display of wealth
constitutes a public claim to honor and standing.(45) As scion of kingly and
priestly clans, he was no doubt a member of a family of some wealth. The
ease with which he could find "friends" in the household of four Roman
emperors indicates the breeding of a wealthy, educated and cosmopolitan
person. He himself mentions "large gifts" from Poppaea, a grant of land in
Judea from Titus, a house in Rome and an imperial pension from Vespasian,
and tax remission from Domitian.
We noted above Aristotle's remark: "Wealth as a whole consists in using
things rather than in owning them; it is really the activity --that is, the use -of property that constitutes wealth." With his wealth Josephus acted as
patron and benefactor, and so converted his wealth into loyalty and
influence among his "friends." For example, he proposed to use funds at his
disposal to build fortifications for the Tarichaeans (142). With his own
wealth he bought horses for his entourage which had fled danger (153). It
was certainly with pride that he records how because of his benefactions, the
inhabitants of Gabaroth acclaimed him "benefactor and savior of their
country" (244). Josephus, then, presented himself as a member of the elite
1143

because of his wealth; he was equally proud of his honorable use of that
wealth to "make friends."
Conversely, he attacked his enemies for improper use of wealth, that is,
for philarguria (the love of riches). He constantly remarked on their looting
(66-67, 376), whereas he prided himself on preserving the wealth of other
elite persons to return it to them (68, 80, 128). Moreover, he eschewed
bribery but noted this fault constantly in others (73, 196, 199). Likewise with
avarice (74, 224).
Fortune Again, we must let the ancients tell us how to evaluate "Fortune" as
a noteworthy aspect of a person. Writing of Scipio, Polybius states: "As for
all other writers, they represent him as a man favoured by fortune, who
always owed the most part of his success to the unexpected and to mere
chance, such men being, in their opinion, more divine and more worthy of
admiration than those who always act by calculation. They are not aware
that one of the two things deserves praise and the other only congratulation,
the latter being common to ordinary men, whereas what is praiseworthy
belongs alone to men of sound judgment and mental ability, whom we
should consider to be the most divine and most beloved by the gods"
(Histories, X.2.5-7). "Fortune," then, betokens one's status in the world as a
person beloved and favored by the gods.
Divine favor was shown Josephus in many ways. He escaped shipwreck and
death "through god's good providence" (14-15). He was favored with a
visionary dream: "I beheld a marvelous vision in my dreams. I had retired
to my couch, grieved and distraught by the tidings in the letter, when I
thought that there stood by me one who said: 'Cease, man, from the sorrow
of heart, let go all fear. That which grieves thee now will promote thee to
greatness and felicity in all things. Not in these present trials only, but in
many besides, will fortune attend thee. Fret not thyself then'" (209). And
indeed his constant escape from ambush, assassination and every sort of
disaster indicate his status as one "most beloved of god."
Honor This value, which is considered the pivotal value of the
Mediterranean world, has to do with the public acknowledgment of a
person's worth, role and status in the social system. (46) Honor is claimed in a
variety of ways. It is ascribed to individuals by blood, that is, in terms of
parents, family and clan. We speak of aristocrats as "blue bloods," but the
ancients would point to the same thing by noting how a person was born of
the best families of the land. On his father's side Josephus belongs to the
highest of the twenty-four priestly orders (1). On his mother's side, he
1144

belongs to the Hasmonean royal family, a family in which the leader might
be both priest and king (2). Ultimately he enjoyed the support of the
aristocratic priestly clans (198), whose interests he loyally served all his life
(see 13-16). Thus by birth Josephus' belongs to the most elite circles of
Judea.
Honor is likewise ascribed to people in terms of the offices to which they are
appointed and by virtue of the patronage shown them by higher-ranking
elites. The elite Jerusalem circle sent the youthful Josephus to Rome as an
embassador to secure the release of certain priests, thus acknowledging his
special standing among them (13-16). Back in Jerusalem he consorted with
that same circle of "chief priests and the leading Pharisees" (21). As the
revolt spread, "the leading men in Jerusalem" sent him as a type of
governor to Galilee to administer its affairs (28-30). As noted above,
Josephus enjoyed the patronage of four imperial figures, beginning with
"large gifts" from Poppaea and concluding with land, houses, pension and
tax exemption from Vespasian, Titus and Domitian respectively.
Honor, however, remains a vain claim unless acknowledged by others. One
town in Galilee acknowledged Josephus as a most honorable man,
acclaiming him "savior and benefactor," titles of respect (244). (47) Josephus
records his reception in another town: "There was a chorus of voices from
all sides calling me benefactor and saviour. They bore testimony to my past
conduct and exhorted me upon my course in future; and they all swore that
the honour of their womenfolk had been preserved and that they had never
received a single injury from me" (259). Even his enemies, however twofaced they acted, "congratulated me . . . delighted at the honour in which I
was held" (274).
As valuable as popular acclamation is, nothing surpasses royal honor.
Josephus' writings on the Jewish-Roman war received Agrippa's
commendation, two letters from whom Josephus cites verbatim (364-66).
The king acclaims him to be an accurate and trustworthy scribe of those
events. In Jerusalem Vespasian "showed in many ways the honour in which
he held me" (414); and in Rome "I met with great consideration from
Vespasian . . . he honoured me with the privilege of Roman citizenship; and
he assigned me a pension" (422-23). Titus "show the same esteem for me" as
his father (428); Domitian "added to my honours" (429).
Ultimately, honor can be gained through honorable deeds or defended when
challenged. Josephus claims honor for a variety of deeds of benefaction: he
took no advantage of women, accepted no bribe, avoided bloody encounters
1145

which must necessarily provoke vengeance, and the like: "Yet I preserved
every woman's honor; I scorned all presents offered to me as having no use
for them; I even declined to accept from those who brought them the tithes
which were due to me as a priest" (80). Yet he was ever challenged by men of
intrigue in Tiberias and other cities in Galilee. His honor was defended by
constant riposte(48) to those challenges, by fearless acceptance of danger, by
constantly standing his ground, by public defense of his policies, and the
like.
Envy is the correlative of honor; the intensity with which a man is envied
constitutes an index of the honor in which he is held. (49) According to this
standard of envy, Josephus was a most honorable and honored person.
Josephus sees himself surrounded by envy, which, of course, is a mark of
honor for him. For example, "I was now about thirty years old, at a time of
life when, even if one restrains his lawless passions, it is hard, especially in a
position of high authority, to escape the calumnies of envy" (80). Envy from
political rivals like John of Gishala only testify to Josephus' honor: "But
when John of Gischala . . . heard that everything was proceeding to my
satisfaction, that I was popular with those under my authority and a terror
to the enemy, he was in no good humor; and believing that my success
involved his own ruin, gave way to immoderate envy" (122). Even his
patronage from the imperial household occasioned envy: "My privileged
position excited envy, and thereby exposed me to danger" (423).
D. Comparison (synkrisis). Theon wrote: "Comparisons present the better
or the worse and are effective when made between similar persons and
things."(50) Topics for comparison cover the same basic items of the
encomium which we have been investigating.
In his Vita Josephus presents an extended comparison between himself and
a rival author, Justus.(51) No extended comparison need be given in terms of
their respective births into noble families, their education and training, or
their physical achievements. Because of Justus' slanders of Josephus in
terms of their respective histories of the Roman-Jewish war, the comparison
focuses on: (a) the virtue of the respective authors, (b) their honor and fame,
and (c) the public reception of their works.
Deeds of the Soul (Virtues). We have seen above how Josephus presents
himself as a just person, who is loyal to his commitments and faithful to his
alliances. He himself is faithful (pistos) and demonstrates loyalty (pistis). In
contrast, early in the Vita he notes that Justus was "eager for revolution"
(36), and was in fact a ringleader of a faction dedicated to this at Tiberias.
1146

Later he records how Justus slandered him to the king; in that context, he
reminds the reader that this Justus is the same person who earlier
"persuaded the Tiberians to resort to arms, being personally anxious for
revolution" (391).
In terms of justice, Josephus narrates his constant restraint in the use of
violence (103, 174, 244 and 369). Yet he notes how Justus quickly resorted to
arms and "was actually at war with the towns of the Syrian Decapolis. It was
you who burnt their villages" (341). These are no mere slanderous retorts by
Josephus, but can be documented in Vespasian's own Commentaries, which
contain numerous requests from the inhabitants of the Decapolis to punish
Justus as a culprit (342). Josephus explicitly compares himself with Justus
on this point: "Have you forgotten how, often as I had you in my power, I
put not one of you to death; whereas you in your party quarrels, not from
any loyalty to the Romans and the king, but of your own malice, slew 185 of
your fellow-citizens?" (353).
Deeds of Fortune (Honor). Josephus' honor has been carefully noted above.
In contrast, Justus deserves, not honor, but public shame and reproach. He
should have been punished for his injustices (343). Josephus presents most
clearly this comparison of honor in the respective receptions of the two
authors by Agrippa. The king wrote sixty-two letters in support of the truth
of Josephus' version, two of which are cited in the text (365-66). Josephus
"expected to receive testimony to my accuracy, and was not disappointed"
(361), both from Agrippa's remarks and from the Emperor Titus' "own
signature and orders for their publication" (363). In comparison, Agrippa
treated Justus with contempt: "Twice he put you in irons and as often
commanded you to quit the country, and once ordered you to execution"
(355). Later restored to his favor, he fell when Agrippa "detected in you once
more fraudulent practices" (356).
When Josephus compares his history with that of Justus, this comparison
should probably be assessed both under "deeds of the soul" in terms of
truthfulness as well as under "deeds of Fortune" in terms of honor claimed
and acknowledged. Josephus, of course, claims to be an eyewitness to most
of the critical events narrated, whereas Justus was neither present at the
events in Galilee or the final days of the war at Jerusalem nor did he consult
Caesar's Commentaries on them (357). Of his own account Josephus boasts
of (a) his early publication date, soon after the events, (b) his openness to
correction by eyewitnesses, and (c) the public acclaim of its accuracy (363,
367). In comparison, Justus writes long after the passing of eyewitnesses who
1147

might contest his accuracy (359-60). Thus Josephus contrasts his boldness
with Justus' fear, his truthfulness with Justus' envy and self-serving lies.
IV.
Summary and Conclusions
A. The Encomium The encomium offers the modern reader a native view of
what the Greco-Roman world considered noteworthy and necessary
information about a person: how persons were perceived, what aspects were
deemed important and how the natives assessed these stereotypical
categories. We focused on the formal rules contained in the progymnasmata,
because they represent a general perspective and so offer clear and
unambiguous examples of conventional categories for perceiving and
describing people. Although modern biographers may deem much of this
material irrelevant or uninteresting, the ancients were socialized to regard
the elements of the encomium as the knowledge of a person most worth
knowing.
The form of the encomium, moreover, regularly contains the four categories
of (a) origin, birth, (b) education and nurture, (c) accomplishments and
deeds, and (d) comparison. An honorable person's life is described from
noble birth to noble death. The ancients' understanding of these categories
and the formal order in which they are presented give us a valuable window
into a native model of personality.
As others have noted, the elements of the encomium discussed above are
commonplaces in historical description and biography in the ancient world.
And this is itself the important point: whether writing history, biography, or
oratory of praise and blame, the categories in an encomium seem to
represent the typical way persons are in fact perceived and should be
described.(52) In terms of discovering the constant and conventional
categories for perceiving and describing ancient persons, the encomium
stands as a valuable and accessible window.
B. Josephus' Vita Although Josephus' Vita functions as an apology,(53) it is as
much praise of the author as it is blame of Tiberias, John of Gishala and
Justus, the rival historian. Is it formally an "encomium" or at least an
"encomiastic biography"? (1) Its formal aim is that of an encomium,
namely, praise (of Josephus) and blame (of Justus). We justifiably call it an
"apology," yet many encomia were written with this same formal aim. (54) As
simplistic as it may sound, an "apology" in whatever literary form turns
"blame" into "praise." (2) It contains all the parts mandated by the
1148

encomium, and in precisely the order in which they are formally discussed in
the rhetorical handbooks.(55) The works of Louis Feldman, which are noted
frequently in this study, indicate that Josephus consciously and regularly
followed a set formula for describing the persons in his Antiquities. This
formula in its various elements and functions coincides exactly with the
encomium. Josephus, therefore, is by no means ignorant of both the genre of
encomium or the formal rules for describing persons found in it.
(3) Some commentators prefer to label the Vita biography or history.
(56)
Indeed Shuler's work on the genre of the gospel takes up just this issue of
the differences between "history," "biography" and "encomia." (57) He
distinguishes them on the basis of comments from ancient writers, whereby
"history" is contrasted with "encomium" and "bios" either in terms of
length and detail (Polybius 10.21.8; Cornelius Nepos 16.1.1) or in terms of
truthfulness (Lucian, History 7). Yet Shuler never takes up the issue which
constitutes the heart of this study, namely, the fixed complex of
commonplace or stereotypical categories for describing a person, whether in
history, biography or encomium. Even in works strictly called by their
authors "history," persons are regularly described according to the same
commonplace stereotypes which make up the categories of the encomium. (58)
For two basic reasons, then, we conclude that Josephus' Vita is not just
encomiastic in form but a formal encomium. First, it formally aims to praise
and blame. Second, it describes the person of Josephus completely according
to the conventional categories found in the rules for writing encomia and in
the same order in which those categories are cited. (59) Measured against the
conventional description of a person in the encomia of the progymnasmata,
Josephus' Vita contains all and only the material for describing a person
mandated in that form. And its formal purpose is that of praise (of
Josephus) and blame (of John and Justus).
C. What Kind of Person? Finally, the encomium itself should be studied in
terms of what cultural values and data were considered important for people
in the ancient Mediterranean world. In short, people were perceived not in
individualistic terms,(60) but in relationships. They are not known so much in
their particularity as in terms of family and clan, city and country, social
role and status.(61) Moreover, what was worth knowing about them is their
"honor," their social worth, name, reputation and respect. Josephus' world
was that of the elites, Roman and Jewish. And elite status is claimed and
measured by: noble birth into an elite family, aristocratic education,
ascribed honors, patronage of the elite, aristocratic deeds, and the like. In
short, a person is known and praised for what he is, what he does and whom
1149

he knows -- items which would not find much favor in individualistic,

egalitarian America. But then, the importance of the encomium form lies in
its native or emic rules for describing non-Western, eastern Mediterranean
peoples.

NOTES
1. The progymnasmata used in this study are: Aelius Theon of Alexandria
(Spengel II.112.20-115.10; see James R. Butts, The Progymnasmata of
Theon. A New Text with Translation and Commentary [unpublished
dissertation: Claremont, 1986]); Hermogenes of Tarsus (Spengel II.14.815.5; see C.S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic [New York:
Macmillan, 1928] 23-38); Menander Rhetor (see D.A. Russell and N.G.
Wilson, Menander Rhetor [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981]); Aphthonius of
Ephesus (Spengel II.42.20-44.19; see Ray Nadeau, "The Progymnasmata of
Aphthonius in translation," Speech Monographs 19 [1952] 264-285 and
more recently Patricia P. Matsen, Philip Rollinson and Marion Sousa,
eds., Readings from Classical Rhetoric [Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press, 1990] 266-88); Quintilian, Inst. 3.7.10-18.
2. D. A. Russell, "Progymnasmata," The Oxford Classical Dictionary (2nd
ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980) 883.
3. See Ronald Hock and Edward O'Neill, The Chreia in Ancient
Rhetoric (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); Henry A. Fischel, "Story and
History: Observations on Greco-Roman Rhetoric and Pharisaism," Essays
in Greco-Roman and Related Talmudic Literature (New York: KTAV, 1977)
443-72.
4. See D. A. Russell, "On Reading Plutarch's Lives," Greece and Rome 13
(1966): 150-151; P. A. Stadter, "Plutarch's Comparison of Pericles and
Fabius Maximus," GRBS 16 (1975): 77-85; Abraham J. Malherbe,
"Antisthenes and Odysseus, Paul at War," HTR 76 (1983): 143-73;
Christopher Forbes, "Comparison, Self-Praise and Irony: Paul's Boasting
and the Conventions of Hellenistic Rhetoric," NTS 32 (1986): 1-8; Peter
Marshall, Enmity at Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul's Relations with
the Corinthians (Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1987) 53-56, 325-29, 348-65.
1150

5. David L. Balch, "Two Apologetic Encomia: Dionysius on Rome and

Josephus on the Jews," JSJ 13 (1982) 102-22; Philip L. Shuler, A Genre for
the Gospels. The Biographical Character of Matthew. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1982; George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography. Toward a New
Understanding. SBLDS 73. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985; his work basically
depends on the study of Theodore Burrows, "Epideictic Literature," Studies
in Classical Philology 3 (1902): 89-261; Thomas R. Lee, Studies in the Form
of Sirach 44-50 (SBLDS 75; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); see Theodore C.
Burgess, Epideictic Literature (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1987)
118-37; O. Crusius, "Enkomium," PW 5.2 (1905): 2581-83; T. Payr,
"Enkomium," RAC 5 (1962): 331-43.
6. See D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor and James R.
Butts, The "Progymnasmata" of Theon. A New Text and Translation and
Commentary;
Katherine
Thaniel, Quintilian
and
the
Progymnasmata (unpublished thesis, McMaster University, 1973); the
introductory essay in Ronald Hock and Edward O'Neill's The Chreia in
Ancient Rhetoric is excellent; see also Ian H. Henderson, "Quintilian and
the Progymnasmata," Antike und Abendland 37 (1991) 82-99. Older
discussions of progymnasmata are still worth consulting; see E. Jullien, Les
Professeurs de Litterature dans l'ancienne Rome (Paris: Leroux, 1895) 282331 and W. Stegemann, "Theon," RE 5A (1934): 2037-54 and
"Nicolaus" RE 17 (1937): 424-57.
7. C.S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic, 1928, 23-38; Ray Nadeau,
"The Progymnasmata of Aphthonius in translation," 264-285); Stanley F.
Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome (Berkeley CA: University of California
Press, 1977) 250-74; H.I. Marrou, A History of Education in
Antiquity (Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982) 196-200;
George Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric Under Christian Emperors (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1963) and Greek Rhetoric Under Christian
Emperors (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983) 54-73; Klaus
Berger, "Hellenistiche Gattungen im Neuen Testament," ANRW II.25.2
1296-98; and Francis Cairns, Generic Composition in Greek and Roman
Poetry (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1972) 73-75 and 89-90.
8. Its counterpart is the speech of vituperation. Praise and blame are natural
rhetorical counterparts, as 1 Cor 11:2 and 17 indicate. The ancient art of
praise and blame became a standard feature of preachers at the papal court
in the Renaissance, when classical rhetoric was rediscovered and flourished;
see John O'Malley, Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome (Durham, NC:
Duke University Press, 1979) 36-76.
1151

9. In his instructions on the attributes of persons upon which an orator

should comment, Cicero presents a list which is strikingly similar to the
formal categories of the encomium: "We hold the following to be the
attributes of persons: name, nature, manner of life, fortune, habit, feeling,
interests, purposes, achievements, accidents, speeches made" (De
Inventione I.xxiv.34).
10. Aristotle describes good birth: "Now good birth in a race or a state
means that its members are indigenous or ancient; that its earliest leaders
were distinguished men, and that from them have sprung many who were
distinguished for qualities that we admire. The good birth of an individual,
which may come either from the male or the female side, implies that both
parents are free citizens, and that, as in the case of the state, the founders of
the line have been notable for virtue or wealth or something else which is
highly prized, and that many distinguished persons belong to the family,
men and women, young and old" (Rhet. I.1360b 31-38; Richard
McKeon, The Basic Works of Aristotle [New York: Random House, 1941]
1340). See also Cicero, DeInventione I.xxiv.34-35 and Quintilian, Inst. Orat.
III.vii.10-11; V.x.24-25. See Christopher Pelling, "Childhood and Personality
in Greek Biography," Characterization and Individuality in Greek
Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) 213-44.
11. This information constituted the basis for ascribed status and is best seen
in terms of the pivotal value of "honor"; see Bruce J. Malina, New
Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John
Knox, 1981) 25-50 and Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey, The Social World
of Luke-Acts (Peabody, MA: Stephen Hendrickson, Inc. 1991) 25-65.
12. Menander Rhetor advises: "If the city has no distinction, you must
inquire whether his nation as a whole is considered brave and valiant, or is
devoted to literature or the possession of virtues, like the Greek race, or
again is distinguished for law, the Italian, or is courageous, like the Gauls or
Paeonians. You must take a few features from the nation . . . arguing that it
is inevitable that a man from such as [city or] nation should have such
characteristics, and that he stands out among all his praiseworthy
compatriots" (Treatise II 369.26-370.12); Isocrates, Panegyricus 23-25.
13. For example, nation: "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy
gluttons" (Titus 1:12); city: "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"
(John 1:46); country: "No prophet is to rise from Galilee" (John
7:52); parents: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called
Mary?" (Matt 13:55).
1152

14. Menander Rhetor instructs the composer of an encomium to note such

phenomena: "If any divine sign occurred at the time of his birth, either on
land or in the heavens or on the sea, compare the circumstances with those
of Romulus, Cyrus, and similar stories, since in these cases also there were
miraculous happenings connected with their birth -- the dream of Cyrus'
mother, the suckling of Romulus by the she-wolf" (Treatise II. 371.5-14). The
births of Alexander (Plutarch, Alex. 2.1-3.2), Plato (Diogenes Laertius III.12), Heracles (Diodorus of Sicily 4.9.1-4.10.4) and Apollonios of Tyana
(Philostratus 1.4-5) contain such notices. See David L. Dungan and David R.
Cartlidge, Sourcebook of Texts for the Comparative Study of the
Gospels (SBLSBS 1. Missoula MT: Scholars Press, 1974) 7-49 and Louis
Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Saul," HUCA 53 (1982): 60-61.
15. Aphthonius' encomium notes three things in regard to training:
"inclination to study, talent and rules." But Menander Rhetor gives a fuller
description: "Next comes 'nurture'. Was he reared in the palace? Were his
swaddling-clothes robes of purple? Was he from his first growth brought up
in the lap of royalty? Or, instead, was he raised up to be emperor as a young
man by some felicitous chance? If he does not have any distinguished
nurture (as Achilles had with Chiron), discuss his education, observing here:
'In addition to what has been said, I wish to describe the quality of his
mind.' Then you must speak of his love of learning, his quickness, his
enthusiasm for study, his easy grasp of what is taught him. If he excels in
literature, philosophy, and knowledge of letters, you must praise this. If it
was in the practice of war and arms, you must admire him for having been
born luckily, with Fortune to woo the future for him. Again: 'In his
education, he stood out among his contemporaries, like Achilles, like
Heracles, like the Dioscuri'" (Treatise II. 371.17-372.2; see Quintilian, Inst.
Orat. V.x.25; Plato, Menex. 238c). W .C. van Unnik (Tarsus or
Jerusalem [London: The Epworth Press, 1962] 19-27) identified three verbs
in
Acts
22:3
which
pertain
to
this
topic
in
the
encomium: gegennmenos (birth), anatethrammenos(rearing),
and pepaideumenos (education) and cited a wealth of literature illustrating
just this encomiastic formula.
16. Again, Menander Rhetor: "'Accomplishments' also will give scope for
discussion ('accomplishments' are qualities of character not involved with
real competitive actions) because they display character. For example: 'He
was just (or temperate) in his youth.' Isocrates used this idea in Evagoras, in
the passage where he shortly goes on to say: 'And when he became a man, all
this was increased, and many other qualities were added.' Similarly,
Aristides in the Panathenaicus shows that Athens was humane (he treats this
1153

quality as an 'accomplishment') in harbouring the refugees" (Treatise II.

372.2-13).
17. In his instructions on composing speeches of "praise and blame," Cicero
likewise divided the deeds of a person into these three standard categories:
"(Deeds) may be divided into mind, body and external circumstances" (De
Inventione II.lix.177).
18. Butts (The "Progymnasmata" of Theon, 483) identifies "health, strength
and beauty" as a topos stemming from Aristotle (Rhet. I. 1361b.3-27); see
Cicero, De Inventione II.lix.177; Rhet. Herr. III.vi.10; Teles III.17-20; and
Louis Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Saul," 62-63.
19. According to Quintilian, "physical and accidental advantages provide a
comparatively unimportant theme" (Inst. Orat. III.7.12); yet when he extols
beauty and strength, he refers to Agamemnon (Il. II.477) and Achilles (Il.
II.180); Tydeus, who was small of stature, was nevertheless a good fighter.
20. Although the four cardinal virtues are characteristic of Stoicism, they
are also part of the common discourse on virtue; see Diogenes Laertius
VII.92;
Cicero, De
Inventione II.lii.129; Rhet.
Herr.
III.vi.10;
Quintilian, Inst. III.vii.15. For their place in biographical description, see
Louis Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of Saul," 63-82; see also Harold W.
Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae
of Flavius Josephus (HDR 7. Missoula MT: Scholars Press, 1976) 109-19.
21. See also II.375.24-376.24; 385.8-386.10 and 415.24-417.4. Cicero likewise
discusses virtue to be praised in terms of the four cardinal virtues; see
Cicero, De Inventione II.liii.159-liv.165.
22. See James Butts, The "Progymnasmata" of Theon, 468-69 and H.I.
Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity, 197.
23. Hermogenes gives a convenient summary of what is meant by the deeds
of Fortune: "Then external resources, such as kin, friends, possessions,
household, fortune, etc. Then from the (topic) time, how long he lived, much
or little; for either gives rise to encomia. Then, too, from the manner of his
end, as that he died fighting for his fatherland . . . You will describe also
what was done after his end, whether funeral games were ordained in his
honor, whether there was an oracle concerning his bones, or whether his
children were famous" (C. S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetics, 32;
see also Cicero, De Inventione I.xxiv.35 and II.lix.177). Cicero defines
1154

"fortune" as "whether the person is a slave or free, rich or poor, a private

citizen or an official with authority, and if he is an official, whether he
acquired his position justly or unjustly, whether he is successful, famous, or
the opposite; what sort of children he has" (De Inventione I.xxv.35). See
Quintilian,Inst. Orat. III.vii.13 and V.x.26.
24. See note 4; Ray Nadeau, "The Progymnasmata of Aphthonius," 276-78;
James Butts, The "Progymnasmata" of Theon, 494-512.
25. Another native model for describing a first-century person is found in
the instructions for a forensic speech in which the character of the accused is
described. See Jerome H. Neyrey, "The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul's
Trial Speeches in Acts 22-26: Form and Function," Luke-Acts. New
Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar (ed. C.H.
Talbert; New York: Crossroad, 1984) 210-24.
26. David Barish ("The Autobiography of Josephus and the Hypothesis of a
Second Edition of His Antiquities," HTR 71[1978] 69) argues convincingly
that the Vita is an appendix to Josephus'Antiquities. If, as I will show,
Feldman's studies of various figures in the Antiquities are basically
patterned after the form of an encomium, then such a form is readily
available to Josephus for his account of himself.
27. Louis Feldman has written a number of articles on "portraits" in
Josephus' Antiquitates. In "Josephus' Portrait of Saul" (HUCA 53 [1982]
52), he formally calls these various portraits "encomiums." This study
draws considerable strength by comparing Josephus' treatment of himself in
the Vita with Feldman's "portraits" of biblical heroes in the Antiquitates,
especially in the following articles: "Josephus as an Apologist to the GrecoRoman World: His Portrait of Solomon," Aspects of Religious Propaganda
in Judaism and Early Christianity (Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza, ed.; Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976) 69-98; "Abraham the General
in Josephus," Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in
Memory of Samuel Sandmel (Frederick Greenspahn, ed.; Chico, CA:
Scholars Press, 1984) 43-49; "Hellenizations in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities:
The Portrait of Abraham," Josephus, Judaism and Christianity(Louis
Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds.; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987)
133-53; "Josephus' Version of Samson," JSJ 19 (1988): 171-214; "Josephus'
Portrait of Jacob," JQR 79 (1988): 101-51; "Josephus' Portrait of
David," HUCA 60
(1989):
129-74;
"Josephus'
Portrait
of
Hezekiah," JBL 111 (1992) 597-610.
1155

28. See Louis Feldman, "Flavius Josephus Revisited: the Man, His Writings,
and His Significance," ANRW II,21.2 (1984): 763-862.
29. For other examples of this in Josephus, see Feldman, "Portrait of
Abraham," 137-38; "Portrait of Jacob," 106-8; "Portrait of Samson," 17374; "Portrait of Saul," 59-62; "Portrait of David," 134-37; for a collection of
other important notices by Josephus of good birth, see Feldman, "Portrait of
Samson," 173 # 8 and "Portrait of Saul," 60 # 37.
30. The text and translation of Josephus' Vita are that of H. St.J. Thackeray
in the Loeb Classical Library.
31. On the social importance of this, see Josephus, Ap. I.30-31.
32. It was a commonplace in ancient biography to describe the precocity of a
youth's intellectual achievements; Shaye J.D. Cohen documents this in
regard to "Josephus . . . Homer, Aeschines, Apollonius of Rhodes, Nicholas
of Damascus, Ovid, Moses, Jesus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Great,
and Augustus" in Josephus in Galilee and Rome (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979)
105.
33. For example, (1) He was commissioned to destroy a palace of Herod
because it contains representations of animals, which are forbidden by the
Law (65); (2) he criticized John's profiteering on kosher oil (74); (3) he
prevents the forcible circumcision of certain nobles from Trachonitis, which
certain Jews demanded as a condition of residence among them (113); (4) he
cites the commandment against theft (128); and (5) he prohibits soldiering
on the Sabbath (159-162).
34. On "physical attractiveness" in Josephus' encomia in his Antiquitates,
see Feldman, "Portrait Jacob," 108; "Version of Samson," 176-77; "Portrait
of Saul," 62-63; "Portrait of David," 137-38; a collection of Josephus'
remarks on beauty and appearance can be found in Feldman's "Portrait of
Saul," 62 # 42.
35. It would be interesting to compare the presentation of military
commanders in ancient literature with Josephus' self portrait; Onasander,
who wrote a treatise on The General, devotes only brief introductory
remarks to the character of the military leader, but focusses on his "deeds of
the soul": temperance, self-restraint, vigilance, frugality, hardened to labor,
freedom from avarice, etc. (I.1).

1156

36. For a discussion of courage in Josephus, see Carl Holladay, Theios Aner
in Hellenistic Judaism (Missoula MT: Scholars Press, 1977) 69-71; Harold
Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in The Antiquitates Judaicae
of Flavius Josephus, 113-115; and Louis Feldman, "Josephus' Portrait of
Saul," 66-72.
37. See, for example, Cicero, Tusc. Disp. IV.22iv.53; Philo, Leg. All. I.68;
Plutarch, Virt. 441A and Stoic. Rep. 1034D.
38. See Feldman, "Portrait of Abraham," 139-40; "Portrait of Jacob," 11012; "Version of Samson," 179-89; "Portrait of Saul," 66-79; "Portrait of
David," 141-47.
39. See Feldman, "Portrait of Abraham," 138-39; "Portrait of Jacob," 109110, 119; "Version of Samson," 177-78; "Portrait of Saul," 64-66; "Portrait
of David," 139-40; "Portrait of Solomon," 85-88; for a collection of instances
where wisdom is credited to Josephus' heroes, see Feldman, "Portrait of
Saul," 64 # 44.
40. See, for example, Cicero, Tusc. Disp. III.viii.16; see also egkrateia (Acts
24:25; Gal 5:23; 2 Pet 1:6); Henry Chadwick, "Enkrateia," RAC 5:343-65.
41. See Feldman, "Portrait of Jacob," 112; "Version of Samson," 190;
"Portrait of Saul," 79-82; "Portrait of David," 147-49.
42. See Feldman, "Portrait of Abraham," 140; "Portrait of Jacob," 112-13;
"Version of Samson," 190-92; "Portrait of Saul," 82; "Portrait of David,"
150-56; a summary of this virtue in Josephus' encomia can be found in
Feldman, "Portrait of Saul," 82 # 73.
43. See Feldman, "Portrait of Abraham," 143-44; "Portrait of Jacob," 113;
"Portrait of Saul," 83-90; "Portrait of David," 156-61; "Portrait of
Solomon," 73-74. See Adolf Bchler, Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety from
70 B.C.E. to 70 C.E. (London: Oxford University Press, 1922) 158-64.
44. See John H. Elliott, "Patronage and Clientism in Early Christian
Society," Forum 3,4 (1987): 39-48; Bruce J. Malina, "Patron and Client. The
Analogy Behind Synoptic Theology," Forum4,1 (1988): 2-32; and Halvor
Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988)
22-47 and "Patron-Client Relations and the New Community of LukeActs," The Social World of Luke-Acts, 241-68.

1157

45. Feldman only gradually came to see this as a regular item in the
encomium's formal structure; see "Portrait of Jacob," 108-9 and "Portrait
of David," 138-39.
46. See note 11.
47. See Fredrick W. Danker, Benefactor. Epigraphic Study of a GraecoRoman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing
House, Inc., 1982).
48. On "challenge and riposte" as part of the honor game, see Bruce Malina
and Jerome Neyrey, "Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts," The Social World of
Luke-Acts, 36-38 and 49-52.
49. See Peter Walcott, Envy and the Greeks. A Study of Human
Behaviour (Warminster: Aris and Phillips) 1978; John H. Elliott, "The Fear
of the Leer: The Evil Eye from the Bible to Li'l Abner," Forum 4/4 (1988):
42-71.
50. Although the main trust of the "comparison" in Josephus' Vita is
between two writers of history, two cities are likewise compared, Sepphoris
and Tiberias, in terms of their loyalty or revolt. Sepphoris was faithful to its
alliances and remained loyal (345-348), whereas Tiberias epitomizes the
spirit of revolt (349-352). See Peter Marshall, Enmity at Corinth, 54.
51. On Justus, see Tessa Rajak, "Justus of Tiberias," Classical Bulletin 23
(1977): 345-68 and "Josephus and Justus of Tiberias," Josephus, Judaism
and Christianity (Louis Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds.; Detroit: Wayne
State University Press, 1987) 81-94.
52. Shuler (A Genre for the Gospels, 36-46) argues that the distinction
between history and bioi and history and encomia is one of degree. Encomia,
he notes, contained a high degree of exaggeration or false praise, whereas
history must deal with the truth, that is, the firm basis for the praise. His
study reminds us that we should not drive too sharp a distinction between
history and bioi or encomia; for the aim of all was praise and praise
according to certain culturally defined categories.
53. Shuler (A Genre for the Gospels, 64) notes that several of Isocrates'
encomium are formally labelled "apologia" in the manuscripts; formally, an
apology seeks praise by vitiating the blame charged by others; a polemic
heaps blame or vituperation on another. Even in the progymnasmata, praise
1158

and blame are treated as two aspects of the same form, which extends as well
to apology and polemic.
54. David Balch ("Two Apologetic Encomia: Dionysius on Rome and
Josephus on the Jews," 114) indicates that one of the formal functions of an
encomium is that of an "apologetic" to accusations and to speeches and
writings of "invective" (or "vituperation"). All of Louis Feldman's
"portraits" in Josephus' Antiquitates begin by stressing their apologetic
nature; for Feldman always cites the charge that the Jews failed to produce
outstanding people (Apion 2.135), thus suggesting that apology is a formal
aim of encomia.
55. David Balch ("Two Apologetic Encomia," 114-21) indicates that
Josephus was using the formal elements of the encomium in his apology for
the Jews in Against Apion. The genre and its contents, then, are familiar to
him.
56. See Shaye J.D. Cohen, "History and Historiography in the Against
Apion of Josephus," History and Theory 27 (1988) 1-11.
57. Philip L. Shuler, A Genre for the Gospels, 36-42.
58. One of Shuler's parade pieces is Polybius' "history" of Philopoemen
(10.21-24). Yet even this is quite clearly in accord with encomiastic
categories: (1) origin and birth (10.22.1); (2) education and nurture (10.22.25); (3) deeds and accomplishments (10.22.6-24.7).
59. We noted earlier that Louis Feldman labelled the portraits in
the Antiquitates as encomia. His wide knowledge of the classics aided him in
regularly identifying many of the individual classifications which we have
found summarized in the encomium: genealogy, birth, educational precocity,
the four cardinal virtues. He notes, moreover, the traditional quality of these
items. While scholars benefit greatly from his articles, one might ask
whether Feldman fully appreciated the full schema of material in the
encomia for describing persons. For example, he seems oblivious of the
ancient interest in "deeds of fortune" such as health, fortune, strength,
honor; only twice did he comment on wealth; and never did he mention a
glorious death and how this was assessed by the ancients.
60. See
Arnoldo
Momigliano, The
Development
of
Greek
Biography (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971) 17; see David E.
Aune, "Greco-Roman Biography," Greco-Roman Literature and the New
1159

Testament. Selected Forms and Genres (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 10910; Christopher Pelling, Character and Individuality in Greek
Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990).
61. The embeddedness of Mediterraneans has been studied by Bruce Malina,
"The First-Century Personality: The Individual and the Group," The New
Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1981) 51-70 and by Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey, "First-Century
Personality: Dyadic, Not Individualistic," The Social World of Luke-Acts,
67-96.

"Without Beginning of Days or End of Life"

(Heb
7:3):
Topos
for
a
True
Deity"
Jerome

H.

University
of
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556

Neyrey,

S.J.

Notre

Dame

I. Focus and Hypothesis

The author of Heb 7:3 affirms of Melchizedek: "He is without father or
mother or genealogy; he has neither beginning of days nor end of life . . . he
continues a priest forever." Scholars argue that the author draws on Gen
14:17-20, which introduces Melchizedek without the customary
identification of his clan or lineage. Because Scripture is silent on these
matters,(1) we infer that he is "without father or mother or genealogy."
Melchizedek's eternal priesthood is deduced from Ps 110:4, "You are a priest
forever. . .," a text which is developed at great length in Hebrews. The
discovery of 11QMelch, while it indicates that Melchizedek was called one of
the elohim, adds nothing to the interpretation of Heb 7:3. (2) Investigations of
the Jewish background of Heb 7:3, however, entirely miss the sense of
Hellenistic technical terminology used there.

1160

This study focuses on the Graeco-Roman background to the language and

concepts in Heb 7:3. Paraphrased in terms of Greek philosophy, the author
states three things of Melchizedek: he is (1) ungenerated, (2) uncreated in
the past and imperishable in the future, and (3) eternal or immortal.
According to my hypothesis, these three things are topoi from Hellenistic
philosophy on what constitutes a true god.(3) In light of the topoi, the figure
in 7:3 should be acclaimed a true deity. That predication, however, is
directed not to Melchizedek, but to Jesus. The author of Hebrews inflated
the character of Melchizedek in 7:3 beyond anything found in Scripture or
midrash, so as to make comparable statements about Jesus, who is
unquestionably acclaimed a divine figure in Hebrews. Thus the author
supplies specific content to his acclamation of Jesus as a deity, for like true
gods he is fully eternal.
Although commentators occasionally cite parallels to Heb 7:3 from
Hellenistic literature,(4)
much more data can be brought to bear on the interpretation of that
passage. And while suggestions have been made about the hymnic shape of
this passage,(5) there has been no formal analysis of it in terms of topoi or
theological commonplaces. Hence abundant new data and a formal analysis
will contribute greatly to a fresh understanding of Heb 7:3.

II. The Shape of Hellenistic God-Talk

How are true gods described in Graeco-Roman literature? What specific
topoi are appropriate for understanding the background of Heb 7:3? First
we note the form in which the remarks about Melchizedek are cast, namely
"negative theology." He is apatr, amtr, agenealogtos. Although the alpha
privitive is not used of the negation of his beginning and end, the logic is the
same: he does not have beginning or end. This type of predication is common
in the theology both of the Greek philosophers and later Christian writers.
(6)
The material which follows basically describes a deity by negative
descriptions: god is uncreated (agentos), ungenerated (agenntos),
immortal (athanatos), imperishable (aphthartos), without beginning
(anarchos) and without end (ateleuttos).(7)

A. Eternal in the Past/Imperishable in the Future

1161

When Hebrews describes Melchizedek as having "neither beginning of days

nor end of life," it speaks a language in which true deities were commonly
described, namely, full eternity both in the past and imperishability in the
future. True deities are defined in contrast with morals; they are uncreated
and eternal, whereas mortals come into being and pass out of existence.
(8)
Hence, gods must be truly eternal, eternal in the past and imperishable in
the future. This concept, while clear and consistent, is expressed in the
literature in many different linguistic configurations. Let us briefly survey
these various forms of "eternal in the past/ imperishable in the future" with
a view toward comparing them with what is said in Heb 7:3
1. Aidios/aphthartos Philosophers commonly express God's past and future
eternity in the terms aidios . . . aphthartos. For example, Diodorus of Sicily
compares and contrast true gods with mortals made gods after death. His
distinguishing characteristic of a true god is eternity of existence, both in the
past and in the future: "As regards the gods, men of ancient times have
handed down to later generations two different conceptions: Certain of the
gods, they say, are eternal and imperishable (aidious kai aphthartous) . . . for
each of these genesis and duration are from everlasting to everlasting"
(6.1.2).(9) Frequently the term aidios is neutrally translated as "everlasting"
or "eternal"; and often it looks to the future eternity.(10) But here it clearly
means "eternity in the past" because of the reference to "genesis from
everlasting." And he concludes his discussion of Egyptian gods with the
remark: "So far as the celestial gods are concerned whose genesis is from
eternity (genesin aidion), this is the account given by the Egyptians"
(1.12.10).(11)
Diodorus did not originate this concept, which we frequently find in other
writers. For example, Sextus Empiricus spoke of god: ". . . the idea that god
is eternal (aidion) and imperishable (aphtharton) and perfect in happiness"
(Adv. Phy. 1.45). Plutarch remarked: "Now we hear the theologians
affirming and reciting, sometimes in verse and sometimes in prose, that the
god is deathless (aphthartos) and eternal (aidios) in his nature" (E
Delphi 388F). Although the terminology is the same as that found in
Diodorus, Sextus and Plutarch here may simply be speaking of future
eternity, not past and future.(12)
2. Agentos/aphthartos Citing Zeno's doctrine of God, Diogenes Laertius
records: "(god) is indestructible (aphthartos) and ingenerable (agentos)"
(7.137). Philo likewise describes the biblical God with this pair of predicates.
(13)
Speaking of how creatures reflect divine qualities, he states, "For the good
and beautiful things in the world could never have been what they are, save
1162

that they were made in the image of the archetype, which is truly good and
beautiful, even the uncreate (agenton), the blessed, the imperishable
(aphtharton)" (Cher. 86). It should be noted, moreover, that when the world
was considered "eternal" by the ancients, they acclaimed it "eternal in the
past" (agentos) and "imperishable in the future" (aphthartos).(14)
3. Agenntos/aphthartos There was considerable confusion in the ancient
world over the terms agentos and agenntos.(15) Thus it is not accidental to
find variations of this formula in which God is said to be not just uncreated,
but unbegotten, as well as imperishable. Plutarch, for example, spoke of Isis
and Osiris as true gods because of their eternity: "In regard not only to
these gods (Isis and Osiris), but in regard to the other gods, save only those
whose existence had no beginning (agenntoi) and shall have no end
(aphthartoi), the priests say. . ." (de Iside 20 359C). Likewise, Christian
theologians proclaim of God: "God alone is unbegotten (agennton) and
incorruptible (aphtharton)" (Justin, Dial. 5).
4. Agentos or agenntos/aidios The pagan writer Plutarch sings the praises
of Apollos Tegyraeus by contrasting him with heroic mortals who were
subsequently divinized. The essential difference is that true gods are eternal
in the past as well as eternal in the future: "My native tradition removes this
god from among those deities who were changed from mortals into
immortals. Like Heracles and Dionysus, whose virtues enabled them to cast
off mortality and suffering; but he is one of those deities who are unbegotten
(agennton) and eternal (aidion), if we may judge by what the most ancient
and wisest men have said on such matters" (Pelopidas 16).(16) Similarly, the
Christian apologist Athenagoras distinguishes god from matter because "the
deity is unbegotten (agennton) and imperishable (aidion)," whereas matter
is created and perishes (Leg. 4; see chs 6.2; 10.1; 19.1; 22.2,3; 30.3).
Philo commonly speaks of God as "uncreated and eternal" (agentos kai
aidios).(17) Jewish worshipers of the true god corrected the error common
among others by "passing over all created objects because they were created
and naturally liable to destruction and chose the service only of the
Uncreated (agentou) and Eternal (aidiou)" (Spec. Leg. 2.166). Defending
Moses, who gave the Jews the truest conception of God, Josephus tells how
Moses described God as "One, uncreated (agenton) and immutable to all
eternity (pros ton aidion)" (Ap. 2.167).
5. Ainios/aphthartos Describing the nature of true gods, Diodorus of Sicily
states: "With regard to the gods . . . some of them . . . have a nature which is
1163

eternal (aionion) and imperishable (aphtharton)" (3.9.1; see Philo Immut.

142).
6. Agenntos or agentos/anlethros At the head of a small treatise "On How
Many Heads Ought We to Praise God," Alexander Rhetor said: "God is
unbegotten (agennton) and indestructible (anlethron)."(18) Clement of
Alexandria quotes Parmenides in Plato's Sophist describing god as
"uncreated (agenton) and indestructible (anlethron)" (Strom. 5.14).(19)
7. Agentos/aphthartos/aidios Occasionally we find not just two terms
expressing the fullness of divine eternity, but three. Philo frequently spoke in
this manner when, for example, he said of God: ". . . the uncreated
(agenton) Father, the Imperishable (aphtharton), the Eternal (aidion)" (Jos.
265).(20)
8. No Beginning/No End God's eternity may just was well be expressed in
other terms, namely, as having neither beginning nor end. In discussing
whether gods were made of atoms, Cicero recorded a discussion which
argued that this would be impossible, for it would imply that god was not
eternal in the past, much less imperishable in the future: "Suppose we allow
that the gods are made of atoms: then it follows that they are not eternal.
For what is made of atoms came into being at some time; and if gods came
into being, before they came into existence there were no gods; and if the
gods had a beginning they must also have an end" (DND 1.24.68; see 1.7.20
and 10.26).(21)
Writing after the period we are studying, Tertullian reflects traditional godtalk when he speaks of the eternity of the true God: "I give that definition
(of God) which all men's common sense will accept, that God is supremely
great, firmly established in eternity, unbegotten, uncreated, without
beginning and without end (sine initio, sine fine)" (Adv. Marc. 1.3; see Adv.
Herm. 5). Three terms explicitly refer to eternity in the past: "unbegotten,"
"uncreated" and "without beginning." Yet that is necessarily balanced with
notions of eternity in the future: "without end."
Philo described "Fate" as something which has neither beginning nor end:
"Fate (heimarmen) has no beginning (anarchos) or end (ateleuttos)" (Aet.
75).(22) Theophilus, listing the attributes of God, states that the deity is
"without beginning (anarchos) because He is unbegotten (agenntos); and he
is unchangeable, because he is immortal" (ad Autol. 1.4).

1164

The specific linguistic formulae may differ, but all of the eight variations
noted above describe as a characteristic of a true god eternity in the past and
imperishability in the future. They testify to popular, widespread topoi on
the deity's full eternity. Hence, when Heb 7:3 speaks of a figure as having
"no beginning and no end," this formula immediately and necessarily
suggests that such a figure must be divine, a true god.

B. Remains Forever
Not only is Melchizedek "without beginning of days and end of life," he
"remains forever" (menei eis to dinekes, 7:3). This is the second of three
notices in Hebrews that someone "remains." Earlier in Heb 1:11-12, the
author quoted Ps 102:25-27 apropos of Jesus; it makes a sharp contrast
between things perishable/ imperishable and changeable/unchanging: "They
will perish, but thou remainest . . . they will be changed, but thou art the
same and thy years will never end." In this context "remaining" must refer
to future immortality, imperishability and eternity inasmuch as it is
contrasted with what "perishes," "changes" and "ends."
The same meaning should be understood in 7:24 when the author states that
Jesus "remains forever." This statement about Jesus' "permanent
priesthood" functions precisely in terms of the contrast with the priesthood
of the Levitical priests who are "prevented by death from remaining in
office" (7:23; see 7:15-16). Again, Jesus' "remaining forever" must be
understood as the opposite of perishing and dying.
And so, when the author describes Melchizedek as "remaining forever"
(7:3), this too must be understood in terms of some sort of deathlessness,
imperishability, unchangeableness and eternity, all characteristics of a true
god. This becomes clearer when we examine further the ways in which the
ancients described deities.
In one sense by surveying above the Graeco-Roman formulae for a deity's
past and future eternity, we have already surfaced four of the key predicates
which
explain
"remain
forever."
A
true
god
must
be aidios, aphthartos, anlethros, and ainios. A true god, moreover, must
be athanatos (deathless), and so gods are regularly called "the immortals."
In the Apostolic Constitutions, moreover, God is often described
as ateleuttos (8.37.1, 38.5, 41.4). All of these predications compare and
contrast a true god with human beings, who are called "mortals" and
1165

"perishables." Or when the true god is contrasted with idols, the latter
perish, but god remains.(23) Occasionally we read that true gods aei n, they
continually or eternally exist.(24)
But true gods "remain forever" because it belongs to their natures not to
change. Hence we find Philo contrasting the immortal and unchanging deity
with mortals and things mutable: "Separate, therefore, my soul, all that is
created, mortal, mutable, profane from thy conception of God the uncreated
(agentou), the unchangeable (atreptou), the immortal (aphthartou), the holy
and solely blessed" (Sacr. 101). Similarly, of the unchanging God Philo says:
"We find that stability or fixity or permanent immobility, in virtue of its
immutable and unchangeable quality, subsists as an attribute primarily to
the
Existent
Being"
(Somn.
2.237).(25) As
well
as
calling
God aidios, aphthartos, agentos, and athanatos, Philo regularly calls God
"unchanging" (atreptos):Leg. All. 1.51; 2.33, 89; Cher. 52, 90; Post.
28; Immut. 22; Conf. 96; Mut. 28, 54, 175; Somn. 1.232; 2. 221.(26)
And so, it belongs to a true deity to be "eternal" in the sense of enduring
forever in the future, imperishable, without end, and without change. When
the author of Hebrews says of the figure in 7:3 that he "remains forever," he
is using a commonplace or topos about the future eternity of a true god.

C. Without Father or Mother or Genealogy The terms "without father" and

"without mother" most commonly refer to children, either illegitimate,
orphaned or abandoned.(27) That shameful sense is totally absent from Heb
7:3. On the contrary, Philo, discoursing on Gen 20:12, notes that Sarah
is amtr, but not "without a father" (Ebr. 61; Heres 62). Moreover, from the
ancient world we learn that Athena was amtr, but not "without a father,"
who was Zeus.(28) Hephaistos was "without a father," but had a mother.
(29)
Thus although some gods were either "without mother" or "without
father," they were never said to be "without father or mother or genealogy,"
that is, totally ungenerated.
Yet there are two texts which describe a true deity in this fulsome fashion.
Lactantius quotes an ancient oracle of Apollo about god: "Self-produced,
untaught, without a mother, unshaken." But this cannot refer to Juppiter,
who had a mother. Lactantius quotes Mercury to the effect that a true god
must be without both mother and father:

1166

Mercury, that thrice greatest . . . not only speaks of God as "without a

mother," as Apollo does, but also as "without a father," because He has no
origin from any other source but Himself (Div. Inst. 1.7.1).(30)
We find evidence from ancient Greek sources, then, that it belongs to a true
deity to be both "without father" and "without mother."
A comparable passage occurs in the Apocalypse of Abraham, in which we
find the following acclamation of God:
Eternal One, Mighty One, Holy El, God autocrat
self-originate, incorruptible, immaculate,
unbegotten, spotless, immortal,
self-perfected, self-devised,
without mother, without father, ungenerated (17:8-11).(31)
The form is clearly "negative theology," even if some of the terms suggest a
certain transcendence, such as "self-originate," "self-perfected," and "selfdevised." We easily recognize phrases about the true eternity of this god -(a) eternal in the past: "unbegotten," "self-originate" and (b) imperishable
in the future: "incorruptible" and "immortal." In addition, this god is
"without mother, without father, ungenerated," that is, sourceless. Both
Lactantius' citations from Greek theology and the Apocalypse of Abraham
suggest that when some figure is acclaimed "without father or mother or
genealogy," such a one is a true deity.(32)
The references, however, to "without father" and "without mother" do not
occur frequently. Yet in the literature surveyed above, ancient authors
regularly and more simply claimed that a true god was "unbegotten"
(agenntos). They asserted this in combination with other terms, such as
"eternal" or "imperishable" or "unchanging." (33) Although there is
considerable
confusion
among
the
ancients
over
the
terms agentos (uncreated) and agenntos (unbegotten), the remarks about
Melchizedek in Heb 7:3 unmistakably claim that he is agenntos,
unbegotten.
It is not uncommon to find the claim that a deity is "self-begotten"
(autogentos). For example, Justin cites an ancient Greek oracle, which he
1167

claims is prophetic of the true god of the Christians: "Only the Chaldaeans
have obtained wisdom, and the Hebrews, who worship God Himself, the selfbegotten (autogenton) King" (Cohort. 11). This term occurs in the Sibylline
Oracles 3, 8; 8, 429 (see also Cyril of Alexandria (Adv. Jul. 5).(34)
In summary, a full and convincing appreciation of the background of Heb
7:3 requires that we note both the diversity of expression yet the consistency
of concept in regard to the eternity of a true deity. A true god must be
completely "eternal."
Hellenistic Terminology Hebrews 7:3
1. ungenerated 1. no father, mother, or genealogy
2. eternal in past/ 2. without beginning of days or
imperishable in future end of life
3. continuous existence 3. remains forever
The terminology, moreover, is found regularly in the topoi of the Hellenistic
world which describe a true deity.
When the descriptions of Melchizedek in Heb 7:3 are understood against
this background, they immediately and cogently suggest that we are hearing
popular and common descriptions of a true god. In form, Heb 7:3 resembles
the negative theology found in classical discussions of god, and in content it
corresponds point for point with what is said there about the complete
eternity of a true god.
Although the remarks in Heb 7:3 are predicated of Melchizedek, this is not
to say that the author is necessarily drawing on targumic or midrashic
traditions about this figure. Writing about the way Moses was exalted in
Hebrews beyond anything found in Jewish traditions, Mary Rose D'Angelo
argued that such an overdevelopment of Moses only serves to promote Jesus
all the more.(35)So it is with Melchizedek. If he is presented in terms used to
describe a deity, the point is not to exalt Melchizedek for his own sake, but to
promote Jesus: ". . . resembling the Son of God" (7:3). All of this discussion
of eternity, then, should be seen in function of the author's clear and
nuanced acclamation of Jesus as a true deity.
III. Jesus, True God or Heroized Mortal?
1168

Alongside these topoi which describe the nature of a true deity, we find other
commonplaces which compare and contrast true gods with heroized mortals,
who were divinized after their deaths because of their benefactions to
humankind. This material has a bearing on how we understand the remarks
about Jesus. Did Hebrews acclaim Jesus a divine figure made god because of
his benefactions to humankind or did the author consider him a true god,
fully eternal in past and future?(36)
Two classical authors, who discussed the nature of true gods, contrasted
genuine gods who are eternal in the past and imperishable in the future with
heroes who were made immortal after death because of their benefactions.
Diodorus of Sicily wrote in the waning days of the first century BCE;
Plutarch flourished in the late first century CE. Their writings, roughly
contemporary with Hebrews, offer a discussion of a true deity which has a
bearing on the figure of Jesus in Hebrews.
For Diodorus of Sicily the difference between true deities and divinized
heroes lies exclusively in the fact that true gods are fully eternal, that is
uncreated in the past and imperishable in the future, while divinized heroes
were born as mere mortals, but attained to "immortality" because of their
benefactions to humankind:
As regards the gods, men of ancient times have handed down to later
generations two different conceptions: Certain of the gods, they say, are
eternal and imperishable (aidious kai aphthartous) . . . for each of these
genesis and duration are from everlasting to everlasting. But the other gods,
we are told, were terrestrial beings who attained to immortal honors and
fame because of their benefactions to mankind, such as Heracles, Dionysus,
Aristaeus, and the others who were like them (6.1.2).(37)
Plutarch echoes just this sort of stereotyped description of the gods when he
acclaims the excellence of Apollos Tegyraeus:
My native tradition removes this god from among those deities who were
changed from mortals into immortals. Like Heracles and Dionysus, whose
virtues enabled them to cast off mortality and suffering; but he is one of
those deities who are unbegotten (agennton) and eternal (aidion), if we may
judge by what the most ancient and wisest men have said on such matters
(Pelopidas 16).
From these examples, we can sketch the differences between true gods and
divinized benefactor-heroes:
1169

True Gods Divinized Benefactor-Heroes(38)

1. ancient 1. recent, new
2. celestial 2. terrestrial
3. without a beginning 3. came into being
and ungenerated and born in time
4. imperishable 4. died, translated in death
5. eternal 5. made immortal
According to this topos, then, what type of deity is Jesus? Is he a true god or
a divinized benefactor-hero? From what we have seen in regard to Heb 7:3
and other passages in that document, we must conclude that the author of
Hebrews acclaims Jesus as a true deity because of his full eternity in the past
and imperishability in the future. Granted that other documents acclaim his
death as a benefaction to us, the author of Hebrews never states that God
exalted him for his benefaction. After all, he was a "priest forever."
IV. Confirmation in Hebrews
Our reading of Heb 7:3 can be confirmed by a careful examination both of
the initial remarks about Jesus in chapter one and of a final acclamation of
Jesus at the document's end. As we all know, the premier rhetorical places in
a text are its beginning and ending; for in beginnings an author initially
shapes a reader's imagination, while in endings clear conclusions may be
drawn or initial themes repeated. Such rhetorical emphasis seems to hold
true both for the beginning and the ending of Hebrews.
A. Opening: Past and Future Eternity
In chapter one the author states the most honorable and exalted things that
he can about Jesus. Readers or hearers are thus conditioned how to label
Jesus. In the traditional culture of the author, appeal is regularly made to
authority, in this case the most solemn of authorities, the Scriptures. In a
chain of quotations from the Psalms and other biblical writings, the author
unmistakably calls Jesus "god" (1:8//Ps 45:6) and predicates of him divine
eternity, both eternity in the past and imperishability in the future.

1170

Citing Ps 102:25-27, the author first acclaims Jesus' eternity in the past. We
have already been told that it is Jesus "through whom God made the world"
(1:2b). Of him the Psalm says: "Thou, Lord didst found the earth in the
beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands" (1:10). Since the
argument here rests on the radical contrast of earthly vs heavenly and
created vs eternal, I suggest that both Ps 2 in 1:5 and Ps 102 in 1:10 speak to
Jesus' past, namely to his eternity before creation.(39)
The author balances this with further remarks from Ps 102 about his
eternity in the future.
They will perish, but thou remainest,
they will grow old like a garment
(like a mantle) thou will roll them up.
And they will be changed.
But thou art the same
and thy years are without end (1:11-12//Ps 102:26-27).
Unlike the perishable world which is subject to change, Jesus is
imperishable, and will not change. He "remains" and his "years are without
end."(40)
Eternity in past and future would seem to be the plain meaning of Ps 102. If
so, it speaks unmistakably of Jesus as a true god according to Hellenistic
topoi about god. This may be confirmed by noting another topos about a
true deity which is predicated of Jesus here: he is said to have the two basic
powers of God, creative and executive power.(41) As we have seen in 1:2 and
10, he has "creative power," whereby he caused the world to be. Likewise
1:8 tells us that Jesus enjoys "executive power":
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,
the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.
The author expresses this sense of Jesus' complete sovereignty in other
terms, calling him "the heir of all things" (1:2) who is "seated at the right
hand of the Majesty on high" (1:3).
1171

Finally, when the author says of Jesus that he "reflects the glory of God and
bears the stamp of his nature" (1:3), this may be interpreted as sharing in
God's incorruptible nature (see Philo, Migr. 132; Opif. 134; see 4 Macc 18:3
and Wis 2:23).
Yet it must be quickly noted that the author of Hebrews seems considerably
more interested in Jesus' imperishability and eternity in the future than he is
in his eternity in the past. Using Ps 110:4 as another indisputable authority,
Jesus' future existence is proclaimed: "You are a priest forever (eis ton
aina) . . ." (5:6; 7:3, 17, 21). God's oath establishes Jesus' future eternity in
the precise role of a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Yet as this
study has shown, Melchizedek is described in the terms used of a true god,
uncreated/ungenerated in the past and imperishable in the future (7:3).

B. Document Ending: Past and Future Eternity

At the end of the document, the author makes one final predication of Jesus:
"Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever" (13:8). This remark
seems to be repeating what was said about Jesus in the first chapter.
Thou art the same (autos) and thy years will never end (1:12)
Jesus Christ the same (autos) yesterday, today and forever (13:8)
The author cited Ps 102:28 in Heb 1:12, a psalm which in the early church
was used primarily to affirm the unchangeableness and imperishability of
the true god against pagan and gnostic gods.(42) Hebrews likewise
understands the psalm in the same way, but applies it to Jesus, implying that
he too is a true deity because eternal and imperishable.
Commentators have noted the parallels to "yesterday, today and forever" in
Greek and Christian literature.(43) But they neither sorted them out in a
form-critical analysis, nor suggested how they might constitute a topos on a
true deity, both of which must be done. As we saw in regard to Heb 7:3, so
the remarks in 13:8 should be understood as a topos about the eternity of a
true god.
Ancient philosophers and theologians describe a deity as a unique being who
was, is and will be. Plato stated that it is improper to speak in terms of god's
past, present and future. Properly, the deity simply "is" (Tim. 37e-38a).
1172

Philo reflects this same thought when he says that God's life is not a time,
but an eternity: ". . . in eternity there is no past nor future, but only present
existence" (Immut. 32).
Philo, moreover, frequently names the true God as the Existent One whose
existence is "now." Sometimes he expresses this in Platonic terms (God
= to on) and in terms drawn from Exod 3:14 (God = ho n).(44) Nevertheless,
it was part of the popular and common description of god to speak of the
deity in terms of continuous existence. As in the case of the topoi about a
true deity in Heb 7:3, this continuous existence was expressed in many ways.
1. First and Last Eusebius cites in his Praeparatio Evangelica an ancient
hymn to Zeus in which this supreme god was acclaimed: "Zeus first, Zeus
last" (3.9). It goes without saying that if god was "first" and will be "last,"
then god "is." This, of course, makes a striking parallel with the remarks
about the deity as "first and last" in Isa 41:4; 44:6 and 48:12. A variation of
this appears in the book of Revelation, where we find a progressive formula
used to describe the heavenly being: first, "I am the Alpha and the Omega"
(1:8), then "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end"
(21:6), and finally "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the
beginning and the end" (22:13).
2. Beginning, Middle, End We occasionally find statements about divine
activity which parallel the remarks about god's past, present and future. For
example, an inscription on the statue of Aion at Eleusis reads: ". . . who has
no beginning, middle, end."(45) Likewise Plato remarked: "God, as the old
tradition declares, holds in his hands the beginning, the middle and the end
of all that is" (Laws 715e; see Tim. 37b). But Josephus contains the clearest
example of this formula. Discussing the first commandment in the
Decalogue, he speaks of God's perfection: "God is the beginning, the middle
and the end of all things" (Ap. 2.190). Who holds the beginning, middle and
end of all things must himself be eternal in past, present and future.
3. Is, Was, and Will Be Although the data are not numerous, over the years
scholars have pointed out a number of statements about god which explicitly
describe the divine eternity in terms of past, present and future. For
example, Pausanias records a fragment of a hymn which acclaims Zeus'
eternity: "Zeus was, Zeus is, and Zeus will be" (Desc. Graec 10.12.10). In the
Hermetic Corpus there is a very fulsome description of god's eternity: "God
is everlasting, god is eternal. That he should come into being or should ever
have come into being is impossible. He is, he was, he will be forever"
(Asclepius 2.14b).(46) At the beginning of the third book of the Sibylline
1173

Oracles a summary statement about god is made, in which we find the

phrase: ". . . as existing now, and formerly and again in the future" (3.16).
(47)
This type of remark resembles God's own confession in the book of
Revelation: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, who is and who was and who is
to come" (1:8; see 1:4; 4:8; 11:17).(48)
And so, just as the author acclaimed Jesus' eternity in the past and
imperishability in 1:10-12, so he repeats it in 13:8. The repetition seems
consciously intended, with Ps 102:28 ("thou art the same") being the
common link. Yet beyond the citation of a Jewish psalm, the predication
contains the same material found in Hellenistic topoi on true gods in terms
of their timeless existence. These materials, moreover, confirm the
hypothesis of this study that the predications in Heb 7:3 of eternity in the
past and imperishability in the future were truly acclamations about Jesus'
status as a divine figure. For 1:10-12 and 13:8 confess the same thing of
Jesus, although in different terms. Yet the author seems to use popular topoi
on the nature of a true deity, giving further salience to these predications.

Summary and Conclusions

1. By examining in great detail the Hellenistic parallels to the statements
made in Heb 7:3, this study has shown that the language originates in and
reflects the mode of thought found in Greek and Hellenistic philosophical
speculation about a true deity. Unmistakably, the author of Hebrews intends
his readers to understand the figure described in 7:3 as a true deity,
completely in accord with the topoi which describe true gods as fully eternal,
uncreated or ungenerated in the past and imperishable in the future.

Hebrews 7:3

Greek
Philosophy

1. "without father or
1.
mother
(aggentos)
or genealogy"

ungenerated

2. "without beginning . . . 2. eternal in the past;

or ending"
imperishable in the future
3. "remains forever"

3.
1174

eternal

(aidios):

always existing (aei n)

2. Some commentators gloss over the substance of what is predicated in 7:3

with the generic label that this figure is "eternal," but without specifying
what that means.(49) This study would nuance such remarks by explaining
quite clearly that full eternity is understood in 7:3 -- uncreated and
ungenerated eternity in the past and imperishability in the future. The figure
so described is a true deity.
3. Whatever the author says of Melchizedek must be understood as stated in
service of Jesus. The assertions about complete eternity in Heb 7:3 are made
apropos of Jesus in the rhetorically significant places of the document, its
beginning and end.
4. In recent years some commentators have argued for a hymnic structure
for Heb 7:3, even a non-Christian vorlage.(50) By virtue of the parallels to
Hellenistic philosophy, this investigation in part confirms that line of
thinking. The language, which derives from the "negative theology" of
Greek philosophy, is definitely non-Biblical, neither Jewish or Christian. The
rhetorical cadence of the terms and the structure of the verses resembles
many of the snatches of Greek philosophical poetry which describe the true
god. Among the poetic verses cited in this study are: Plutarch, E
Delphi 388F; Orphic Hymns 10.10 and 15.7; Pausanius, Desc.
Graec 10.12.10; Eusebius, P.E. 3.9; Sib.Orac. 3.16; and Clement, Strom. 5.14.
5. Finally, when the author acclaimed Jesus as "god" in Heb 1:8, he intended
that title to have specific content. Jesus may properly be called a divine
figure because he enjoys God's two basic powers, ruling power (1:8) and
creative power (1:11). Similarly, Jesus is a true divine figure because he
fulfills the category of a genuine deity by his full eternity, a point made
explicit both in the first and last chapters, as well as the typology of
Melchizedek in 7:3. In this the Christology of Hebrews makes significant
strides toward formally acclaiming Jesus as "true God from true God." In
this he begins to make ontological and not just functional statements about
Jesus.

1175

NOTES
1. See Str. B. 3.694-95.
2. In 11QMelch, Ps 82 ("I said: 'You are gods'") was cited apropos of
Melchizedek; see A.S. van der Woude, "Melchizedek als himmlische
Erlsergestalt in den neugefundenden eschatologischen Midraschim aus
Qumran Hhle XI," in Oudtestamentliche Studien XIV (Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1965) 354-73 and J.A. Emerton, "Melchizedek and the Gods: Fresh
Evidence for the Jewish Background of John X.34-35," JTS 17 (1966) 400401. But scholars indicate that Melchizedek's heavenly status and role is that
of a judge, which is not what Heb 7:3 argues at all. See Paul J.
Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresa . CBAMS 10 (Washington DC: The
Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981) 59-62.
3. By topos, we mean a rhetorical commonplace or sententia; see Henry
Fischel, Rabbinic Literature and Graeco-Roman Philosophy (Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1973); E. Mertner, "Topos and Commonplace," Strena Angelica (G.
Dietrich and F. W. Schultze, eds.; Halle: XX, 1956) 178-224; T. Y. Mullins,
"Topos as a New Testament Form," JBL 99 (1980) 541-47; D. G. Bradley,
"TheTopos as a Form in Pauline Paraenesis," JBL 72 (1953) 238-46; John
Dillon, The Transcendence of God in Philo: Some Possible Sources. Center
for Hermeneutical Studies. Protocol 16. (Berkeley: The Center for
Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1975) 171-78.
4. See C. Spicq, L'pitre aux Hbreux, 183-84; Hans Windisch, Der
Hebrerbrief (HNT 14; Tbingen: Mohr, 1931) 58; and Harold W.
Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989)
189-91.
5. For example, Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Hebrer (MeyerK 13;
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 261-63 and Gerd
Theissen, Untersuchungen zum Hebrerbrief (Gtersloh: Mohn, 1969) 20-28.
6. See H.A. Wolfson, "Albinus and Plotinus on Divine Attributes," HTR 45
(1952) 115-30 and "Negative Attributes in the Church Fathers and the
Gnostic
Basilides," HTR 50
(1957)
145-56;
John
Whittaker,
"Neopythagoreanism and Negative Theology," Symbolae Osloenses 44 (1969)
109-25; Frances M. Young, "The God of the Greeks and the Nature of
Religious Language," Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual
Tradition (ed. W.R. Schoedel and R.L. Wilken; Paris: Beauchesne, 79) 53-54.
1176

7. For example, Theophilus writes of God: "The form of God is ineffable . . .

in glory uncontainable, in well-doing indescribable . . . He
is without beginning because He is uncreated, and He isunchangeable
because He is immortal" (ad Autol. 1.3).
8. George L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London: SPCK, 1964) 80.
9. All translations of classical citations are from the Loeb Classical Library,
unless otherwise stated.
10. See H. G. Lidell and R. Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1968) 36; yet in texts such as Plutarch's De Stoicorum
Repugnantiis 1052 A, aidios refers to what is not subject to generation: ". . .
the sun and the moon and the rest of the gods, since they have a similar
principle of constitution, are subject to generation, but Zeus is everlasting
(aidios)."
11. In another place Diodorus speaks of Isis and Osiris as "gods . . . both
eternal and first" (1.11.1).
12. In antiquity discussions of deitiess were intertwined with those about the
world. It is not uncommon to find the same terminology and concepts used
about god's eternity extended to reflections of the world's eternity. For
example, in speaking of principles, Aristotle used the same expression:
"What is eternal (aidia) does not come into existence (agenta) or perish
(aphtharta)" (Nic.Ethic. 6.iii.2 1139b).
13. See Philo, Leg. All. 1.51; Dec. 41; Sac. 63; Gig. 14; Heres 14; Somn.
1.94; Mos. 2.171 and Legatio 118.

14. For example, Plutarch attributes to Epicurus this sense of complete

eternity: ". . . the universe is infinite, ungenerated (agenton) and
imperishable (aphtharton)" (Adv. Colotem 1114 A). This may be found
frequently in the writings of Aristotle (de Caelo 1.12 282 a 25) and Philo
(Aet. 7,10,12,20,69,93; Somn. 2.283).
15. See Jules Lebreton, Histoire du Dogme de la Trinit (Paris: Gabriel
Beauchesne, 1928) 2.635-47.

1177

16. Plutarch noted that Herodotus said of Heracles and Dionysus that they
belonged to the second and third class of gods because "they had a
beginning to their existence and had not existed eternally (aidious)" (Malice
of Herodotus 857D).
17. See Leg. All. 3.101; Dec. 60, 64; the world likewise is agentos kai
aidios in Opif. 171.
18. Christianus Walz, Rhetores Graeci (Stuttgart: J.G. Cotta, 1835) 9.336.
19. In his discussion of the soul, Plato makes the same claim, namely, that it
is "uncreated (agennton) and indestructible (anlethron)" (Tim. 52A).
20. See Philo, Dec. 41; Leg. All. 1.51; 3.31.
21. In one of the Orphic hymns (10.10), Zeus is acclaimed as the one who "is
the beginning of all and of all the end" (Apostolos N.
Athanassakis, The Orphic Hymns. Missoula MT: Scholars Press, 1977, p. 24);
see Tatian, Ad Graec. 4.1; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.5.
22. Speaking of "time," Philo records the opinion: "Time by its nature has
no beginning (anarchos) or end (ateleuttos)" (Aet. 53; see
Plato, Timaeus 37E). A similar argument is mounted in philosophical
literature about the eternal nature of the soul. For example, Cicero cites
Plato's Phaedrus (245 C-D) that the soul has no beginning or end: ". . . a
beginning has no birth, for all things have origin in a beginning, but the
beginning itself can be born from nothing else, for the thing that should be
begotten from anything else would not be a beginning. Nor if it never has
origin, it never perishes either . . . it cannot be born or die" (Tusc. Disp.
1.23.54).
23. See Cicero, DND 1.11.27; Philo, Cher. 51; Mos. 2.171; Ep. Diog. 2.4-5. On
the contrast between created and eternal figures, see James W.
Thompson, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy. The Epistle to the
Hebrews (CBQMS 13; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association
of America, 1982) 119, 125.
24. Proclus 52 (ed. E.R. Dodds, Proclus. The Elements of Theology [Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1963] 51; Alexander Rhetor, C. Walz, Rhetores Graeci,
9.336; Plato says the same thing of the soul (Symp. 211a).

1178

25. See Joseph C. McLelland, God the Anonymous (Philadelphia: The

Philadelphia Patristics Foundation, 1976) 37-40.
26. See Origen, Celsum 1.21 and 4.14; Theophilus ad Autol. 2.4.
27. Ceslas Spicq, L'pitre aux Hbreux, 183; Gottlob Schrenk, "Apatr,"
TDNT 5.1019.
28. See Plato, Sym, 180D; Philo, in commenting on the number "7," notes
that it is neither begotten nor begets: "this number is likened to the
motherless (amtori) and virgin Nike, who is said to have appeared out of the
head of Zeus" (Opif. 100). In an Orphic hymn Physis (Nature) is
acclaimed: autopatr apatr (10.10). See Thompson, The Beginnings of
Christian Philosophy, 119.
29. Pollux, Onom. 3. 26, cited in Hans Windisch, Der Hebrerbrief, 58.
30. In another passage, Lactantius repeats this: "For God the Father
Himself, who is the origin and source of all things, inasmuch as He is without
parents, is most truly named by Trismegistus 'fatherless' (apatr) and
'motherless' (amtr), because He was born from no one" (Div. Inst. 4.13.1).
31. Apocalypse of Abraham 17:8-11, translated by R. Rubinkiewicz in The
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Garden City
NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983) 697.
32. See Schrenk, "Apatr," 1020.
33. See Alexander Rhetor (C. Walz, Rhetores Graeci, 9.336); Plutarch, de
Iside 359 C and Pelopidas 16; Justin, Dial. 5; Athenagoras, Leg. 4;
Theophilus, ad Autol. 1.5.
34. See John Whittaker, "A Hellenistic Context for John 10,29," VC 24
(1970) 246-49. He has researched this concept in greater detail in "The
Historical Background of Proclus' Doctrine ofauthupostata," De Jamblique
Proclus (Fondation Hardt, Entretiens 21; Geneva: Vandoeuvres, 1975, 193210 and "Self-Generating Principles in Second-Century Gnostic
Systems," The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, 1978. Ed. Bentley Layton (Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1980) 176-89.

1179

35. Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews. (SBLDS 41; Missoula MT: Scholars
Press, 1979) 3-15, 151-99.
36. See Charles H. Talbert, What is a Gospel? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1977).
37. See also Diodorus: "With regard to the gods, the Ethiopians entertain
two opinions: they believe that some of them . . . have a nature which is
eternal (aionion) and imperishable (aphtharton), but other of them, they
think, share a mortal nature and have come to receive immortal honours
because of their virtue and the benefactions which they have bestowed on all
mankind" (3.9.1).
38. Diodorus frequently spoke of divinized human benefactors: "Besides
these there are other gods, they say, who were terrestrial, having once been
mortals, but who, by reason of their sagacity and the good services which
they rendered to all men, attained immortality" (1.13.1); "Regarding the
gods, the most learned Diodorus also says in his writings that those gods
whom men were wont to address as immortal, considering them to be so
because of their beneficences, had indeed been born human beings; but that
certain of them had acquired the appellations they have after the lands they
conquered" (6.2.1); and "Because of their exception valour (aretes) they
have been judged to be sons of Zeus, and when they departed from among
mankind they attained to immortal honours (timon)" (6.6.1). See Lewis R.
Farnell, Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality (Oxford: University
Press, 1921); F. W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of Graeco-Roman
and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House,
1982) and "Graeco-Roman Cultural Accomodation in the Christology of
Luke-Acts," SBLASP 1983 409-10.
39. Rare is the commentators who comments on Jesus' past eternity in 1:1012; see Spicq, L'pitre aux Hbreux, 20; Bruce, The Epistle to the
Hebrews (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964) 21.
40. See the same argument in Origen, Celsum 1.21 and 4.14.
41. For a discussion of Jesus as "equal to God" because of his possession of
God's two powers, see J.H. Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt. John's Christology
in Social-Science Perspective(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988) 18-29.

1180

42. See
Irenaeus, Adv.
Haer.
4.3.1;
Tertullian, Herm.
34.1;
Origen, Celsum 1.21; 4.14 and 56; Princ. 3.5.1; Eusebius, P.E. 11.10.16 and
13.3.42.
43. See Spicq, L'pitre aux Hbreux, 422; Attridge, Hebrews, 392-93.
44. See John Dillon, The Transcendence of God in Philo: Some Possible
Sources, p. 5.
45. Wilhelm Dillenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. Hildesheim:
Georg Olms, 1960. 3.1125.
46. Walter Scott, Hermetica (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924) 1.312.
47. See Plutarch: "I am all that has been, and is, and shall be" (de Iside 9
354C); Acts of John 88 speaks of the glory around Christ: "it was and is and
will be unto forever."
48. Were we pursuing Jewish expressions of this, the targums on Exod 3:14
provide convincing evidence that "I am who am" was popularly interpreted
as referring to God's activity in the past, the present and the future. See J.H.
Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt, 213-17; see also Martin McNamara, The New
Testament and the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch (AnB 27; Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1966) 103-5.
49. While many commentators cite parallels to Heb 7:3 from Greek
philosophy, they say nothing about the divinity of the figure so described.
For example, Ceslas Spicq (L'pitre aux Hbreux[Paris: Gabalda, 1952-53]
184) was content to argue of such a person, "c'est un tre supraterrestre qui
transcende l'histoire." L. Kalyan K. Dey (The Intermediary World and
Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews [SBLDS 25; Missoula MT:
Scholars Press, 1975] 187-92) argued that this figure belongs to a
"middle taxis," in between God and humankind. James W. Thompson (The
Beginnings of Christian Philosophy, 119-120, 135-138) describes Jesus as an
eternal, heavenly figure contrasted with earthly, transitory creatures; but he
falls short of clarifying Jesus' heavenly character or status. However, F.F.
Bruce (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 138) more accurately observed: "It is the
eternal being of the Son of God that is here in view." The current hypothesis
is dramatically stronger than these, for it asserts that Jesus is acclaimed as a
true deity in virtue of his full eternity.
50. See note 6 above.
1181

"Mary: Mediterranean Maid and Mother in Art and

Literature"

Jerome
University of Notre Dame

H.

Neyrey

Abstract
Biblical

Theology

Bulletin 20

(1990)

65-75

Devotion to Mary developed in the Mediterranean world, based originally in the

canonical and apocryphal gospels and then in other writings. These as well as the
early conciliar discussions of Mary were formulated by Mediterranean males,
both those from the Latin West and the Greek East. My hypothesis can be simply
stated: Mary was presented both in art and literature precisely in terms of specific
cultural perceptions of females in that Mediterranean world, both as maid and
mother. The writers and preachers of the early Church perceived her according to
the categories of their Mediterranean culture. The focus of this study, then, is not
formally Mariology, but the way Mediterranean culture perceives females and so
structures their place in that social world. The presentation of Mary may be the
best illustration of this cultural perception. Although Mary is unique in the
Mediterranean world as a virgin mother, the presentation of her virginity and her
maternity fully reflect the general cultural evaluation of females in Mediterranean
culture.
What then are some of the specifically Mediterranean perceptions of females that
shaped the way Mary was perceived and presented? The Mediterranean cultural
area was, and still is, a world divided according to gender: every person, place,
object, action is known either as male or female. Philo prefaces his exposition of
the ideal behavior of females with a summary of what is called "the moral
division of labor." Its citation here helps to illustrate Mediterranean cultural
perceptions of males and females:
Market-places and councils-halls and law-courts and gatherings and meetings
where a large number of people are assembled, and open-air life with full scope
for discussion and action--all these are suitable to men both in war and peace.
1182

The women are best suited to the indoor life which never strays from the house,
within which the middle door is taken by the maidens as their boundary, and the
outer door by those who have reached full womanhood (Philo, Spec. Leg. III.
169; see Xenophon, Oecumenicus VII).
From Philo and other Mediterranean writers, ancient and modern, we cull the
following sketch of the moral division of the world into male and female spheres.
MALES: Their world is the public and they are the outward-oriented members
of the family. Their place is the public square, the field, the out-of-doors; their
objects are farm tools, weapons; their animals, sheep and horses. Male behavior
is aggressive and honor-seeking.
FEMALES: Their world is the private sphere and they are inward-oriented
toward the house and the family. Their place is within the house and the areas
linked with it, such as wells, common ovens, etc.; their objects are those of the
household: hearth objects, the loom, etc. Female behavior focuses on defense of
family chastity and honor (Malina: 42-48).
First, females in the Mediterranean typically take their identity from the males in
their life, first father and then husband (Philo, Q. Gen. 27). They are always
embedded in some male figure and are known as the daughters of so-and-so (e.g.,
Mark 5:21-24; Acts 21:9) and the wives of so-and-so (Matt 14:3; Luke 8:3; Acts
5:1; 24:24). Second, while males compete for honor (aggressive, agonistic
behavior), females defend their "shame," that is, both their virginity as maidens
and their chastity as wives. Much of this defensive posture is realized by females
being out of sight and out of mind in the world of males (Thucydides II.45;
Plutarch, In Praise of Women, 271F, 220D). Third, females are oriented to the
sphere of the house and places where household affairs take them, such as wells
and ovens. Their labor is that associated with the house and family, food
preparation (drawing water, grinding grain, baking bread) and clothing
production (weaving) (Epstein: 68-103). In all of these the pivotal value for
females is their "shame," that is, the defense of their virginity or chastity. It is
small wonder that Mary's preeminent soubriquet is "the Blessed Virgin."
These typical perceptions of females become the dominant images according to
which Mediterranean writers describe Mary and in which their artists portrayed
her. This essay will present a survey of these descriptions of Mary, along with
representative illustrations of them from the wealth of church art. We present the
survey, not in strict chronological terms, but according to the topics and themes
illustrative of the cultural perception of females in the Mediterranean world:
"shame" and virginity.
1183

Real Space Appropriate to Mediterranean Maidens

Mediterranean culture dictates that females, especially maidens, be solicitous of
the space where they live and work. They are not to be found in the company of
men outside the family home; even within the house, there are specifically
women's living quarters, as well as areas pertinent to female tasks (hearth, oven
and well), where men are out of place. Writers and artists sensitive to these
cultural norms portray the Annunciation to Mary in space appropriate to females.
The Annunciation to Mary in Luke 1:26-38 did not locate the scene, except to say
that it happened in "a city of Galilee named Nazareth." The earliest legendary
expansion of the story created a lasting tradition that Mary was drawing water at
a well when Gabriel spoke to her.
And she took the pitcher and went forth to draw water, and behold, a voice said:
"Hail, thou that are highly favored, [the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou]
among women." And she looked around on the right and on the left to see
whence this voice came. And trembling she went to her house and put down the
pitcher and took the purple and sat down on her seat and drew out (the thread)
(Proto-evangelium of James 11.1)
This legendary expansion echoes the biblical narratives of patriarchs meeting
their future wives at wells: Isaac's agent and Rebekah (Gen 24:11-21), Jacob and
Rachel (Gen 19:1-13) and Moses and Zipporah (Exod 2:15-22). This tradition
dominated the Eastern churches and representations of it are quite numerous. It
represents clearly the cultural sense of the proper space of females and their
proper tasks.
Besides the well, both writers and artists depict the Annunciation occurring in
Mary's house as she spun thread. Again, the scene is appropriate female space
(house) and proper female labor (cloth production). The same legend which
narrates the first part of Mary's annunciation at a well continues the story with
her home spinning thread: "She took the purple and sat down on her seat and
drew out (the thread)" (Proto-evangelium of James 11.1). But the legend at this
point only elaborates on the earlier narrative of how Mary came to spin and
weave "the purple." As a young maiden, Mary was selected to spin and weave a
cloth for the Temple to cover the Holy of Holies:
Then they brought them into the temple of the Lord, and the priest said: "Cast me
lots, who shall weave the gold, the amiant, the linen, the silk, the hyacinth-blue,
the scarlet and the pure purple." And to Mary fell the lot of the "pure purple" and
1184

"scarlet." And she took them and worked them in her house" (Protoevangelium
of James 10:2).
Thus the earliest legends about Mary's annunciation reflect the Mediterranean
cultural perceptions of females, what space and labors are appropriate to them,
wells--food preparation and homes--clothing production. [Other illustrations:
Schiller, plates 66, 72, 73, 95, 142]
Long after the Virgin was described in terms of the conventions of Mediterranean
female spaced, the later church portrayed her in terms of comparable spatial
norms. The simple girl of Galilee was transformed according to prevailing ideals
of noble Mediterranean females. And one of these depictions results in Mary no
longer doing female tasks in the traditional female spaces, but acting like a
cloistered nun with a vow of virginity and doing the things nuns did.
Cloister served to protect female virtue by walling out worldliness and defending
total dedication to God. In time Mary was cloistered, not just in monastic
settings, but symbolically in a walled garden. The Song of Songs, interpreted in a
Marian perspective, states: "A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden
locked, a fountain sealed . . . a garden fountain, a well of living water, and
flowing streams from Lebanon" (Song of Songs 4:12, 15). Mary's virginity was a
garden always locked. Within her virginity paradoxically was fertility and life, a
fountain, albeit a sealed fountain. Even when the scene of the annunciation
occurs indoors, often there are flowers strewn on the floor which reflect the sense
of Mary as a walled garden. [Other illustrations: Schiller, plates 127-129]
What should a noble virgin do in her cloister? What nuns customarily do: read
the Scriptures, sing the hours, and pray. This is what one medieval writer
described Mary doing when the angel announced God's message to her.
The Blessed Jerome writes this about her life: "The Blessed Virgin established
this rule, that in the morning she prayed until the third hour, from the third to the
ninth hour she was busy spinning, and from the ninth hour she again prayed
continually until the appearance of the angel from whose hand she received her
food. She improved so constantly in her study of the works of God that she
became first in the vigils, the best informed in the law of God, the most humble
in humility, the best read in the verses of David, the most gracious in charity, the
purest in purity, the most perfect in all virtues" (PseudoBonaventure, Meditations on the Life of Christ).
Nun's devotions are a far cry from the domestic female tasks of drawing water
and weaving cloth. But the principle remained the same: Mary was perceived
1185

doing what her Mediterranean culture thought appropriate to females, in this case
an upper-class female. (Other illustrations: Schiller, plates 104, 111, 114, 118121]
Appropriate Maiden's Behavior: "Shame"
DEFENSE OF VIRGINITY
How should a Mediterranean female, maid or wife, behave in the presence of
strangers, possibly or presumably male strangers? The culture dictates a
defensive posture, which seems to be reflected in Luke's account that Mary was
"troubled" by Gabriel's approach (Luke 1:29). Many artists capture this
defensiveness, even repulse, in the frowns and gestures of Mary pushing the
intruder away. In the perception of readers and viewers, Mary indeed had
"shame," the virtue of defending her virginity; she was not "shameless."
Chastity and virginity, of course, would be valued by Mediterraneans as a
female's greatest virtues. What could better defend female sexual exclusivity than
a formal vow of virginity. The evangelist Luke says nothing about this, but later
writers, who were influenced by the practice of monks and nuns, developed
stories which narrate Mary pronouncing such vows. The Pseudo-Gospel of
Matthew, which embroidered narratives about Mary's childhood, describes her as
having made such a permanent defense of her virginity, a total dedication to God.
Now it came to pass that she attained the age of fourteen so that the Pharisees
found occasion to say that the time had come for obedience to the custom that no
woman of that age should abide in the Temple of God. The High Priest called the
people together, and addressed them thus: "Hear me, O sons of Israel, and receive
my word into your ears, Ever since this Temple was built by Solomon, there have
been in its virgins, the daughters of kings and prophets, and of high priests and
priests: they were great and worthy of admiration. But when they come to the
proper age they were given in marriage and followed the course of their mothers
before them and were pleasing to God. But one alone, Mary, has found a new
way of pleasing God; she has vowed to remain a virgin" (Gospel of PseudoMatthew 8.1).
According to this account, Mary was approaching menarche and marriage. The
ideal purity of a maiden must inevitably be compromised by these events. But
Mary remained the perfect maiden and maintained her ideal purity by her "vow
to remain a virgin." As Mediterranean culture dictates, she was always defensive
of her purity and her "shame." She fulfilled the defensive role par excellence.
1186

WATERS OF CONTENTION
We learn, however, that Mary is pregnant, and not by her spouse (Matt 1:18-24).
If virginity is the premier female virtue, then a crisis has arisen because the
pregnant Mary, vowed virgin and paragon of purity, becomes suspect of lying and
deceit. The bible dealt with just such situations by providing a test of innocence:
drinking the waters of contention (Num 5:11-22). This trial by poison called the
all-knowing God to judge, either to expose the woman's lie by her death or to
confirm her chastity by her survival. Thus God became the guarantor of chastity
and purity.
A second-century document imagined a scenario according to Numbers 5 in
which both Mary and Joseph drank the "waters of contention." The virginity of
the Virgin was tested, but confirmed:
And the high priest said: "I will give you both to drink of the water of the
conviction of the Lord. And it will make manifest your sins before your eyes."
And the high priest took it (the water of bitterness) and gave it to Joseph to drink
and sent him into the hill country; and he came back whole. And he made Mary
also drink, and sent her into the hill country; and she returned whole. And all the
people marveled, because the water had not revealed any sin in them. And the
high priest said: "If the Lord God has not made manifest your sins, neither do I
condemn you." And he released them. And Joseph took Mary and departed to his
house, rejoicing and glorifying the God of Israel" (Protoevangelium of James
16:1-2).
Mary, then, defended her virginity both by her being "troubled" at the approach
of Gabriel and by her survival of the "waters of contention." To Mediterranean
readers, she demonstrates maximum concern for her "shame," the defense of her
sexual exclusivity.
The Intrusion of the Holy Spirit into Virgin Space
Not a few presentations of the annunciation divide with a wall the space where
the virgin is from the space where the angel stands. Visually this represents Mary
as the "walled garden" mentioned above; and it replicates the sense of private
women's quarters in a house, where males should not enter. Angels in popular
iconography have masculine traits and perform male actions in male space: they
are public messengers, they wage war, they attend the Sovereign and act as his
agents. Gabriel, even an angel of God, poses some threat to Mary; hence, a wall
separates him from her and she is appropriately "troubled" by his announcement
that she will be pregnant.
1187

If the artists were sensitive to an angel's invasion of a virgin's private, female

space, there was also considerable hesitancy concerning the portrayal of the Holy
Spirit in the virgin's quarters. Luke states: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you" (1:35). The problem lies
in the popular culture which knew of the Greek legends of Zeus disguising
himself in various forms and having sexual intercourse with women, as in the
story of Leda and the Swan. We know of a second-century critic of Christianity
who compared Isaiah 7:14 and its remark about a "virgin conceiving" with
comparable Greek legends (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho LXVII). This
may explain the lateness of the representation in Christian art of the Spirit
overshadowing Mary at the annunciation. Only when the legend has sufficiently
faded from popular imagination could the annunciation scene include the
overshadowing Spirit without in any way compromising the virginity of Mary.
Women, Biology, and the Mediterranean Views of Conception
The mention of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary leads us to examine the
"biology" of conception according to popular Mediterranean perceptions. In
conception, what do males contribute, what females? What contribution or
agency is attributed to the Spirit in Luke 1:35 and what to Mary? Modern,
scientifically educated people need to remember that the female ovum was first
discovered in 1827, only with the advent of the microscope; so there is no
empirical evidence of a female contribution before this. But what was the popular
understanding before the advent of King Science?
WOMAN AS FIELD: MALES GIVE SEED
Simply put, the female's contribution to conception was to provide a field into
which the male's seed was sown (Delaney). In effect, males contributed all, and
females provided space for this to grow. Tertullian said it succinctly: "The whole
fruit is already present in the semen" (Apologia 9.8). This perception would
portray the humanity of Jesus in no way dependent upon Mary, but upon God.
Moreover, before microscopes etc., there was no understanding as we have of the
growth of sperm and ovum to blastosphere to fetus. The whole person
(homounculus) was present in the male sperm; it only grew larger as it nested in
the womb. What the male sowed, then, was the already formed child. This helps
to explain certain developments in iconography. In some pictures, the whole,
already formed Jesus appears in the Virgin's belly at the angel's annunciation.
[See Schiller, plates 2, 98] It was even possible to dramatize the Incarnation by
depicting a fully formed baby Jesus descending from heaven.

1188

In time the church rejected this, probably in the interest of the humanity of Jesus.
Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence, condemned this depiction in the fifteenth
century: "Painters are to be blamed when they paint things contrary to our faith . .
. when in the Annunciation, they represent a small infant Jesus in the Virgin's
womb, as if the body he took on were not of her substance."
All of this is mentioned in light of the extreme care to preserve and promote
Mary's "shame," her virginity. Artists and writers, then, were sensitive to the
implications of the overshadowing of the Spirit in Luke 1:35, because their
popular notions of conception suggested that the physical substance, the fully
formed Jesus, had to come from someone, and not from the female involved.
CURIOUS BIOLOGY: CONCEPTION PER AUREM
There is also a curious development in which the biological virginity of Mary is
further safeguarded. In many pictures which show the fully formed baby Jesus
descending from heaven to Mary, the trajectory of his descent is not to her womb,
but to her ear. In complete deference to her virginity, the conception had nothing
to do whatever with her female sexual organs, which remained forever intact. She
did not conceive through her womb, but through her ear.
Several factors are operative here. Indisputably, writers and artists are striving to
celebrate the total purity of Mary and the absence of any stain on her virginity.
But they are also influenced by a Marian reading of a psalm: "Hear, O daughter,
and consider, and incline your ear; forget your people and your father's house;
and the King shall desire your beauty" (Ps 45:10). Applied to Mary, "incline your
ear" becomes a statement about the mode of conception as well as about her
obedience to God. Mary is portrayed as the virgin whom the King of Kings
desires to bear His son, Jesus. She does not become God's concubine, because by
"inclining her ear," she remains a virgin even as she receives the royal son.
The legend of Mary's conception of Jesus through her ear is quite early, and one
instance of it can be dated to the early seventh century. Venantius Fortunatus
wrote:
Let ages henceforth marvel
that an angel brought the seed,
that in ear (hearing) the virgin conceived
and in heart believing she delivered.
1189

Literary evidence of this motif was quite common in the early church (Steinberg:
26-32); art illustrations emerged in Renaissance Italy, in particular. But it was
embedded in the popular literature of the Mediterranean world, Greek and Latin,
in writing and art.
Occasionally we find formal evidence that Mary's conception through her ear
accorded fully with the Mediterranean value placed on her complete virginity and
total transcendence of any attention given to her sexual organs. As one Spaniard
noted:
The Blessed Virgin in conceiving a son neither lost her virginity nor experienced
any venereal pleasure . . . it did not befit the Holy Spirit to produce such an effect
or to excite any unbecoming movement of passion (Francis Suarez, "The Dignity
and Virginity of the Mother of God").
Conception through Mary's ear not only safeguards the physical nature of her
virginity, but models a profound spiritual Christian truth. "Faith comes from
hearing" (Rom 10:17). Mary is often portrayed as not seeing the angel, but only
hearing his voice. Hearing in faith a word from God, she believes. Indeed
Elizabeth praised Mary precisely for this: "Blessed is she who believed that there
would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord" (Luke 1:45).
Not only is Mary's physical virginity maintained by her conception through her
ear, but her holiness as well. For she becomes not only virgin Mother of God, but
model disciple of the Word.
Eve, Sex, and Sin
Even as Mediterranean writers and artists celebrate Mary's virginity, certain other
cultural expectations of this world need to be dealt with concerning the
conception and bearing of children. We should be aware of a cultural sub-text, a
biblical understanding of sexuality which is never illustrated but often talked
about. Basically, from St. Paul (1 Cor 7) and since St. Augustine of Hippo, there
has been a cultural perception among Mediterranean Christians that physical
intercourse is unclean (Brown; Pagels). The discussion often centers on Eve and
the birth of her children.
Some legends suggest that Eve's first act of intercourse was with Satan, disguised
as an angel of light (Dahl). Furthermore, Eve was "cursed" in Genesis 3 with the
sentence of bearing children in pain, a scenario reflected in part in 1 Timothy
2:14-15. Both sexual intercourse and childbearing are related to sin and
uncleanness. If this is the case, and if Mary bore a child, then is she in some way
perceived as sinful? is her childbearing a curse? an act of punishment?
1190

This cultural bias was offset by the presentation of Mary as the new Eve, the
antithesis of Eve. First, her "fiat" or act of obedience balances the "no" or
disobedience of the first Eve. As sin came into the world through one woman
(and man, Rom 5:12), so redemption came through one Virgin (and her Son, Rom
5:17). Eve, seduced by Satan disguised as an angel of light, is balanced in
salvation history by Mary, who conceived most chastely in faithfulness to God.
The angel who drove Eve and Adam from the garden is balanced by the
archangel Gabriel who stands in Mary's garden to open paradise again to Eve's
children (Guldan). Frequently, then, artists painting the annunciation to Mary
juxtaposed that picture with images of Genesis 2, both images of God's blessing
of the first Eve (and Adam) and images of Satan's seduction of them both.
Hence, Mary's status is immensely raised to be parallel to that of her redeemer
Son. The simple maid of Galilee becomes the archetypal female, the new Eve;
her actions take on cosmic significance. And as the antithesis of Eve, her
conception and childbirth become celebrations of remarkable physical virginity
and total purity. They are completely removed from the sphere of popular cultural
interpretations of "shamelessness" and loss of exclusivity and celebrated
precisely as the opposite. [Other illustrations: Gulden, plates 50-69]
Childbirth Yet Abiding Physical Virginity
It is not simply a matter of Mediterranean culture that childbirth means the total
opening of the female sexual organs, and so the complete loss of physical
virginity. In no way can a mother nursing a child be considered any longer a
virgin, except for Mary, of course. Since the second century, Christian writers
acclaim Mary after the birth of Jesus a virgin, indeed the Virgin Mother.
OLD NATIVITY SCENES: REAL BIRTH AND YET VIRGINITY
We must detour for a moment, for there is something we must know before we
treat the miraculous phenomenon of a Virgin Mother. Our modern scenario of the
Christmas creche is really a recent development in art and theology. From the
earliest times, both in art and in literature, Mary (although a virgin) was
understood to have had a normal childbirth. First, like all women, she gave birth
in pain. Second, Jesus when born was polluted with blood and other bodily
excretions in virtue of where the birth channel is (inner urinam et faeces
nascimur). Finally, like other women, Mary experienced some form of postpartum blues. It helps to remember the triple "p's" (pain, pollution, post partum
blues) when considering the ancient and traditional depictions of the birth of
Jesus in the art of the early Church.
1191

Visually we tend to see Mary reclining, suggesting the pain and exhaustion she
suffered in an otherwise normal childbirth. The infant Jesus needs maidservants
or midwives to wash him of his pollution. And some pictures clearly portray
Mary in a despondent state after her delivery, experiencing a type of post partum
blues.
One may legitimately ask why the birth of Jesus was depicted so realistically.
Part of the answer must come from an artist's borrowing from daily experience of
the details of a typical birth scene in the Mediterranean world. Yet part of the
answer may lie in the insistence on Jesus' full humanity as part of the orthodox
response to Docetism. Once more Tertullian speaks in this regard, clearly stating
the doctrinal issue latent in the depiction of Jesus' normal childbirth. Here he
attempts to refute the heretic Marcion, contrasting Marcion's docetic image of
Jesus with the orthodox one:
(According to Marcion) (Jesus) . . . was never shed forth upon the ground, amidst
the sudden pains of parturition [pain], with the unclean issue which flows at such
time through the sewerage of the body [pollution], forthwith to inaugurate the
light of life with tears, and with that primal would which severs the child from
her who bears him [post partum blues?]; never did he (Marcion's Jesus) receive
the copious ablutions, nor the medication of salt and honey, nor did he initiate a
shroud with swaddling clothes; nor afterwards did he ever wallow in his own
uncleanness; in his mother's lap, nibbling at her breast (Adv. Marc. IV. xxi).
We emphasize the realism of the scenes of Mary's delivery of Jesus. Both in
picture and in story, it was a genuine childbirth, with the mother's customary
pains and post-partum blues and the child's pollution. Yet all this happened to a
virgin, nay, to the Virgin. How can this be?
MIDWIVES AND POST-PARTUM VIRGINITY
The midwives are the key to the ancient tradition of the post-partum virginity of
Mary. We noted above that they are needed to wash the baby Jesus of pollution as
a result of a real childbirth. But early on they served a second and more symbolic
function. Since the second century, midwives were present at the delivery of
Mary, not so much to attend her, but as witnesses to her post-partum virginity, as
the following legend describes:
And the midwife (Zalome) came out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she
said to her: "Salome, Salome, I have a new sight to tell you; a virgin has brought
forth, a thing which her nature does not allow." And Salome said: "As the Lord
1192

my God lives, unless I put (forward) my finger and test her condition, I will not
believe that a virgin has brought forth." And the midwife went in and said to
Mary: "Make yourself ready, for there is no small contention concerning you."
And Salome put forward her finger to test her condition. And she cried out,
saying: "Woe for my wickedness and my unbelief; for I have tempted the living
God's; and behold, my hand falls away from me, consumed by fire!" And she
prayed to the Lord. And she bowed her knees before the Lord, saying: "O God of
my fathers, remember me; for I am the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; do not
make me a public example to the children of Israel, but restore me to the poor.
For thou knowest, Lord, that in thy name I perform my duties and from thee I
have received my hire." And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before Salome
and said to her: "The Lord God has heard from prayer. Come near, touch the
child, and you will be healed." And she did so. And she said: "I will worship him,
for (in him) a great a king has been born to Israel." And Salome was healed as
she had requested, and she went out of the cave justified" (Protoevangelium of
James 19:1-20:4).
In certain early carvings, the midwife Salome holds her withered hand before
Mary, whose virginity she tested. This apocryphal scene amply illustrates the
high value put on the physical aspects of virginity in the Mediterranean world.
The miraculous anomaly of a virgin mother is noted by one witness but contested
by another. Two witnesses are needed for testimony to be true, and two are finally
secured. Of course they could never be men, but the witness of two midwives to
the virgin state of Mary's body would be all the testimony one could hope for.
Moreover, there are echoes in the narrative of the Eastern scene: two witnesses at
the empty tomb and two witnesses of Mary's virginity. Just as Thomas refused to
believe until he had put his hand in the open wounds of the risen Jesus (John
20:25), so Salome's challenge verbally resembles Thomas'.
The point, then, remains: despite realistic depictions of Mary's delivery, the
ancient tradition steadfastly maintained the physical perfection of her virginity.
Not only spotless before conception, Mary remained the consummate virgin,
even after childbirth. Nothing less is appropriate to the mother of the King of
Kings and Lord of Lords. His Mediterranean mother is perfect, as Mediterranean
females should be perfect. This elaborate scenario, however, was about to
change.
BRIGIT OF SWEDEN: NEW VISION OF THE NATIVITY AND NEW
EMPHASIS ON MARY'S VIRGINITY
In the fourteenth century, Brigit of Sweden had visions of the birth of Jesus. They
were quickly published and immediately swept over Italy and then the rest of
1193

Europe. The content of her visions clashed visually with the details of the
traditional representation; yet in Brigit's new scenario, the physical virginity of
Mary is even more exalted. What was the substance of Brigit's vision and what
effect did it have? The best thing is to quote Brigit herself:
When I was present by the manger of the Lord in Bethlehem, I beheld a virgin of
extreme beauty . . . well wrapped in a white mantel and a delicate tunic through
which I clearly perceived her virgin body. . . . With her was an old man of great
honesty, and they brought with them an ox and an ass. These entered the cave and
the man, after having tied them to the manger, went outside and brought to the
Virgin a burning candle; having attached this to the well he went outside, so that
he might not be present at the birth. Then the Virgin pulled off the shoes from her
feet, drew off the white mantel that enveloped her, removed the veil from her
head, laying it aside, thus remaining in her tunic alone with her beautiful golden
hair falling loosely down her shoulders. The Virgin knelt down with great
veneration in an attitude of prayer and her back was turned to the manger, but her
face was lifted up to heaven. . . . She was standing lost in an ecstasy in
contemplation in a rapture of divine sweetness. And while she was thus in prayer,
I saw the child in her womb move and suddenly in a moment she gave birth to
her son, from whom radiated such an ineffable light and splendor, that the sun
was not comparable to it, nor did the candle that St. Joseph had put there give any
light at all, the divine light totally annihilating the material light of the candle,
and so suddenly and instantaneous was this way of bringing forth, that I could
neither discover nor discern how or by means of which member she gave birth. . .
. I saw the glorious infant lying on the ground naked and shining. His body was
pure from any kind of soil or impurity.
According to Brigit's vision, then, Mary was a Virgin before, during, and after
childbirth. What is different here, however, is the absence of the three "p's"
characteristic of the traditional delivery scene. Mary suffered no pain, for the
child in an instant existed her body. Nor did the baby Jesus need cleansing
from pollution: "His body was pure from any kind of soil or impurity."
Forestalled also is any possibility of post-partum blues, for the Virgin was "lost
in an ecstasy of contemplation, in a rapture of divine sweetness."
Whatever was implicit in the tradition, however, is now made vividly clear in
Brigit's vision. Mary is the Permanent Virgin before, during, and after the birth of
Jesus. And what could only be suggested concerning Mary's virgin hymen, Brigit
makes quite explicit. "And so suddenly and instantaneous was this way of
bringing forth, that I could neither discover nor discern how or by means of
which member she gave birth." The babe exited from Mary as light passes
through glass. There was no amniotic fluid nor bodily excretions whatsoever in
1194

this birth. There could be no hint, then, of any impairment to the Virgin's body
during childbirth. And so there could be no question but that she remained a
virgin after delivery. Brigit's vision, then, took issue with all of the details of the
traditional nativity scene, but it embellished even more the tradition of Mary's
physical virginity during and after delivery. If anything, the Mediterranean
appreciation of female virtue and virginity were at a fuller tide than ever before.
It is a matter of record that Brigit's vision spread rapidly and became the
normative scenario for thinking about and visualizing the birth of Jesus. Her
vision influences us today, for our Christmas creches are based on Brigit's
description, not the traditional birth scene of the first millennium. [Illustrations:
Schiller, plates 200-206]
OLD VS. NEW: CLASH OF ART/CLASH OF THEOLOGY
Two centuries later, the feast of Christmas was renamed and celebrated as "The
Solemnity of the Virgin Mary." The Roman church decidedly and formally
celebrated the virginity of Mary, an emphasis dear to the heart of the Latin,
Mediterranean church. In this climate, we learn of one theologian, Johannes
Molanus of Louvain, who took theological issue with the traditional
presentations of Mary's delivery in favor of Brigit's version. Given the focus on
Mary's physical virginity before, during and after childbirth, this theologian saw
problems in maintaining the perfect physical virginity of Mary and the realism of
the traditional depiction of the Nativity. He championed the new style over the
old one.
Complaining of the traditional scenario of the Nativity, Molanus writes:
The Virgin is shown pale with pains, the midwives prepare a small (narcotic)
drought for the childbirth. Why this? Is it because the Virgin Mary would have
held back from any pain of childbirth, when in fact she brought forth her divine
son without pain? And what pertains to the midwives who are mentioned in the
apocryphal Book of the Infancy? Jerome says: There was no midwife! No
obtrusiveness of women intervened! She, the Virgin, was both mother and
midwife! I saw in not a few places the picture of the blessed Virgin lying on a
bed, depicting childbirth, and she was suffering pains from this birth, but that is
not true. How stupid! Those artists ought to be laughed at who paint Mary in the
very act of childbirth pains, accompanied with pain, midwife, bed, little knives
(to cut the umbilical cord), with hot compresses, and many other appurtenances. .
. . Rather, those pictures should be promoted which show the birth of Christ in
which the Blessed Virgin Mary with arms folded and on bended knee before her
1195

little son, as though he was just now brought forth into the light (Johannes
Molanus, De Imaginibus Sacris 1570)
The established value of promoting the virginity of Mary was so strong that it
looked at earlier depictions of the Nativity as compromising her virginity in
many ways. Insofar as older scenarios envisioned the scene as a real delivery,
they imply pain from uterine contractions and pollution from uterine fluids.
Although post-partum virginity was part and parcel of older Marian literature, the
realism of traditional Nativity art seemed to rebut it, at least in the eyes of some.
Molanus is but one voice in a chorus which sang the song of Brigit of Sweden,
even if he did not identify her with the new Nativity scene. The virginity of Mary,
in its physical detail and symbolic meaning, dictated how the Nativity should be
viewed. The pivotal value of Mediterranean females never lost its hold on
Christian imagination.
Conclusion
This essay has shown several things. First, it brought to light the cultural
perceptions of the way females were viewed and valued in typical Mediterranean
society. The pivotal values of the Mediterranean world, both ancient and modern,
are (male) honor and (female) shame. The moral division of labor completely
divides society into male and female worlds. According to cultural perceptions,
females belong to the private sphere, in particular the house; theirs are the
domestic tasks related to that female space, both food preparation and clothing
production. Female behavior should be defensive of virginity for maidens and
chastity for wives, that is, defensive of "shame"; they must never be "shameless."
This material is not entirely new to readers, but it is worth restating here as the
hypothesis of this essay.
These cultural observations are amply illustrated in regard to the most important
Mediterranean female, Mary. Mediterranean writers and artists both perceived
Mary in terms of the pivotal value in their culture, "shame," or in her case
perpetual virginity. In fact, learning about Mary, we learn information useful for
understanding the role and status of women in general in the ancient
Mediterranean world. And if our description is correct, the ancient cultural
perceptions survived and even thrived in time; what was true in the first centuries
remained true of Mediterranean perceptions of females a millennium or more
later.
Given the cultural equation of virginity and female "shame," Mary became
surrounded in legend with more and more attestations of the physical integrity of
her virginity, from the testimony of midwives to the visions of saints. Whole
1196

scenes were imaginatively constructed to safeguard and promote this pivotal

societal value. Annunciation scenes block the entrance of the angel into Mary's
private space by a wall. Or the scene takes place in a walled garden, a protected
environment for a maiden. Even the dramatization of conception is shifted from
any consideration of her female sexual organs to her ear. So important was this,
even the natural depictions of Jesus' birth were sacrificed in favor of a childbirth
totally devoid of any hint of loss of physical integrity to the Virgin's womb. In
short, if Mary is a Mediterranean maid, it is logical that she be depicted
according to the pivotal values of that cultural world. And if she is the mother of
the most honorable of Mediterranean men, then she must be ideally portrayed in
terms of the ultimate female virtue, virginity. To say "Mediterranean" maid is to
say "virgin."
Acknowledgement: Photographic reproductions
RESOURCE, New York, NY 10012.

by

permission

of

ART

Works Cited
Brown, Raymond E.
1978 Mary in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Dahl, Nils A.
1964 "Der Erstgeborene Satans und der Vater des Teufels." Pp. 70-84 in Walter
Eltester (ed.), Apophoreta. Berlin: Tpelman.
Daley, Brian
1986 "The 'Closed Garden' and the 'Sealed Fountain': Song of Songs 4:12 in the
Late Medieval Iconography of Mary." Pp. 255-79 in Medieval Gardens. Garden
Symposium Volume. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
Delaney, Carol
1987 "Seeds of Honor, Fields of Shame." Pp. 35-48 in David D. Gilmore
(ed.), Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean (American
Anthropological Association special publication # 22). Washington: American
Anthropological Association.
1197

Epstein, Louis M.
1948 Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism. New York: KTAV Publishing House,
Inc.
Guldan, Ernst
1966 Eva und Maria. Eine Antithese als Bildsmotiv. Graz: Heermann Bhlaus
Malina, Bruce J.
1981 The New Testament World. Insight from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta:
John Knox.
Pagels, Elaine H.
1988 Adam, Eve and the Serpent. New York: Random House.
Schiller, Gertrud
1971 Iconography of Christian Art. Vol. 1. London: Lund Humphries.
Steinberg, Leo
1987 "'How Shall This Be?' Reflections on Filippo Lippi's Annunciation in
London," Artibus et Historiae 16:25-44.

1198