In the passion account of Mark’s Gospel three disciples figure prominently: one the one hand, two of the twelve - Judas who betrays Jesus and Peter who denies him - and on the other, the unnamed woman who anoints Jesus. But while the stories of Judas and Peter are engraved in the memory of Christians, the story of the woman is virtually forgotten.Although Jesus pronounces in Mark: “And truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.” (Mark 14:9), the woman’s prophetic sign-action did not become a part of the gospel knowledge of Christians. Even her name is lost to us. Wherever the gospel is proclaimed and the Eucharist celebrated another story is told: the story of the apostle who betrayed Jesus. The name of the betrayer is remembered, but the name of the faithful disciple is forgotten because she was a woman.
Opening paragraph of the introduction to In Memory of Her by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza
17 Comments
very good quote. it surely demonstrates how male-oriented our tellings of the gospel stories are.
I am reading the book this for a class on women in G-R religion. I remember having some misgivings on her book Wisdom Ways when I skimmed it a year and a half ago. So far, (and I am only in the introduction, I just started the book this morning) I am eating it up.
I must agree that this poor woman is getting short changed in the retelling of the passion narrative. However, I don’t think that we don’t know her name is really given to a "male-orientation." It isn’t in the manuscript evidence for Mark’s work. Mark did not want us to know the name of the woman but rather the actions. It is not important who did it but that she did do it. She blessed the Lord.
I must also disagree that "it surely demonstrates how male-oriented our tellings of the gospel stories are." I think that Christians are not impressed–for lack of a better term–by this story. We are repugnant at Peter and Judas’ actions in denying their following Jesus and betraying him. Yet Judas’ actions are so central the passion narrative for it kicks off the mock trial and the whole passion. The transformation of Peter can really be seen when one looks at Peter as the one who denied Christ becomes the one who stood up before crowds and the Jewish leaders! We are amazed by Peter’s story. Christians today need to see the beauty of what this woman did. I just don’t see that being a gender issue. I see it being a lack of appreciation by all Christians of every gender!
ESF will finally be back from leave in the fall, I’m really excited to take a class or two from her.
I really love this story. We often forget, that this is the moment that Jesus actually becomes “The Christ/Messiah” (annointed), for it is this nameless woman who “annoints” him.
Building off this story, there’s often much discussion on how Luke viewed women due to their high involvement in his narrative yet often secondary status to male characters. I’ve seen good arguments on either side of the egalitarian/complimentarian battle. Yet, I think the fact that Luke omits this story, which Jesus himself said would be told “wherever the gospel is preached,” may tell us a lot about Luke’s view of women…
A simple proof will give us our understanding of what Luke’s own views of women were. This has been brilliantly employed by many of feminists.
1. If one has the property of being a man, then one has the property of being a misogynist.
2. St. Luke was a physician, the author of the Gospel of Luke and of the Acts of the Apostles, journeyed with St. Paul, and was a man.
_________________________________________
3. Therefore, Paul was a misogynist. (MP, 1 and 2)
(1) might be debatable, but many take it to be self-evident. I am not so sure.
I forgot to mention premise (2`) which states:
2`. Paul was a man.
This can give us a more valid argument, and a new conclusion (4`):
4`. Paul and Luke were misogynists.
Now, we can even add a new premise (5), which states:
5. Jesus was a man.
But I fear this will lead to unpopular conclusions.
Travis,
Some might hold to your convenient construction of feminist theology (see Becoming Divine), but the person I am quoting most certainly does not.
What your comments do show is an excellent representation of how people who do not understand certain feminist interpretations lump them with all possible feminist interpretations, represent the worst as speaking for the whole group and then summarily dismiss all of them without actually engaging them. You’re better than that Travis, I know you.
Please don’t read ‘male-oriented’ as code for patriarchal or misogynist. You’re reacting to something that wasn’t even in my mind as I wrote my post.
The observation that OUR tellings of the gospel narratives is ‘male oriented’ is not debatable. Men dominantly get the focus and women are often left out of the story. You can say its just about pivotal points in the narratives, but I’m amazed at how often the stories of great women get overlooked in our retelling of Jesus’ story. (well, except for that time Jesus had to rebuke Mary - I’ve heard plenty of sermons on that one and I’ve never heard one on this woman)
I never said or implied with that ‘male oriented’ comment that any of the biblical writers were patriarchal, mysogynists or anything else - I simply said our tellings are male-oriented. That is an observation - not necessarily a value judgment. We choose to focus on the negative actions of Peter and Judas (for good reason), but we almost completely ignore the good action of this woman. Though, I bet if she had sinned we (as in Christians through the centuries) would somehow find a way to oppress women through her example…you know its true!
Yet another case of the hegemonic mysoginist patristic male chauvenists supressing women…this time it comes from the Bible itself! PHEH!
(BTW nice gravatar Mr. Imler, I have been trying to integrate more comic grapics on my blog)
Actually, it seems to me that we have reason to think that this woman was Mary the sister of Martha, due to the similar accounts of disdain from Judas and really the rest of the mysognists in John 12.
Well, John 12 appears to be John’s retelling/interpretation of that event. He gives the most explanation of the three gospel accounts (who the woman is, who exactly was upset with her, why precisely they were upset, etc.). Also, John places it in the house of Martha, whereas Mark and Matthew place it in the house of Simon the leper. I haven’t studied John’s portrayal of this event near as much as I have Mark and Matthew’s, but there are some significant differences.
I don’t see how anyone can question the church’s role (specifically the male leadership of the church) in subjugating women throughout the centuries. Unfortunately, at times the Bible (and most specifically the way we read it) reflects this.
Tom and Honzo,
First, I just want to say that my previous posts were not meant to be understood as dogma that is proposed by all feminists; in fact to say so would be a straw man, a fallacy on my part. Nor do I wish to over-generalize, for that would be wrong as well. However, studying some feminists political theory and theology, there are certain truth claims being in the feminists camp made that do not necessarily presuppose the use of premise (1) (i.e. “all men are misogynists”), but it couldn’t hurt their cause if (1) would be true. Think of it like grease in the cogs to help things run more smoothly.
This being said, Tom brought of an interesting point by elucidating that ‘male-oriented’ is not code for patriarchal or misogynist. This is refreshing. However, your call for change in the outlook of many Christians loses its “cash-value” by saying this. What is exactly wrong with being male-oriented? What is male-oriented? If you look at the ministry of Christ, he choose 12 men to be his closest friends and students, no women. Did he turn women away? No! But was he male-oriented. Until I get a better definition, I would have to say yes. Also, how many prophets are there compared to prophetesses?
Food for thought,
Travis
Sorry for misreading you Tom. That is just what seemed to come across as I read your post in line with some of your previous posts. I do apologize. My misunderstanding of "male-oriented" reminds me of a heated discussion between two of my brothers at FCC here in KC about Ron Paul and the election coming up. A statement comes up that can be taken one way that the person who made the statement never even intended it to be taken in a million years. That was bad. Thanks for the rebuff or rebuke.
But I do think that Mark 14 and this unnamed woman is missed because of our lack of amazement by it and not a gender issue. It does need to be brought to the foreground as Mark and Jesus intended it to be.
I also think Travis makes a keen observation about the "male-orientedness" of the Biblical narrative as a whole. The Bible is very male centered. Even God is revealed to be a Father and Jesus is the "Son" of God and "Son" of Man. I just don’t see why it is necessarily a bad thing for the church to have a certain male oriented reading of the story. It is right there. Just thinking aloud.
I’m curious who among feminist political theorists and theologians you have read. Further, I’m curious what these “truth claims” are that you speak of.
I interact with “feminists” pretty regularly, and at times even consider myself one. The message I typically get from their “camps” is that of equality, of equalizing power structures, of ending oppression. I fail to see how “premise (1)” in any way plays into their cause. Such a supposition would ultimately damage their goals, for if they viewed all men in such a way, equality and liberation would never actually be possible.
Certainly, throughout the years there have been voices in various feminist movements that do proclaim strict hatred for men and all that they represent. Yet, one tends to find the most moronic voices of any group to be the most outspoken. Taking such extreme positions as the norm or even helpful to the norm is indeed an improper logical leap. That would be like saying Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church may not represent all Christians, but their rhetoric certainly wouldn’t hurt Christian truth claims. It’s just absurd.
I have to go, but I’ll likely be back with some thoughts on all the issues surrounding the “male-orientedness” of our Biblical texts.
Travis -
We have plenty of evidence that Mary of Magdala, Salome, Mary and Martha all were close friends of Jesus, and that many women traveled with him. We also have plenty of evidence that women were prominent leaders in the early church. So what if our take on the 12 is only due to male-oriented readings?
JR,
I completely agree with you that Mary Magdalene, Salome, Mary and Martha were close friends of Jesus. I also completely agree with you that these women traveled with him and were very much apart of his ministry here on earth. However, no women in the bible is given the post of disciple (Greek: mathetes) by our Lord. All that I was saying was that here is the most amazing human being in the history of man choosing only andres and no gynaikes to be his disciples. I don’t think it would be very presumptuous to say that these 12 spent more time and were in closer proximity to Jesus than any group of people. I am sure there is a reason for this, and I am also sure that the reason was not because Jesus saw women as inferior to men.
Also, I could be reading the scripture with a male-centered perspective, but then again, others could be reading it with a feminists-centered perspective. Arguing over who has the darker exegetical-lenses is going to get us no where, so I think it would do us well to be honest with our own perspectives and then objectively examine (with God’s grace and the Spirit’s illumination) the words of Scriptures.
Best,
TG
Travis,
We don’t know that Jesus never called women ‘disciples’. All we know is that none of the canonical Gospel authors record him saying that to any of them. And ESF has persuasively argued that, in fact, we can tell from several early Christian documents that these women (and others) were accorded positions of authority equal to that of the 11, which indicates that these women were regarded by Jesus and his earliest followers as equal in authority/position to the 11. Might the fact that Jesus used the 12 as missionaries (or apostles, if you prefer to be more literal) have more to do with his decision to choose men?
While you may be sure that Jesus didn’t regard men and women as unequal (inequal?), the fact that the Canon doesn’t name any women as disciples (or list them among the 12) has been used TONS to subjugate and oppress women in the church.
JR,
I am interested in what evidence ESF finds to build her argument that women shared the same authority as the apostles. Relevant to this is how ESF defines the authority of the apostles. What nuances, in her own words, does she distinguish the authority of the apostles from those of the overseers/decons/teachers/ect? She also must show that women in times past shared in these nuances as well. (Also, I would only be willing to accept documents that are dated 100 AD or prior. Mutiple manuscripts of the same document would be nice as well.)
This being said, the fact that we do not know that Jesus did not call women disciples does not allow us (or justify us) us to infere that he did call some women to be disciples proper (as opposed to mere students of his Gospel, which obviously the women in Scripture were).
Finally, it is sad that many have used the Scriptures as a means of injustice and oppresion. I of course am not arguing for such a use of the Bible. I just want to be fair to God’s Word. There are hard sayings in the Bible, some that might seem incomprehensible to our politically correct world. But there they, staring back at us, demanding us to seek its Wisdom.
Best,
TG