Introduction
1. Paul, one of the earliest Christians, claims that he has freedom to live like the rest of the apostles. He claims that he should be able to accept financial support, to eat and drink, and to marry. These three practices seem to be linked as signs of a “normal” lifestyle. Paul’s choice to be temporarily celibate will be discussed elsewhere in this book. My point at present is that sex, food, and money were ideologically linked in the cultures of John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul. Their relationship will be discussed more thoroughly throughout this book.
2. Dale B. Martin,
Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), p. 97.
4. Bill Watterson,
Homicidal Psycho Jungle Cat: A Calvin and Hobbes Collection (Kansas City, Mo.: Andrews McMeel Publishing, 1994), p. 152.
5. Excerpt from Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi,
Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1982), reproduced in
The Collective Memory Reader (eds J. Olick, V. Vinitzky-Seroussi, and D. Levy) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 206−207.
Chapter 1
1. Quoted from Cathleen Falsani,
The Dude Abides: The Gospel According to the Coen Brothers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), p. 111.
2.
For more on the image and influence of James Bond see Judith Roof, “Living the James Bond Lifestyle” in
Ian Fleming and James Bond: The Cultural Politics Of 007 (eds Edward P. Comentale, Stephen Watt, and Skip Willman) (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005), pp. 71−86.
3. Hal Childs,
The Myth of the Historical Jesus and the Evolution of Consciousness (SBLDS 179; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), p. 98.
4. Chris Keith,
Jesus’ Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee (London: Bloomsbury, 2011), pp. 165−187.
5. For more on the God of the Hebrew Bible in relation to other ancient Israel theologies see April D. DeConick,
Holy Misogyny: Why the Sex and Gender Conflicts in the Early Church Still Matter (New York: Continuum, 2011), pp. 1−14.
6. For the sake of space and focus, I will not detail the many and varied permutations of ascetic expression during this period. I should acknowledge that the term “encratism” (pertaining to self-discipline) is probably more fitting for some of the examples that I will discuss in this book. I will stick with the word “asceticism” to avoid undue jargon. In sum, I tend to see degrees of asceticism in Platonic thought, Gnosticism, and Jewish mysticism. In what follows I will be speaking of asceticism very broadly. The reader should be aware that there are some important differences between these categories that cannot be addressed here. But, generally speaking, most Greek education between 100
B.C.E. and 200
C.E. (what could be called “Middle Platonism”) adopted or adapted some form of dualism between the physical world and higher realities. As is always the case with neighboring ideologies, some expressions developed as reactions to previous expressions. But, in general, asceticism is the attempt to move closer to a higher reality and farther from the material world.
7. Prov. 5:18−19 (New American Standard Bible).
8. From Galen’s lost commentary on Plato’s
Republic cited and translated in R. Walzer,
Galen on Jews and Christians (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 15.
9. Paul’s marital status will be discussed later in this book. At present, it is worth noting that Paul may well have been married at some point in his life.
10.
In this film, the protagonist’s journey leads him into a hedonist party where he demonstrates that he is all but disinterested in sex. “The Dude” passes out and literally sleeps through the party and into the next stage of his journey. Filmmaking duo Ethan and Joel Coen are quite fond of retelling ancient stories like this one.
11. St. Jerome,
On Marriage and Virginity, 22.19.
12. Augustine,
On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1.4.
13. Augustine,
On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1.5.
14. St. Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologica, 153.2.
15. Quoted by Clement of Alexandria,
Stromateis, 3.59; cf. also
Stromateis, 3.7.
16. Clement of Alexandria,
Stromateis, 3.49.
17. I will discuss this possibility further in chapter 9.
Chapter 2
1. Sandra Jacobs, “Divine Virility in Priestly Representation: Its Memory and Consummation in Rabbinic Midrash” in
Men and Masculinity in the Hebrew Bible and Beyond; Bible in the Modern World 33 (ed. Ovidiu Creang
ă) (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010) p. 163.
2. Translations from the Chinese by Arthur Waley (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1941), pp. 72−73. I provide this poem to illustrate that the problem of the silence of women in history is not a specifically Jewish or Mediterranean one. I do not intend to suggest that these problems are identical from culture to culture, only that there is evidence of widespread and analogous phenomena.
3. Hu and Ch’in are two places separated by a great geographical distance.
4.
I should acknowledge that if Fu Xüan is guilty of enclosing the voice of an ancient Chinese woman in his poem, I am equally guilty of enclosing this voice within these pages. Moreover, my cultural distance from this voice risks further alienation; compare Yak-Hwee Tan, “The Question of Social Location and Postcolonial Feminist Hermeneutics of Liberation” in
Feminist Interpretation of the Bible (eds Silvia Schroer and Sophia Bietenhard) (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), pp. 171−178. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s insights notwithstanding, I am convinced that bridge building between disparate social placements is worth attempting, even if early attempts must be nuanced with the maturity of later generations.
5. However, see Tal Ilan,
Silencing the Queen: The Literary Histories of Shelamzion and Other Jewish Women, Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 115 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Kenneth Atkinson,
Queen Salome: Jerusalem’s Warrior Monarch of the First Century B.C.E. (Jefferson: Mcfarland, 2012).
6. Catholic tradition has long held that Joseph (the father of Jesus) had been previously married and had sired Jesus’ “half-brothers” before he was betrothed to Mary, the mother of Jesus. This belief stems from the agenda to preserve the “perpetual virginity” of Mary. This is to say that many Catholics throughout the ages believed that Mary was a virgin her whole life. Therefore, the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters can be explained by Joseph’s previous marriage. The more plausible scenario is that Mary and Joseph had several biological children together. For more on Jesus’ family, see Richard Bauckham, “The Family of Jesus” in
Jesus among Friends and Enemies: A Historical and Literary Introduction to Jesus in the Gospels (eds Chris Keith and Larry W. Hurtado) (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), pp. 103−125.
7. Mark 6:3. Centuries later, various Christian writers speculated as to what the names of Jesus’ sisters might be. These included Maria, Anna, Salome, Lysia, and Lydia.
8. To illustrate the exception to the rule, Mark gives no indication that he is aware of Jesus’ father, Joseph. Jesus’ mother, on the other hand, is mentioned by name multiple times.
9. Matt. 8:14; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38.
11. Clement interprets a line from the Letter to the Philippians as evidence that Paul was married (Phil. 4:3). According to Clement, “the only reason [Paul] did not take her around with him is that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry” (
Stromateis, 3.53). Clement also notes that Philip had daughters and he gave them in marriage.
12.
Proto-Gospel of James 19:3−20:1.
13. Clement,
Stromateis, 3.45.
14.
Many Church Fathers believed that sin entered the world perpetually through procreation. Because sex was linked to childbirth, no human could be born without a nature of sin. Some believed that each woman who gave birth perpetuated Eve’s sin and passed this sin nature on to her children. For more see DeConick,
Holy Misogyny, esp. pp. 124−127.
15. Jennifer A. Glancy writes: “Mary is protected not only from sexual activity but also from the stain of menarche.” Glancy sees this birth as the climax of a Gospel that is obsessed with purity. “Just as the [
Proto-Gospel of James] implies that the Jerusalem temple is a sacred space that should not be polluted by womanly fluids, so the text implies that Mary’s body is a sacred space. Mary’s womb is Jesus’ prenatal sanctuary. It should not be sullied by the usual sordid by-products of femininity.” In Glancy,
Corporal Knowledge: Early Christian Bodies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 108−109.
16. It is possible that all of these Salomes are fictional characters invented separately by early Christianity. Salome was a highly popular name during this period (perhaps made even more so by the beloved Shelamzion “Salome” Alexandra). I think the better solution is that these different historical fictions are based on a single historical figure.
17.
Gospel of Thomas 61; some early Christians believed that the most high God was an undivided being, neither male nor female. Lesser deities were divided into male and female counterparts. This division was seen as the root problem that separated humanity from the enlightened mind of God. This saying in Thomas probably reflects the belief that being divided is problematic.
20. It should also be observed that Salome is appended to Jesus’ legacy. In this way, we commemorate her within the frame of a male legacy. Admittedly, Jesus’ historical gravitas trumps every figure to which it is associated in the stories related to his life and teachings.
21.
Even modern scholars have attempted to find a man for Salome. Richard Bauckham makes an interesting argument that the Salome who affirms Mary’s virginity is meant to be understood as the daughter of Joseph and the half-sister of Jesus. See Richard Bauckham,
Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (London: T & T Clark, 1990), p. 40. But the text does not indicate anything of the kind. I think it is far more likely that this portion of the
Proto-Gospel of James has borrowed from an earlier virgin-birth narrative that is relatively independent from the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke but with specific knowledge of Mark. See George T. Zervos, “Seeking the Source for the Marian Myth: Have We Found the Missing Link?” in
Which Mary? The Marys of Early Christian Tradition (ed. Stanley Jones) Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 19 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002). The author of the birth narrative of
Proto-Gospel of James seems to be aware that Salome is associated with the passion events that occur in Jerusalem.
22. Anne Lapidus Lerner,
Eternally Eve: Images of Eve in the Hebrew Bible (Lebanon, NH: Brandeis University Press, 2007), pp. 167−168.
23. Ilan,
Silencing the Queen, p. 20.
Chapter 3
1. DeConick,
Holy Misogyny, p. xi.
2.
Gospel of Philip 59; some argue that “kiss her often on the feet” is a better translation. The fragmentary nature of this passage will be discussed below.
4.
Gospel of Philip 11−12.
5. Bart D. Ehrman,
Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 122.
6. This group probably inherited a version of Christianity from a philosopher named Valentinus (born
c. 100
C.E. and died
c. 165
C.E.).
7. In this way, the Valentinians were similar to many versions of “gnostic” Christianity. The term gnosis literally means “knowledge.” Gnostic Christians are generally described as Christians who sought salvation through special knowledge of heavenly matters. Another prominent feature of Gnostic thought was the view that the human spirit was trapped in an evil material world, created by a lesser god. Building from this mythology, Gnostic Christians believed that “salvation” included spiritual transcendence beyond the realm of the Hebrew God and into the presence of the “true God.”
8.
The
Gospel of Philip makes a distinction between sex that is between spiritual equals and that which is not. Sex without spiritual solidarity is called adultery. It is possible that Philip’s portrait of Jesus, representing perfectly transcendent humanity, included a model of union between male and female. If so, Mary might have been brought into this narrative because she was the most well-known female disciple of Jesus.
10. DeConick,
Misogyny, p. 98.
13.
Gospel of Thomas 108.
15. Ehrman,
Lost Christianities, p. 122.
16. Through personal correspondence, Mark Goodacre suggests that the text was originally “kissed her on the feet.”
17.
Gospel of Thomas 114. It is worth observing that Tal Ilan argues that one of the techniques to diminish and silence women during this period is to argue that the figure in question is really a man. In
Silencing the Queen, pp. 20−25.
18. Gillian Clark,
Christianity and Roman Society: Key Themes in Ancient History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 20−29.
19. This will be discussed further in chapters 8 and 9 of this book.
20. Paul Foster,
The Apocryphal Gospels: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 48.
Chapter 4
1. Nikos Kazantzakis,
The Last Temptation of Christ (trans. from Greek, 1953; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1960).
2. John P. Meier,
A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), pp. 332−345.
3. Martin,
Sex and the Single Savior, p. 96.
4.
It might be helpful to remember that Mary was an extremely popular name during the time of Jesus. Scholar Tal Ilan has listed 247 names of women from 330
B.C.E.−200
C.E. Of these 247, 59 named women are called “Mary”. In
Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity, Part I: Palestine 330 B.C.E.−200 C.E.; Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 91 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), p. 195. My thanks to Mark Goodacre for pointing me to this work.
6. As one would expect, there were exceptions to this portrait. One of the more bizarre portraits of Jesus and Magdalene emerges from Catholic accusations of a group deemed heretical. In the early thirteenth century, a group called the “Cathars” were accused of teaching that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. In their view, Magdalene was one and the same with the “adulterous woman” of John 4:7−42. But it is extremely difficult to differentiate between what the Cathars taught and what they were accused of teaching. For example, they were accused of incest, bestiality, contraception, and so on. In other words, their theological opponents accused them of being anti-Catholic at every turn when it came to sexuality (and a host of other issues). On the contrary, the Cathars probably practiced sexual abstinence to a great extent. So we do not have an untainted window (via Roman Catholic propaganda and interrogation) into what this sect believed or taught. It is possible, however, that they believed that there were two Christs. The first Christ was heavenly and the second was earthly – the second being evil (or a pseudo-Christ). If the Cathars did indeed teach of this marriage, a further level of difficulty emerges in trying to determine which of the two Christs wed Magdalene. See Yuri Stoyanov,
The Other God: Dualist Religions from Antiquity to the Cathar Heresy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 278−280.
7. “Saint Mary Magdalene” in
The Golden Legend: Readings of the Saints (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), pp. 374−383, here 375.
8. Quoted from Alison Chapman,
Patrons and Patron Saints in Early Modern English Literature (New York: Routledge, 2013), p. 123.
9. John Donne “To the Lady Magdalen Herbert: of St. Mary Magdalen (1607)” in
The Poems of John Donne, vol. 1 (ed. Sir Herbert Grierson) (London: Oxford University Press, 1912), pp. 317−318.
10. Chapman,
Patrons and Patron Saints in Early Modern English Literature, p. 124.
11. Cecil B. DeMille,
King of Kings (Janus Films, 1927).
12.
The Last Temptation of Christ (Universal Pictures, 1988).
14. Darren J.N. Middleton,
Scandalizing Jesus?: Kazantzakis’s The Last Temptation of Christ
Fifty Years On (London: Bloomsbury, 2005), pp. 148−149.
15. “Christmas Song” on
Remember Two Things (RCA Records, 1997).
16. Stephen King,
The Dark Tower V: Wolves of the Calla (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003), p. 295.
17. Veronica Patterson,
Swan What Shores? (New York: New York University Press, 2000), p. 23.
18. Dan Brown,
The Da Vinci Code (reprint from 2003; New York: Anchor, 2009), pp. 319−320.
19. Compare Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, Henry Lincoln,
The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (London: Jonathan Cape, 1982).
23. Except, of course, the phrase “my wife.”
Chapter 5
2.
However, see the insightful discussion of Sallman in Edward J. Blum and Paul Harvey,
The Color of Christ: The Son of God and the Saga of Race in America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012), pp. 208−211. See also Stephen Prothero,
American Jesus: How the Son of God Became a National Icon (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004), pp. 116−123.
3. Richard S. Van Wagoner explains, “Polygamy, a criminal act under the 1833 Illinois Anti-bigamy Laws, was so unacceptable to monogamous nineteenth-century society that it could be introduced to the Church only in absolute secrecy.” “Sarah Pratt: The Shaping of an Apostate” in
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19.2 (1986), pp. 69−99, here p. 71.
4. John G. Turner,
Brigham Young: Pioneer, Prophet (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2012), p. 91.
5. Brigham Young, “Gathering the Poor – Religion a Science” in
Journal of Discourses 13 (1871), pp. 300−309, here p. 306.
7. Young, “Gathering the Poor,” p. 306.
8. “Beneficial Effects of Polygamy: Remarks by President Brigham Young,”
Journal of Discourses 11 (1866), pp. 266−272, here p. 269.
9. Van Wagoner, “Sarah Pratt,” p. 72.
10. Alongside many similar stories by excommunicated Mormons, William Law’s testimony stands out: “Joseph is the liar and not she. That Smith admired and lusted after many men’s wives and daughters,
is a fact, but they could not help that. They or most of them considered his admiration an insult, and treated him with scorn. In return for this scorn, he generally managed to blacken their reputations – see the case of … Mrs. Pratt, a good, virtuous woman” in “Letter to the Salt Lake Tribune,” 20 January 1887 (emphasis original).
11. In the early years of plural marriage in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith taught that the first wife must consent to her husband’s taking of a second wife. When Sarah refused to give her consent, a caveat was amended to the original rule. The amendment stated that if a wife refused to consent, the husband may take an additional wife without consent.
12. Van Wagoner, “Sarah Pratt,” p. 92.
13.
New York Herald, 18 May 1877.
16. “Celestial Marriage” in
The Seer vol. 1.11 (1853), pp. 169−176, here p. 170.
17. Jedediah M. Grant, “Uniformity” in
Journal of Discourses vol. 1 (1854), pp. 341−349, here p. 345
18.
Grant, “Uniformity,” p. 346.
19. Origen’s
Against Celsus book 3, chapter 10; my thanks to Mark Wildish for pointing me to this parallel between this passage and Grant’s claim.
20. It is also worth noting that Joseph Smith’s polygamy and the dissent that it caused among his ranks played no small part in his eventual murder in 1844. After Smith’s sexual advances toward the wives of Dr. Robert Foster and William Law, both men were excommunicated for their dissent. Foster and Law then established a publication called the
Nauvoo Expositor for the purpose of exposing Smith’s sexual misconduct and showing him to be a fallen prophet. This contributed greatly to the hostile climate that soon led to his death at the hands of an angry mob. Cf. Will Bagley,
Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows (Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 2004), pp. 11−17. With this in mind, we find a parallel with Pratt’s Jesus, who was persecuted for his practice of plural marriage and then martyred.
23. Here I use the letters LGBT (as they have been used for the past decade) to refer to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. I should, however, acknowledge that some advocates include more letters: LGBTQIA. Here the Q can refer to “queer” (a derogatory term that has been rehabilitated in advocacy circles) or “questioning.” I refer to “intersex” denoting anatomy that is not exclusively male or female. “A” can refer to “allies” of the community or “asexual.”
26.
It should be pointed out, however, that this notion was entertained as early as Christopher Marlowe (1564–1593) in literary circles.
27. Albert Baumgarton, “Smith, Morton (1915−91)” in
Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation: K−Z (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), p. 477.
28. William M. Calder III, “Morton Smith†,” Gn. 64 (1992), pp. 382−383, here p. 382.
29. Stephen C. Carlson,
The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith’s Invention of Secret Mark (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005), p. 85.
30. The fact of the disappearance of this document is probably not the fault of Morton Smith. It does, however, contribute to the problems associated with testing the document and the mystery that hounds this story at every turn.
32. Eric Marcus,
Making Gay History: The Half Century Fight for Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights (New York: HarperCollins, 2002), pp. 19−70.
33. Morton Smith,
Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973); Morton Smith,
The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel According to Mark (New York: Harper & Row, 1973).
34. Morton Smith, “Psychiatric Practice and Christian Dogma” in
Journal of Pastoral Care 3 (1949), pp. 12−20, here pp. 16−17.
35. Cf. Smith, “Psychiatric Practice,” p. 12.
36. Smith,
The Secret Gospel, p. 114; I credit Bart Ehrman for pointing out the particularly sexualized biases present in Smith’s interpretation; see B.D. Ehrman, “Response to Charles Hedrick’s Stalemate” in
JECS 11 (2003), p. 157.
37. Baumgarton, “Smith, Morton (1915−91),” p. 477.
38. James H. Hunter,
The Mystery of Mar Saba (Toronto: Evangelical Publishers, 1940).
39. Francis Watson, “Beyond Suspicion: On the Authorship of the Mar Saba Letter and the Secret Gospel of Mark,” in
Journal of Theological Studies 61.1 (2011), pp. 128−170, here pp. 169−170.
40.
Dale Martin has recently considered (albeit cautiously) the possibility of a homosexual Jesus following Smith’s lead: “Whatever one may think of Smith’s hypothesis, one must admit it would solve some conundrums. The significance of the naked young man in the canonical Gospel of Mark is just one such problem. Perplexing parallels between the Gospels of Mark and John constitute another. And the Jesus of Smith’s reconstruction would go a long way toward explaining why Jesus may have never married” in
Sex and the Single Savior, p. 96.
41. Carlson,
The Gospel Hoax, p. 85.
Chapter 6
2.
Mad Men is an AMC television series created and produced by Matthew Weiner. I quote here from an episode titled “Smoke Gets in Your Eyes” (season 1; episode 1) as quoted by Ada S.Jaarsma who comments: “Draper seems to get something right here about advertising’s ability to create the desires of consumers … When he comments that ‘guys like me’ invented love to sell nylons, Draper is asserting an argument about our own susceptibility, as consumers, to the messages of brands’ managers … Nylons, in Draper’s example, are packaged under brand associations of ‘romance’ or ‘falling in love.’ In the specific case of nylons, the world’s first synthetic stockings, DuPont’s invention brought together modern science with domestic, feminine ease. Its successful market, however, did not employ the brand name DuPont since it reminded the public of ‘chemistry.’ Rather, the name of the product’s material, ‘nylon’, became synonymous with the general category of ‘stockings,’ the branding so successful as to be rendered invisible … By branding nylons in terms of ‘romantic love,’ ad men like Don Draper are mobilizing other forces besides truth or logic that drive consumer choices – forces such as the longing for meaning and authenticity”. Taken from “An Existential Look at
Mad Men: Don Draper, Advertising, and the Promise of Happiness” in
Mad Men and Philosophy (eds Rod Carveth and James B. South) (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010), pp. 95−110; here pp. 96−98.
3. Tremper Longman III,
Song of Songs: The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), p. 59.
4. Persian influence on some portions of the biblical Song of Songs might suggest a much earlier date.
5. Here, “four limbs” can mean “arms and legs,” but it might also be a metaphor for female genitalia.
6.
Quoted from Joseph N. Bell,
Love Theory in Later Ḥanbalite Islam (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1979), p. 134.
7. Unrequited love, while a popular theme in modern cultures, is not a common feature of ancient eroticism. Indeed, the
raison d’être of most erotic poetry is to describe the physicality of sexual encounter and the emotions associated with this pursuit. Even if there are obstacles to achieving this, one normally expects those obstacles to be overcome.
8. Magda Bogin,
The Women Troubadors: An introduction to the women poets of 12th-century Provence and a collection of their poems (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1980), p. 15.
9. Bogin,
The Women Troubadors, p. 101.
10.
See R. Howard Bloch, Medieval Misogyny and the Invention of Western Romantic Love (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), esp. pp. 113−142.
11. Marilyn Yalom,
How the French Invented Love: Nine Hundred Years of Passion and Romance (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2012), p. 41.
12. C.S. Lewis,
The Allegory of Love (1936, reprint, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 12.
13. Cultures of individualism can also value collective identity and well-being. Conversely, cultures of collectivism can also value individual desire, need, and achievement. The difference here is which concept of well-being is primary. I should also clarify that I do not intend to promote one cultural system as intrinsically better.
14. Ezra 9:12; compare Deut. 7:3.
19. It should also be pointed out that this story serves as sacred scripture for many people. With this in mind, there have been numerous critiques and reinterpretations of this story to adapt it for many different audiences over the centuries. Stories like this one are not useful windows into the ideals of all of the groups that have claimed them as sacred.
20.
In addition to the internal detractors of Ezra 9−10, it might be helpful to remember what the book of Jeremiah has to say on this subject: “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jer. 29:4−7).
21. Carol Meyers, “The Family in Early Israel” in
Families in Ancient Israel, (eds D.S. Browning and E.S. Evison) (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), pp. 1−47, here p. 21.
22. A Roman philosopher of the first century
C.E. named Gaius Musonius Rufus is a good counter-example to collectivism. He wrote: “Therefore those who contemplate marriage ought to have regard neither for family, whether either one be of highborn parents, nor for wealthy, whether on either side there be great possessions, nor for physical traits, whether one or the other have beauty. For neither wealth nor beauty nor high birth is effective in promoting partnership of interest or sympathy, nor again are they significant for producing children” in
Discourses 13b. Notice that in this case, where Rufus argues against societal norms that would bespeak collectivism, the purposes of marriage are to promote partnership and to produce children. So even in cases of extreme “individualism” (if we may call it that), first-century notions of marriage were not romanticized, and look to promote family over individual desire/achievement. Further discussion about emerging “ïndividualistic” nations of sexuality among urban eliles might consider the playful narratives of Greek erotic novels. For a recent discussion see Helen Morales, “The History of Sexualily” in
The Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel (ed. Tim Whitmarsh) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 39–55.
23. William E. Phipps,
Was Jesus Married?: The Distortion of Sexuality in the Christian Tradition (Lantham, MD: University Press of America, 1986).
Chapter 7
1.
Girls in modern, industrialized societies transition to puberty around the age of twelve. In pre-industrialized societies this age was probably closer to fifteen. The ancient, agrarian Mediterranean might have seen the age of puberty closer to fourteen. See J.H.J. Bancroft,
Human Sexuality and its Problems (Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1989), p. 191. It is also important to note that maternal death during childbirth was a significant problem in the ancient world. As many as one in eight women died while giving birth in Roman-occupied territories. See T.G. Parkin,
Demography and Roman Society (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1992), pp. 103−105.
3. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin 29b−30a. This text probably reflects an ideal and may not reflect standard practice.
4. Compare Meyers’s assessment of early Israel in “The Family in Early Israel,” p. 18, and Michael L. Satlow’s assessment of the Bablyonian rabbis in
Jewish Marriage in Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), p. 105; it is also worth noting that the Apostle Paul, who was a first-century Jew living in Judea, held ideas about marriage that were quite similar to these Babylonian rabbis. Paul seemed to value the ideal of celibacy but acknowledged that marriage was an acceptable institution. And like the ideas of the later Babylonian rabbis, Paul thought that marriage might provide an outlet for sexual desire. So we see that sometimes these rabbinic ideas stem from the seeds of a much earlier time period.
5. For example, these rabbis discuss betrothal, but the practice of “betrothal” may not have been commonly practiced before the second century. See Hayim Lapin,
Rabbis as Romans: The Rabbinic Movement in Palestine, 100−400 CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 133−134.
6. Tim Parkin and Arthur Pomeroy,
Roman Social History: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 2007), pp. 46−58.
7. Relatedly, Satlow writes that the Mishnah (m. Yeb. 10.18; m. Nid. 5.4) establishes the minimum “legal age of marriage at nine for a male and three for a female.” He is careful to qualify that “the minimum legal age of marriage says nothing about what people actually did, and only slightly more about their ideals” (
Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, p. 307).
8. Meyers, “The Family in Early Israel,” p. 21.
10.
Lynn Cohick,
Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), p. 119; compare the more focused study of Adiel Schremer, “Men’s Age at Marriage in Jewish Palestine of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods” in
Zion 61 (1996): pp. 45–66.
11. Satlow suggests that Babatha’s first husband (Jesus, son of Jesus) was likely a child in 110
C.E. when he received a legal transfer of his father’s estate. If so, he was likely in his early twenties when he married Babatha (
Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, p. 97).
12. N. Lewis and M. Reinhold,
Roman Civilization, Vol. 2 (New York: Harper & Row, 1955), pp. 48−52.
13. These laws included penalties and incentives for the transfer inheritance. This demonstrates how closely tied were marriage, family, and economics in this context. In the next chapter, I will revisit this idea in my discussion of “civic masculinity.”
15. Satlow,
Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, p. 104.
17. Did the accounts of Jesus’ divinely conceived birth cause some to think that he was really illegitimate? Or did the rumors of Jesus’ illegitimacy inspire the stories about Jesus’ birth? I would guess that these two interpretations of Jesus are related in some way, but I cannot say how.
Chapter 8
1. Susan E. Haddox, “Favoured Sons and Subordinate Masculinities” in
Men and Masculinity in the Hebrew Bible and Beyond: Bible in the Modern World 33 (ed. Ovidiu Creang
ă) (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010), pp. 2−19, here pp. 6−7; Haddox draws from David J.A. Clines,
Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 205 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 212−241.
2. The important distinction here is between “hegemonic” and “subordinate” masculinities. These four criteria are generally associated with varieties of hegemonic masculinity.
3.
See Colleen Conway,
Behold the Man: Jesus and Greco-Roman Masculinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
5. Jerome H. Neyrey, “Jesus, Gender, and the Gospel of Matthew,” in
New Testament Masculinities; Semeia 45 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), pp. 43−66, here p. 48.
6. Consider the Pauline instruction for men who aspire to leadership in the Church: “He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church?” (1 Tim. 3:4−5).
7. Neyrey, “Jesus, Gender, and the Gospel of Matthew,” p. 44.
8. Compare Lilian Portefaix, “Good Citizenship in the Household of God: Women’s Positions in the Pastorals Reconsidered in the Light of Roman Rule” in
A Feminist Companion to the Deutero-Pauline Epistles (eds Amy-Jill Levine with Marianne Blickenstaff) (Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 2003), pp. 147−158, here p. 154.
12. Dale C. Allison Jr. writes: “These words are sometimes construed, in their Matthean context, as recommending that those who have separated from a spouse should not remarry. The more likely interpretation is that Mt 19:10−12 is about life long celibacy.” In Dale C. Allison,
Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), p. 175.
13. Given that concerns about celibacy were heating up during this period in the larger Roman Empire, it is not surprising to see Jesus discussing the topic with his disciples. In this case, Jesus might be taking a stance against Roman law. For more on this possibility, see Halvor Moxnes,
Putting Jesus in His Place: A Radical Vision of Household and Kingdom (Westminster John Knox, 2003).
14. Deut. 23:1. Compare Mark K. George, “Masculinity and Its Regimentation in Deuteronomy,” in
Men and Masculinity in the Hebrew Bible and Beyond, pp. 64−82, here p. 77.
15. Luke 18:28; compare Matt. 19:27.
16.
If we accept (a) that many of Jesus’ disciples had left their wives behind to follow him and (b) that many women were included in Jesus’ following, could this provide the context for Jesus’ strange teaching about divorce? Jesus seems to take a more rigid stance on divorce than any of his Jewish contemporaries. Jesus seems to have strongly discouraged men from divorcing their wives and forbade men and women from remarrying (Matt. 5:31−32; 19:1−12; Mark 10:1−12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10−11). Given Jesus’ praise of eunuchs, and those who have left their wives and houses behind, it comes as no surprise to hear him discourage remarriage. Could it be that he was discouraging his male disciples (who had left wives behind) from marrying the female followers with whom they traveled? In other words, perhaps Jesus is saying, “So you’ve left your wives behind to follow me; great! But don’t use that as justification for divorcing your wives to marry one of your traveling companions!” This possible reading would also help to explain this saying, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman [or wife] with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27−28). It is also worth noting that a legally terminated marriage often had dire consequences for the woman, who was cut off from her family (and therefore economic) network.
18. Luke 14:26; compare
Gospel of Thomas 55.
19. Stephen Moore and Janice Capel Anderson write: “The downplaying of literal familial relationships, and the corresponding elevation of spiritual or fictive kinship, thereby clearing the way for alternative models of masculinity, is followed through the remainder of [Matthew’s] Gospel − although not without ambivalence.” (“Matthew and Masculinity” in
New Testament Masculinities; Semeia 45 (eds Stephen Moore and Janice Capel Anderson) (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), pp. 67−92, here p. 75.
21. Another example: “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (Luke 16:13; compare
Gospel of Thomas 47).
22.
For more on Jesus’ relationship with his mother, see Anthony Le Donne,
Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), pp. 42−52.
23. Luke 11:27−28; compare also
Gospel of Thomas 79. Joel B. Green asks rhetorically: “Had not Jesus redefined family when he said, ‘My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it’ (Luke 8:21 [cf. 3:7−14])?” in
Practicing Theological Interpretation: Engaging Biblical Texts for Faith and Formation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), p. 62.
24. Compare
Gospel of Thomas 86.
26. E.P. Sanders suggested that this was one of the few sayings indicating that Jesus acted contrary to Jewish legal instruction, in
Jesus and Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985), pp. 252–255, p. 267.
27. Compare also the story of Jesus and the rich young man who wishes to follow Jesus (Mark 10:17−27). Jesus commands him to sell all of his possessions and give the money to the poor. The young man decides not to follow Jesus. Jesus then reflects: “How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!”
28. Matt. 6:25. Dale C. Allison Jr. suggests: “Jesus’ free attitude toward property may also have had an element of proleptic eschatology. For Genesis 3 makes it plain that, before they succumbed to temptation, Adam and Eve did not have to toil in the cursed ground and eat bread by the sweat of their faces … Nor did they need clothing. Business and money, then, were not part of their world. One wonders whether Jesus’ call to live without anxiety for food and clothing … originally harked back to the primeval state” (
Millenarian Prophet, p. 210).
Chapter 9
1. Co-authored with Martin Dugard,
Killing Jesus: A History (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2013).
3. Martin,
Sex and the Single Savior, p. 106.
5. Adela Yarbro Collins,
Mark: A Commentary; Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), p. 199.
6.
For example, Isa. 54:4−6; 61:10; Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 16:8−16. It is worth noting, however, that Michael Satlow suggests that the metaphor of husband and wife used to relate God and Israel was not popular in Jewish thought until much later. He argues that Judaism exploited the metaphor long after Christianity had applied it to Christ and the Church. So Christianity adapted the metaphor from Judaism and then Judaism adapted it back. Of course, this sort of “sharing” happens more often than we might think between sibling religions (
Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, pp. 42−67).
7. For example, Deut. 28:4−6; Isa. 25:6; Joel 2:19.
9. Marianne Blickenstaff argues that Matthew’s Gospel moves in this direction: “I propose that the Matthean Jesus community should be defined not only as a new family composed of the child of God the Father, but also as [children] who anticipate the eschatological wedding banquet, even as they celebrate Jesus’ presence as a bridegroom among them” (
“While the Bridegroom is with them”: Marriage, Family, Gender and Violence in the Gospel of Matthew (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2005), p. 112.
11. Most scholars date the book of Revelation to 95
C.E. Some place its authorship before 70
C.E.
14. Song of Songs 5:3−6 (New American Standard).
15. I agree with David Aune that the symbolism here is polyvalent. That is to say that John has drawn from several overlapping cultural images to build this scene. Aune also points to a line from
Hymn to Apollo 3: “It must be that Phoebus, with beautiful foot, kicks at the door.” David Aune,
Revelation, Word Biblical Commentary 52a (Waco: Word Publishers, 1997), pp. 250−260; “foot” was a well-known euphemism for the penis in the ancient Mediterranean.
16. Compare Rev. 19:8. I translate δικαι
ώματα as “acts of right-relationship.”
20.
For more on idealized women in civic margins, see Kate Cooper,
The Virgin and the Bride: Idealized Womanhood in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996).
21. For an idealized example: Acts 2:44−46: “And all who believed were together and had all things in common, and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts.” For more on this portrait of early Christianity see Anthony Le Donne, “The Improper Temple Offerings of Ananias and Sapphira,”
New Testament Studies 59 (2013), pp. 1−19. For an indication of a concrete reality fraught with difficulty, see 2 Cor. 8.
24. Irenaeus,
Against Heresies, 1.28.
25. Clement,
Stromateis 3.49.
26. Clement,
Stromateis 3.74.
27. Elaine H. Pagels, “Adam and Eve, Christ and the Church: A Survey of Second Century Controversies concerning Marriage” in
The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in Honour of Robert McL. Wilson (eds Alastair Logan and Alexander J.M. Wedderburn) (London: T & T Clark, 1983), pp. 146−175, here pp. 151−152.
28. Anonymous,
The Lady Poverty: A XIII Century Allegory (trans. Montgomery Carmichael) (London: John Murray, 1901).
29. The belief that Jesus went without shoes might stem from Matt. 10:9−10: “Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for the laborer deserves his food.”
30. Building from the Benedictine rule that forbids private ownership of property, Francis’s order established a vow of poverty. In practice, however, Francis took poverty to an extreme uncommon among Benedictine monks.
Chapter 10
1. Marilyn Yalom,
History of the Breast (New York: Ballantine Books, 1998), p. 5.
2.
Proto-Gospel of James 19.
5. Compare Yalom,
History of the Breast, pp. 27−28. A variety of practices were discussed in the ancient world relating to wet nurses and emergency use of animal milk, but the common practice of breastfeeding was not questioned.
6. Mosseri 7.68.A; adapted from Satlow,
Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, p. 3.
8. Satlow,
Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, p. 112.
9. As discussed, puberty was probably entered between the ages of fourteen and twenty for boys, depending on nourishment.
11. Examples of symbolic ages are common in the Hebrew Bible, but to point to an example from Jesus’ time, consider this instruction from the Dead Sea Scrolls: “The men of the army shall be from forty to fifty years old. The commissioners of the camps shall be from fifty to sixty years old. The officers shall also be from forty to fifty years old” (
War Scroll 7.1−2). Taken literally, this instruction for battle is absurd. Most men would have been dead or declining by fifty; able-bodied soldiers would have been much younger than forty.
13. John P. Meier lists a handful of examples including Greek Philosopher Epictetus (55–35
B.C.E.) and philosopher and wonderworker Apollonius of Tyana (
Marginal Jew I, pp. 342, 367).
14. Luke 3:7−8; compare Matt. 3:7−9.
15. To Semitic ears (either Hebrew or Aramaic) there is a wordplay happening here. The phrase “sons” is either alliterative or homophonic to the word for “stones.” One wonders if John the Baptist’s Jewish audience would have heard this saying as humorous.
17. Luke 14:26; compare Matt. 10:35−36.
19. Luke 2:48−49; the narrator attempts to smooth over this obvious tension between Jesus and his parents in the verses that follow.
21. John 2:4; the phrase “what have you to do with me?” sounds even more hostile in the Greek and Aramaic. This idiom is used by “demon-possessed” men to violently rebuke Jesus in Mark 1:24 and 5:7. It is the hostile protest of someone who is about to be tormented or forcibly made to do something against his or her will.
23. Luke 11:27;
Gospel of Thomas 79.
25. It is also important to remember the portrait of Jesus’ crucifixion in the Gospel of John: “When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son!’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home” (John 19:26−27). In this portrait, Jesus reinforces his followers as a metaphorical family. The beloved disciple and the mother of Jesus were bound together, but not biologically bound.
27. Mark 12:25; compare Matt. 22:30; Luke 20:35; Jewish lore gives the general impression that angels are male.
30. Luke 18:28; compare Matt. 19:27.
Afterword
1. Nikos Kazantzakis, “Prologue” in
The Last Temptation of Christ (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998), pp. 1−3 (emphasis mine).
2. Kazantzakis,
The Last Temptation of Christ, p. 3.
3. Nikos Kazantzakis, “Author’s Introduction” in
Report to Greco (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1965), p. 15.