Abstract
Fiorenza’s In Memory of Her is a leading text in feminist theology, utilizing redaction criticism throughout to elucidate key principles regarding early Christian texts and the roles of women. The basis of ‘redaction criticism’ is the treatment of a biblical author as an ‘editor’ of their source material, such that by careful analysis of this editing process we can garner new insights into that author and their context. This brief article analyses three specific New Testament examples to better understand women in the early church: Jesus’s anointing at Bethany as described in the Gospels of Mark, John, and Luke; Priscilla and Aquila in Luke–Acts as compared to the Pauline Epistles; and the responsibilities of widows as discussed by Paul and a different proposed author, ‘pseudo-Paul’.
Keywords
In the passion account of Mark’s Gospel three disciples figure prominently: Judas, Peter and the unnamed woman who anoints Jesus. Even her name is lost to us … because she was a woman. Although the story of the anointing is told in all four Gospels, it is obvious that the redactional retelling of the story seeks to make the story more palatable to a patriarchal Greco-Roman audience.
1
Redaction criticism was initially developed by three noted German theologians – Bornkamm, Marxsen and Conzelmann – with reference to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke respectively. 2 As discussed briefly in the introduction to this article, redaction criticism deliberately views the biblical writer as an editor of their source material, alongside the supposition that understanding the nature of that editing will reveal key theological insights from that author’s perspective and more widely. For example, assuming two Gospel writers used predominantly the same source material (whatever its form), what details are included by each author and what content is omitted? By carrying out such comparisons, is it possible to better determine the aims and motives of the authors, and gain further theological insights?
It is perhaps unsurprising that redaction criticism was largely developed in Germany after the Second World War, as intellectual heavyweights sought to develop a new academic culture after the fall of fascism. Revision of traditional ideas and a better understanding of source material was perhaps an inevitable consequence of years of academic repression. Günther Bornkamm was the originator of redaction criticism, with emphasis on the Gospel of Matthew. Bornkamm’s two major essays focused respectively on the source material for the calming of the storm story in Matthew 8 and more generally on Jesus’s discourses. In the first example, the calming of the storm, Bornkamm notes the different context and emphasis placed on the story as compared to Mark 4. The second example is arguably more wide reaching, as Bornkamm argues that Matthew’s accounts of Jesus’s discourses are heavily influenced by the author’s fundamental theological beliefs. Ultimately, Bornkamm defines redaction criticism such that the author of Matthew is an ‘… interpreter of the tradition which he collected and arranged’. 3
As with all forms of literary criticism, there is considerable danger of ‘over-analysis’, desperately trying to understand the subtlest of differences between for example, Gospel accounts, when of course Matthew, Mark and Luke are after all called the ‘Synoptics’ for good reason! It is also necessary to celebrate the impact of the various Gospel texts throughout their near 2,000-year-old history. However, when proper caution is utilized, this school of biblical criticism is highly useful. It should furthermore be noted that in this article, redaction criticism methodologies are applied with regard to sources for both the Gospels and the Epistles, which is an extension of the original work of Bornkamm and others.
Three different stories of the anointing of Jesus at Bethany have been the subject of extensive redaction criticism and analysis (Mark 14; John 12; Luke 7). A number of theologians have argued that the Lukan anointing story (Luke 7) is a retelling of John 12, possibly as part of an even more complicated pre-existing narrative. 4 Fiorenza pertinently points out that in Luke’s version of the story redactive editing has taken place such that the emphasis of the story becomes forgiveness. Alongside this, there is evidence of Luke’s tendency to add more women to his narrative as compared to the other Gospel writers. Specifically, Luke arguably complements men in various stories with roles for women. 5
There is a potential concern, however, that impacts modern interpretation and application. It is not universally agreed that Luke has a truly positive and egalitarian attitude towards women. Fiorenza argues that in Luke’s Gospel women are often given passive roles. 6 In the case of the anointing story for example, a woman goes from disciple in John to a sexual sinner in Luke.
Comparing John and Mark, is it possible that John 12 should be given greater priority than Mark 14? As referred to in the introduction to this article, Fiorenza suggests Mark may have removed Mary’s name from the anointing story for the benefit of a patriarchal Greco-Roman audience. Caution must however be exercised to avoid a potential pitfall of redaction criticism: only considering a single thread, rather than a complete picture. In this instance, it would be an error to see this redaction in purely feminist terms. Fiorenza acknowledges, with Coakley doing so in detail, that there are other motives behind the editing process, although John 12 should still be viewed as a more reliable account. 7 Firstly, there is the nature of the anointing. In John’s Gospel, this is of Jesus’ feet, altered to his head in Mark’s Gospel. As Coakley and others point out, this change may have been to make the account more palatable and respectable. Just how raw, powerful and potentially scandalous an act foot-washing was can be hard to appreciate from our modern world perspective. On a related point, some of the other changes to the personnel involved in the story are arguably not related to patriarchy, but rather pragmatism. If it assumed that Simon the Leper (Mark’s account) is the father of Lazarus (John’s account), it may simply be the case that Mark’s early readership (predominantly made up of Peter’s disciples) was more familiar with Simon than Lazarus, so the former was understandably emphasized. 8
Critically, there is an alternative further explanation of Mark’s redaction of Mary’s name from the story. Her name was inextricably linked to John’s foot-washing version of the story. Theologians have suggested that Mark was particularly concerned with removing any trace of Gnosticism from the account, a tradition viewed as heretical, which was furthermore associated with the physical act of washing feet.
9
In other words, care must be taken not to attribute Mary of Bethany’s redaction to her gender alone. This caution is indeed later echoed by Fiorenza, who summarizes the character of Mark and John’s Gospels thusly: Mark and John highlight the alternative character of the Christian community [as compared to wider Greco-Roman society] and therefore accord women apostolic and ministerial leadership.
10
The next examples of redaction criticism to be considered all derive from a comparison of Luke’s account in Acts with that of Paul’s epistles, with particular emphasis on the role of women. It is possible that Luke’s source material for much of the book of Acts was indeed the Pauline epistles 11 Walker develops this concept with redaction criticism, using the example of the early church leaders Priscilla and Aquila, going as far as to suggest an ‘anti-feminist’ bias in Acts. 12
The first argument presented relates to redaction in Acts 18, as compared to for example 1 Corinthians 16:19b. Walker asserts that the most reliable manuscripts for the Corinthians passage consistently refer to ‘Prisca’ and that ‘Priscilla’ is the diminutive form of the name. There are two possible explanations for Luke’s alteration of the name in Acts. The first of these seems rather unsatisfactory – that Luke was using the diminutive form as a term of endearment, in the same way that a person named ‘Alexander’, particularly in some Eastern and Southern European countries, might be called ‘Sasha’ by friends and family. However, there is frankly nothing to suggest that Luke was a friend of Priscilla, whereas it seems highly likely that Paul was. A more plausible explanation is that it may well be in some way an attempt of Luke to patronize or belittle Priscilla and her role as a leader. As was detailed in the initial description of redaction criticism in this article, the methodology is arguably unhelpful if it descends into a ‘word by word’ analysis. On first reading, Walker’s argument might be susceptible to this concern. However, further evidence is provided. At the start of Acts 18, it is stated that Paul meets with Aquila, who is afforded the privilege of brief biographical information, whereas Priscilla is simply his wife. Contrastingly, in the Pauline Epistles, it is Priscilla that is often given prominence.
In terms of a critical analysis of this viewpoint, Fiorenza concurs that Luke’s account of early church history is not particularly feminist. 13 Walker perhaps overreaches with his final piece of evidence however. In crucial addresses in Acts, gatherings of followers are referred to by Luke in the original Greek as andrōn (men) rather than anthropo (people). This is inferred to be anti-feminist. This is arguably an unhelpful assertion, given that even in modern English for example, ‘mankind’ is still commonly used to mean the whole of ‘humankind’, without implied anti-feminist sentiment, at least from the majority of people using the term. These ideas are still popular and rife for discussion, as evidenced by the appearance of a 2015 BBC News Magazine article, asking; ‘Why is God not female?’ 14
The final example of redaction criticism to be considered is somewhat more nuanced and relates to the Pastoral Letters. Specifically, this section considers apparent changes to the proper role of widowed women according to 1 Timothy 5 and 1 Corinthians 7, both sections of letters traditionally attributed to the apostle Saint Paul.
Fiorenza makes a far from universally accepted claim that the authorship of the pastoral epistles is questionable and attributes 1 Timothy for example to a different author, termed pseudo-Paul. 15 There are various stylistic and other aspects which lead to this conclusion, but the consequence is that redactive criticism is potentially of use, in that one can compare the motives of the two different authors. In 1 Timothy 5, pseudo-Paul addresses the issue of widows and their proper treatment in society. Paul has similarly written about this subject in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul states that although it is acceptable for a widow to marry, she would be better off not to do so. This would mark an unusual level of independence for a woman in a Greco-Roman context. In stark contrast, by the time pseudo-Paul addresses the matter, a confused and arguably misogynist process of redaction has taken place. Firstly, a rather procedural, legalistic and arguably sexist tone is adopted with regards the differentiation of ‘true’ widows from false ones. Secondly, there is a direct contradiction in advice to younger widowed women, in that they are admonished to marry, in order to avoid idleness, gossip and, reading between the lines, any sense of independent discipleship.
In seeking to explain this change, it seems unsatisfactory simply to attribute the stark change of advice to the different contexts of the recipients of the letters, not least as those contexts are hardly hugely different. Fiorenza alternatively suggests that the redaction served to streamline early Christianity into an overtly patriarchal Greco-Roman form, which made a clear distinction from dangerous groups, for example those responsible for apocryphal book(s) of ‘Acts’ such as Acts of Paul and Thecla. 16
Three threads of redaction criticism have been explored in this article, showing how a critical treatment of a biblical writer as an ‘editor’ of their various source material can be of considerable use. Firstly, in comparing the various Gospels’ stories of the anointing of Jesus, Fiorenza and others have inferred that priority should be given to John’s account, acknowledging the respective redactions of Luke and Mark: in the former case to place an emphasis on forgiveness, as well as arguably diminishing the role of women in the story. In the latter case, though Mary of Bethany’s name is redacted, there is a significant role for women here and elsewhere in the Gospel of Mark. Secondly, it was argued by specific reference to Priscilla and Aquila that Acts is in some respects an anti-feminist redaction of the Pauline epistles, which acted as source material for Luke. Finally, it was suggested that a different pseudo-Paul author redacted Saint Paul’s earlier, egalitarian advice for widowed women to remain single and independent, thus making the early church more tolerable for the patriarchal Greco-Roman cultural elite. Redaction criticism as exemplified by Fiorenza has a significant part to play in understanding the role of women in the early and current church, and many of the texts considered in this article remain the subject of considerable discussion, debate and learning.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges teaching and discussions with Revds Mark Powley and Jon Swales of the St Barnabas Theological Centre (SBTC) as the basis for this article. He also wishes to thank the patient and loving congregation of St Augustine’s Church, Wrangthorn, Leeds, led by Revd Joanna Seabourne.