Continuing my last post--
However, keep in mind 1 Cor 7:1: “Now concerning the things about which you wrote to me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman”. Jesus, if portrayed as a good Pauline Christian, would have to keep himself away from women. (This is admittedly an overly-literal interpretation of Paul’s admonition, but it does illustrate the point. Perhaps the writer of Secret Mark was working against traditions like those found in the Gospel of Philip, where Mary Magdalene is made into Jesus’ consort.) If this seems like a stretch, keep in mind the many contacts of canonical Mark with 1 Cor, as listed by Michael Turton in his online commentary. Note also Jesus’ own admonition in Jn 20:17 to Mary Magdalene: “Do not touch me”. (Yet another link between GJn and Secret Mark—one which I’ve pointed out before.)
Furthermore,
there is a strong gnostic anti-feminine strain (basically misogyny) to be found in numerous apocryphal works. The Gospel of Thomas ends with a statement by Jesus to the effect that they need to somehow become male in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. This statement is often said to be a late addition to GTh (though I am not entirely persuaded that it's that simple to explain), but the point is to show the evidence of anti-feminine misogyny in early Christian writings. The Gospel of the Egyptians, too, features a couple sayings by Jesus to Salome that sound strongly anti-feminine, so much so that Clement needs to explain them away (you will definitely be hearing more about soon).
there is a strong gnostic anti-feminine strain (basically misogyny) to be found in numerous apocryphal works. The Gospel of Thomas ends with a statement by Jesus to the effect that they need to somehow become male in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. This statement is often said to be a late addition to GTh (though I am not entirely persuaded that it's that simple to explain), but the point is to show the evidence of anti-feminine misogyny in early Christian writings. The Gospel of the Egyptians, too, features a couple sayings by Jesus to Salome that sound strongly anti-feminine, so much so that Clement needs to explain them away (you will definitely be hearing more about soon).
So any anti-feminism in Secret Mark is, at worst, just part of a millieu that we already know about, and may simply reflect the Pauline environment of the early gospels. Indeed, this may be to judge Secret Mark too harshly. Jesus doesn't really make an overt statement about "the female", the way he does in works like GEgy. Instead, he just refuses to visit the women. But why would he do this?
As I've suggested previously, he might have been angry with the man's sister for asking him to raise her dead brother. I've argued that this may be a reference to the baptism of the dead--Jesus raises the man only begrudgingly. But, on the other hand, it might just be an enactment of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7. I think there may also be a quasi-gnostic mentality, reflected in GJn, to the effect that Jesus cannot become “contaminated” by bodily contact with the flesh of this world, otherwise he would not be able to ascend to heaven.
In early Christianity and Gnosticism hostility towards the Feminine as a metaphysical principle and hostility towards individual women are separate issues. eg the final saying in the Gospel of Thomas is hostile to the Feminine but positive towards Mary Magdalene as a specific female individual.
ReplyDeleteNeither Clement of Alexandria nor the Carpocratians seem (outside of Secret Mark) to have held either of these types of misogyny, and although there are texts in which Jesus is shown as hostile towards the Feminine as a metaphysical principle, I can't think of any examples (outside of Secret Mark) where Jesus is seem as genuinely hostile towards specific female individuals.
Hi Andrew--
ReplyDeleteMostly agreed. However, there is another example I forgot to mention--the Syro-Phoenecian woman:
"Soon a woman whose daughter had an unclean spirit heard about him. She came and fell at his feet. The woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth, and she begged him to drive the demon out of her daughter. He said to her, 'Let the children be fed first. For it is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.'"
Now, fair enough, Jesus seems to be referring to gentiles in general. But it's not very friendly! I would even say it's hostile, and in this case it's hostility directed towards a specific woman (though I admit it is about her ethnicity).
You do put your finger on exactly what is so shocking (to us) about Secret Mark 2, but it's also true that we don't actually know why Jesus wouldn't see the women. It's the critics (like us) who have suggested it's because of their gender. But does the passage actually say that? Maybe it was something they said. Maybe it was something they did, or didn't do, in an earlier pericope now lost to us.
Even assuming it is related to their gender (I have suggested that it is, speaking for myself), we don't really know how. And it isn't about any one of them specifically.
I can also think of Jesus' rebuke to his mother in Jn 2:4--"Woman, what does that have to do with you and me?" As the NAB notes state, this is an otherwise unattested use of gunai for one's mother. If GJn can feature somewhat unusual behavior by Jesus towards women, why not Secret Mark?
I'm also kind of skeptical that we can describe Th 114 as "positive" about Mary Magdalene. It's positive about her, but only as long as she's made male!
As for Clement, remember that he does deal with the Gospel of the Egyptians by trying to explain away Jesus' odd statements about women. (I hope to address this very issue soon.) So it's not surprising that he might do the same with Secret Mark.
And as for the Carpocratians, remember that Secret Mark was not originally a Carpocratian work. (In fact I hope to address just what kind of work I think it was in my next post.)
Cave - There are schools of thought that interpreted Pauline passages referencing 'wisdom' or 'woman' as meaning the Law.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the statement "I can't think of any examples (outside of Secret Mark) where Jesus is seem as genuinely hostile towards specific female individuals."
John 2:4
also the passage from the Gospel of the Egyptians cited by Clement IF TAKEN AS SEPARATE REFERENCES FROM THE SAME ORIGINAL NARRATIVE (which I think is the case) at least imply that Jesus said things that would get women to want to slap him:
iii. 6. 45. The Lord said to Salome when she inquired: How long shall death prevail? 'As long as ye women bera children'
Strom. iii. 9. 63. But those who set themselves against God's creation because of continence, which has a fair-sounding name, quote also those words which were spoken to Salome, of which I made mention before. They are contained, I think (or I take it) in the Gospel according to the Egyptians. For they say that 'the Savior himself said: I came to destroy the works of the female'.
Excerpts from Theodotus, 67. And when the Saviour says to Salome that there shall be death as long as women bear children, he did not say it as abusing birth, for that is necessary for the salvation of believers.
Let's put it in plain English. Jesus is saying to Salome 'I have come to sterilize your vagina.' If a woman came into a bar and told a man 'I have come to castrate you' I think it fair to assume that he would think take this as a hostile reference.
This doesn't mean that the audience reading the Gospel of the Egyptians (if that text is not th same as Secret/Mystic Mark as F F Bruce suggests) would take it as a misogynist statement. Christians of Alexandria (Origen, Demetrius etc) would certainly have thought that neutered men and women were transformed into angels like the Skoptsy did in Russia until modern times. But that's not the point.
I can't say which of John 2:4, the Gospel of the Egyptians and LGM 2 is the strongest condemnation of women or to which female individual Jesus would be interpreted as showing the worst manners. It's all subjective.
BTW the Diatessaron introduces 'extra material' in the exact same place - i.e. between Mark 10:46a and 10;46b. In the Diatessaron it is the Zacchaeus narrative that is 'inserted.' Morton Smith couldn't have known that. I am not at all certain that Zacchaeus didn't follow LGM 2. Clement's argument in Quis Dives Salvetur certainly suggests that the Zacchaeus narrative closed the 'lesson' that was started in his citation of Mark 10:17 - 31. But that's another story ...
Hi Stephan--yup, I agree with all of those--I think I mentioned most of them above, but it's useful to quote them in full.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the F F Bruce tip--in fact I hope to post on that very subject soon! Does Bruce really make the direct connection? Do you have a citation for this?
Yeah, the Zacchaeus narrative...I think it's indirectly related. That is, both it and Secret Mark 1 derive from the same source. I don't think the author of Zacchaeus (I'll leave aside for now who I think that was) was following Secret Mark at all, whether the first or second passage. But which more resembles the original: Secret Mark, or Lk/Mt? My guess is the latter, but I need to do more work on this.
The F F Bruce article is on line somewhere. Do a Google search for 'F F Bruce' and 'Secret Mark.' I think it exists in a PDF form somewhere.
ReplyDelete