Readers Reply

04

Jesus & Mary

Were They Married?

The article “Did Jesus Marry?” by Birger A. Pearson (BR 21:02) does not deal with honest scriptural exegetical issues and truths.

In John 20:17, Mary Magdalene touches Jesus. The Greek word for touch here is apton—the same word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 7:1, where he says it is good for a man not to touch a woman in a sexual passionate way (apton). According to both Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament and Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, apton means “to kindle, set on fire.” This is a hot, sexual, passionate touch!

Also, William F. Albright pointed out in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology that the rabbani of John 20:16 should be translated “my dear,” or “little master”; it is a term of endearment that a lover or wife could use for her husband.

In 1 Corinthians 7:7, Paul says it is better to be like him and not be married. If Jesus had not married, Paul, with his legalistic bent of mind, would certainly have held him up as an example, too. Finally, it is interesting to note that Martin Luther also thought that Jesus and Mary Magdalene may have been married.

Birger A. Pearson responds:

In my article, I did not discuss (either honestly or dishonestly) John 20:16–17. Verse 16b reads “she says to him in Hebrew, rabbouni (which means ‘teacher’).” Rabbouni means “my teacher,” or it could also mean “my master.” Albright characterizes this term as a caritative, allowing for the translation “my dear master.” But the context in John does not support this interpretation. As for verse 17, it is true that the Greek word haptō, with the accusative, means something like “kindle.” With the genitive (as here), it means “touch” or grab hold of. The verb form in verse 17 is a present middle, and mē haptou can be translated, “stop clinging to me” (see Davenker’s lexicon, p. 127a).

As for Paul’s advice in 1 Corinthians 7, it should be noted that Paul gives no indication at all here or anywhere else as to the marital status of Jesus. Paul probably knew that Jesus had chosen a celibate life, and this could be one basis for Paul’s own choice. After all, Paul claims to be an “imitator” of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1).

Of course, Mr. Peters is certainly entitled to believe what he wants about these issues, and I thank him for his challenge to my arguments.

Creation

Honestly

Genesis 2–3 is not helped by Jack M. Sasson’s claim (in “Of Time and Immortality,” BR 21:03) that divine Yahweh’s gardeners did not disobey him but he punished them anyway. That makes Yahweh look worse than the obedient gardeners and the truthful talking snake.

Which Tree?

Jack Sasson suggests that Adam and Eve did not eat of the forbidden Tree of Knowledge, but of the Tree of Life. How does he reconcile his theory with Genesis 3:17, in which God states rather explicitly that they did indeed eat of the forbidden tree (“Because you did as your wife said and ate of the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed be the ground …”)?

Jack M. Sasson responds:

This much discussed narrative has some of the most complex plotlines in Scripture, full of interesting threads, and any fresh reading will invariably need elaboration, 06especially when delivered in a brief article. God’s statement in Genesis 3:17 is one of the verses that benefits from more attention.

It might be helpful to discriminate between what the man and woman did and what they thought they did when prompted by the snake. What they did is eat from a tree at the center of the garden. They did not die as warned because, in fact, they had eaten from the Tree of Life, giving them immortality. They were not forbidden to do that, but it changed their relationship with God.

Here is what they thought they did: Prompted by the snake, the woman was certain that she was tasting the forbidden tree. She reasoned about it and, after touching the fruit and feeling no ill, she ate from it and shared it with her spouse who stood silently (approvingly?) by her. In this way, they both accepted the snake’s opinion that the fruit would make them divine and so dismissed whatever God had told Adam. They promptly created clothing, hid when called and lied when confronted: all signs that they no longer had a trusting association with God. From their own perspective, therefore, the two felt guilty of breaking the injunction even if it did not result in death.

God treated their rebellious act as such. When instilling a fate on all concerned, he condemned the snake for what it did; transferred immortality to the species via the woman (who is not berated for her role in the drama), and conferred death on the individual, potentially the harshest of punishments. God held Adam personally responsible since he was the one he had warned, and in delivering the sentence God treated him as culpable. Adam reacted as if he had eaten the forbidden fruit, and God needed to let him know this was, in effect, the same as eating it. In 3:17, he did.

Like One of Us

Jack Sasson’s premise is that the Man and the Woman ate, not from the traditional tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, but from the Tree of Life. But he quotes Genesis 3:22 as saying “With the Earthling being like one of us in knowing good and bad, what if he should now stretch out his hand and also take from the Tree of Life and eat—he will live forever?” Isn’t this contradictory to Sasson’s theory? And am I the only one who has trouble with “like one of us”?

Jack M. Sasson responds:

This statement comes after God had transferred to the human species (through birth-giving) the immortality Adam and Eve had acquired when they partook from the Tree of Life. With mortality now the lot of individuals, God made it impossible for their offspring to reverse personal death by blocking the way to that tree.

“Like one of us” (ke’ahad mimmenu) is in the Hebrew text. There are many suggestions about whom the “us” represents, the most likely being the members of the heavenly hosts (see Genesis 1:26; Isaiah 6:8; Job 38:7), although some fine scholars have suggested that this is the “plural of self-exhortation” (citing Genesis 11:7 and Psalm 2:3).

What It’s All About

Thank you for Jack Sasson’s article on Genesis. Although I disagree with his conclusion, based on Genesis 3:17, it never before occurred to me that Adam and Eve had access to the Tree of Life prior to their expulsion from the garden.

Some things in the Tanakh (Hebrew 52Bible) are simply not clear to modern readers. Does the command in Genesis 2:17 (“as soon as you eat of [the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad], you shall die”) refer to a sentence of instant death later commuted to a slow death over the course of 900 years? Did Adam and Eve eat of the Tree of Life prior to expulsion from the garden and become mortal when they no longer had access to the tree? I don’t know. But questions like these get me to open the Bible, and that’s what it is all about.

Keep these great articles coming. They make me think!

In the Beginning

Jack M. Sasson notes the awkwardness of the English that would result from literally translating the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning of He [God] created …” Actually, the awkwardness inheres in the Masoretic Hebrew text itself, as Herbert Chanan Brichto pointed out (in The Names of God [Oxford, 1998]).

Brichto noted that for centuries the written text had only consonants. Using the consonantal text, the reader could supply vowels to produce b’reshit boreh, “In beginning of [God’s] creating …” This subordinate clause was similar to those that opened other stories of origins, such as Enuma Elish, which begins “When above …” It could imply that some substances already existed before God set to work, as Sasson argues.

By the time the Septuagint translation was made, the Jewish scholars had advanced to the belief that the One God had created everything, so they translated it, “In the beginning God created …” to produce a main clause exalting the deity’s total work of creation. This rendering would result from reading the exact same consonantal text bar’shit bara, and it strongly influenced all subsequent translations.

The Masoretes added vowel points only centuries later, and when they did so, says Brichto, they intentionally produced the text b’reshit (“in beginning of”) and bara (“He created”). Thus they left the awkwardness of the text as testimony to the finite human understanding of the creative work of the infinite God.

Jack M. Sasson responds:

The late Chanan Brichto was a fine scholar, and in his exposition of these opening lines he tried to give the Hebrew (a relative clause) and Greek (an independent clause) equal plausibility by crediting the Masoretes with deliberately introducing ambiguity through an unusual vocalization. They “thus enriched the opening five words of Scripture, suggesting what may have been a traditional syntax for an epic’s beginning [as in Genesis 2:4 and Enuma Elish], and yet permitting us to hear the far grander apodictic tones of an unqualified assertion [as in the Greek].” Brichto’s thesis is seductive, but it depends on reading accurately the motivation of largely anonymous rabbis.

Paul and Thecla

Agree to Disagree

Professor John Dominic Crossan’s conclusion in respect to the image of Paul, Thecla and Theocleia at Ephesus (“A Woman Equal to Paul,” BR 21:03) differs from mine, which was published in my article “Thecla: The Apostle Who Defied Women’s Destiny” (BR 20:06). He and I both read the iconography of the image in a similar manner; Crossan, I believe, got a better look at the figure than did I, and his suggestions that the image presents Theocleia in a very positive manner are persuasive.

We both find the reference of the iconography to be at odds with the story in the Acts of Thecla. Our handling of this dilemma differs. My decision was made with strong reliance on the text of the Acts of Thecla that we have; Crossan suggests that there is a lost text in which Theocleia, who is thoroughly condemned in the Acts of Thecla, is a companion and copreacher of the gospel with Paul. Both of us connect Thecla with those women apostles and missionaries that Paul mentions in Roman 16:1–6. Our conclusions are in agreement: There were women of high, even apostolic, authority in the early church.

I suspect that Crossan and I would also agree that there does not need to be extant a text to “prove” one’s reading of the images in a picture. Crossan suggests that there may have been a text, now lost, in which Theocleia is presented as a Christian convert and preacher. There is another possibility. The story may have not been in text form at all; it may have circulated in oral tradition.

Crossan’s suggestions are intriguing and not at all out of order. There, for the present, the matter will stand: The iconography of the image is at odds with the text of the Acts of Thecla. This is one of those frequent cases of impasse in the study of ancient history in which the readers of BR and of Crossan and Reed’s excellent book, In Search of Paul, are forced to make their own decision. That is as it should be.

Joanna

Apostle or Adultress

Ben Witherington’s suspicion (in “Joanna: Apostle of the Lord,” BR 21:02) about Chuza’s divorcing Joanna and Joanna’s remarrying is not valid according to Jesus’ teaching about divorce and remarriage. Mark 10:11–12 reads: “And he said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Matthew 5:31–32 and Luke 16:18 make even stronger arguments against remarriage after divorce. Surely Joanna could not remain an apostle of Jesus if she were to remarry after a divorce from Chuza. The other apostles simply would not have accepted her.

Ben Witherington responds:

Thanks for these comments, but they do not quite reflect the situation Joanna was in. In the first place, Jesus’ teaching was for his own followers not for Jews in general. Secondly we have no reason to think Chuza ever was a follower of Jesus. Chuza would have operated according to standing Jewish law, which only allowed men to divorce, except in very unusual circumstances. Joanna would have had no real choice in regard to being divorced if Chuza chose to divorce her. Joanna would not have been judged by the apostles to be a divorced woman by Christian standards for the very good reason that neither she nor her husband were Christians when they got married and Chuza never became one.

When Paul speaks of religiously mixed marriages in 1 Corinthians 7:15, he says quite specifically, “but if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such situations.” The term “bound” here is the same Greek 54term used for the marital bond. He goes on to say that a person who wants to remarry can do so, “only in the Lord” (7:39), which is probably the advice he would have given to Joanna.

Historical Jesus

A Jewish Jesus

Now that your anthropologists, archaeologists, sociologists, oriental linguists, theologians and Christian scripture scholars have all weighed in on the “historical” Jesus (see Stephen J. Patterson, “Jesus Lives,” BR 21:03), when may we expect to hear from a professional historian? No time soon, I would suspect.

It is a curious irony that while Christian scholars have been busy certifying the Jewishness of Jesus, at the same time eminent Jewish scholars such as Shaye J.D. Cohen, Eric Gruen, Martin Goodman and Daniel Boyarin have been quietly but firmly arguing that the Galileans were in fact pagan gentiles who had been forcibly converted to Judaism only a generation or so before the birth of Jesus. It seems a reckless procedure to ignore the learned opinions of Jewish scholars when it comes to who was—and who was not—considered to be a “Jew” in ancient times, don’t you think?

But since it would be theologically odious for Christians to contemplate the possibility that Jesus was not an ethnic Jew, this interpretation would no doubt be rejected out of hand by the “experts” cited in your article. It simply would not do to have a Jewish messiah who was not—like Levy’s Rye Bread—anything but purely Jewish!

As Harry Truman sagely observed, “There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know.”

Stephen J. Patterson responds:

The scholarly assessment of Galilee has clearly begun to shift in recent years. Indeed, it is no longer seen as a bucolic backwater of Jewish purity, but a much more cosmopolitan place, where gentile influence clearly formed part of the multicultural fabric of life. Part of the new discussion does include the early history of the Galilee under Hasmonean rule, including the scars left by the forced conversion of gentiles under John Hyrcanus. Of the scholars I mentioned, Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan probably take this new reality most seriously. But most scholars working today understand that Galilee is not Judea.

But this doesn’t mean that Galileans in the first century were not Jewish. The ubiquitous presence of mikvaot (ritual baths) in the excavated villages of Galilee is evidence enough to demonstrate this. The extent to which the blood lines of those who used these ritual baths were purely Jewish cannot be known and is irrelevant. The question is what sort of Judaism did Jesus practice and how did this influence his thought. This is the subject of lively debate today. But the extent to which Jesus was genetically Jewish is not. I can imagine no dimension of this question that would be relevant to the historian, least of all the eminent historians to whom the reader refers.

Royal Blood

It is impossible to adequately analyze the political importance of Jesus without including the fact of his Jewish royal connections. The first chapter of Matthew gives his genealogy, generation by generation, back to King David. Assuming the historic credibility of this lineage, Jesus would then be a potential heir to the throne of Israel, if it were to be reinstated. With the extreme unrest of the Jews under Roman rule and their desire for independence, Pilate and other authorities cannot have been unaware of the dangers of a charismatic first son with an enthusiastic following and documented lineage to the revered King David.

Stephen J. Patterson responds:

It is probably a fair statement to say that few historians studying Jesus today give much historical credibility to the genealogies of Matthew and Luke (which are different, but agree in tying Jesus to King David). On the one hand, they seem to serve too readily the theological ends designed for them by Matthew and Luke. On the other hand, to suppose that the records existed in the ancient world to make possible such a documentation, for a peasant, no less, simply stretches the modern historian’s credulity, and probably would have convinced few in the ancient world as well. The genealogies are the creative work of Matthew and Luke.

As to whether Jesus was actually of the Davidic line is a matter of dispute even within the Christian tradition. Both John (7:40–44) and Mark (12:35–37) seem to admit that Jesus was not a “son of David,” and scoff at the necessity of such a pedigree.

None of this is to deny the concerns Jesus might have raised for Pilate. His preaching apparently centered on a new basileia, that is, a new empire, the Empire of God. Talk of a new empire would not have gone over well with any Roman authority of the time, whether it came from a royal pretender or a charismatic peasant leader like Jesus.

Jesus & Mary
Were They Married?
The article “Did Jesus Marry?” by Birger A. Pearson (BR 21:02) does not deal with honest scriptural exegetical issues and truths.