Mar 02
The mother of Jesus, not James
I have noted before that there is a good case to be made for saying John’s gospel reflects a far stronger anti-James polemic than anything in Paul. In a fairly interactive sermon today (which in the UK is Mothering Sunday – and was long before the corruption of it into Mothers’ Day) we looked at and discussed these two paintings for different perspectives on Mary as mother, leading onto to a discussion of mothering.
The first is by Orazio Gentileschi, and is the sort of image Christmas has made us very comfortable with.
The second is by Konrad Witz, and (outside certain Catholic devotions such as the Stations of the Cross, or the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary) is the kind of image that we rarely contemplate. Taking both images together leads to some powerful reflections.
The comment that really caught me by surprise (I suppose because I’m so used to reading the symbolism and ambiguity in John that I sometimes miss the surface) was this question: “Why did Jesus hand his mother to the care of beloved disciple (and, one could add, vice versa) instead of to James?”
Is this another hint, I wonder, that John’s earlier polemical showing of James continues. Does he see his community, and not the Jerusalem one, as the true family of Jesus?
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
That’s possible, although what I expected you to suggest when I read the title was that this is perhaps an indication that the church’s tradition that Joseph had been previously married, and thus Mary was not the mother of his other children, might be assumed here.
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Hmm … I would have thought that in terms of responsibility and honour there wouldn’t have been a difference there anyway. I would therefore find it hard to see this as any clear evidence for the traditon. So I continue to wonder if this is part of the polemic evident earlier in the gospel.
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Well, the synoptic gospels (Mark 3:21,31-35 and parallels) as well as John (7:5) suggest that Jesus’ brother did not believe in him. So it is not surprising that Jesus committed his mother to the believer John rather than the brothers who had rejected him - although later of course James and (taking Jude 1 at face value) Jude came to believe. So I see no evidence here of anything other than history.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Wow, Peter, hmm: faints with surprise
March 4th, 2008 at 12:54 am
Jesus, according to those same Synoptic Gospels, claimed that he would divide families, 3 against 2 and 2 against 3. That, combined with evidence from outside the New Testament, should provide reason to question whether James was necesaarily an opponent of Jesus or skeptical about his ministry before the crucifixion.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:00 am
I expect that Johannine theology would be opposed to the argument of the Epistle of James. The Johannine theological language is not Paul’s, but the two do share an interest in theology and the more mystical the better. James on the other hand dismisses the gospel of faith as “dead” unless backed with action, that is action to aid the people of this world.
If we agree that the Johannine redaction of the Gospel of John is late, and many scholars do, then it is possible that the Epistle of “James” had been attributed to James by then. In which case, the Gospel would “see [the Johannine] community, and not ['James' as understood by second century Christians], as the true family of Jesus”.
(I was going to quibble that John is more Jerusalem-focused than the synoptics: an early visit to the Temple, and post-resurrection appearances in Jerusalem before Galilee. But that might be an artifact of John’s source. So no quibbling here.)
March 13th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Now Playing!…
The Gospel
Screenplay by John
Starring:
Jesus as Himself
Miriam as the Virgin Mary
Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple
Narration by Ben Witherington III
Running time ~45 minutes
Video courtesy of Baylor TV
(Note: this is a lecture about the authorship of t…
March 15th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Hmm, I don’t remember linking back to this post but I guess I did. I suppose I should have added that my post was inspired by yours.
Your comments recalled my recent discovery of the proposal that Lazarus was the beloved disciple. I’ve since read through John several times in the past two weeks and read Lazarus into the various contexts. I think there are some compelling arguments for this reading, and that it also provides a possible answer to your questions.
March 15th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
The Lazarus proposal is an interesting one. I’m not entirely convinced by any proposal myself, although this one does open up the space for some intriguing interpretations (albeit ones which seem a little bit too modern and post-modern to be historically convincing to my ear)