Mono Little Red Dots On Tongue

AGORAfilia and agoraphobia (10 bis): Was Jesus a feminist?

For more than a month left pending review article Leonard Swidler that gave title to the entry: Jesus was a feminist. Today, when we return to the issue, observe that the same título va entre interrogantes, y ello por varias razones que explico a continuación.

En primer lugar, he de confesar que nunca fue de mi agrado un título tan categórico y un tanto cronocéntrico , en el sentido de proyectar categorías de nuestro tiempo a dichos y hechos de hace veinte siglos. No obstante, el autor intenta aclarar los términos desde el principio del artículo. Merece la pena detenerse en tales aclaraciones, pues nos han de servir de referencia para la polémica posterior:

“Por feminista entendemos a una persona que está a favor de la igualdad de los hombres y las mujeres y promociona el reconocimiento de esa igualdad; una persona that advocates and practices the treatment of women, first as human beings (in the same way men are treated) and willingly contravenes social customs in doing so. To test the proposition stated, it must be demonstrated, to the extent possible, that Jesus said and did nothing that would indicate that called for a consideration of women as inherently inferior to men, but on the contrary, he said and did things indicating that he thought of women as equal to men and that through such an attitude, willfully violated social customs in force "

Then see if the evidence presented or not fit those criteria.

The second reason to put in between questions about feminism's assertion of Jesus has been the judicious meeting with two recent monographs on the subject, a renowned scholar of Antonio Pinero, Jesus and women (Aguilar, Madrid 2008), and a José Ramón Algaba corners, Jesus of Nazareth and his relationship with women. An approach from the study of gender from the synoptic gospels (Academy of Hispanics, Vigo 2007). In both concluded that it is entirely attributed to Jesus too egalitarian and feminist message. Thus is sharp corners, "the mythical egalitarian message of Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Nor in early Christianity, the group that is immediately after his death "(p. 210). More moderate, Piñero concludes: "the historical Jesus really upset to some extent certain religious values \u200b\u200bof the society of his time, but it really seems to put the theoretical basis for renewed consideration of the role of woman in this society in the lived "(p. 279).

In these two papers are removed one by one the arguments in favor of the alleged defense of feminist and egalitarian attitudes on the part of Jesus. But the first thing that strikes me is that in their respective bibliographies-in Corners are cited up to 106 authors, not quoted pioneer Swidler article (published in 1971), or the equally interesting Shalom Ben Chorin (Jewish theologian who published in 1967 ecumenist Brother Jesus of Nazareth from the Jewish point of view ). Interestingly, the article by Ben Chorin of the same title as the book Piñero, but adds a very evocative subtitle: Jesus and women. Was married the Nazarene? . It seems unlikely that this omission is due to ignorance literature. At least in the case of Antonio Piñero is highly unlikely, since Ben Chorin article was published in Castilian in a curious and marginal review of the late '80s last century in which the very Piñero also worked. I mean HETERODOXY , directed by Manuel García wine, which came out 16 issues between 1988 and 1991 quarterly. As it is difficult to get, I can scan the article Ben Chorin and upload it to this blog (see below) with the tool Scribd.

literature

If the omission is not due to ignorance, will perhaps be said to be documented thesis Swidler and Ben Chorin?

It is high time to stop the promised summary of the article Swidler. In the summary and analysis shows that, although tight and because it is a concise article is quite comprehensive:

1.Tesis
2.Definición
3.The terms status of women in Palestine
4.La nature of the Gospels
5.The women the resurrection from the dead
6.The women disciples of Jesus
7.The women as sex objects
8.The rejection by Jesus, the blood taboo and Samaritan
9.Jesús 10.The marriage
and dignity of women
11.La intellectual life for women as women
12.Dios

Conclusion I allowed to select and sort data Swidler, and add some nuances and references of interest. To cut a very heavy reading, I will not be exhaustive with evangelical quotations, which can easily be found in Article .

start with point number 5. The Christian dogma of the resurrection, though difficult to digest more than a Christian, as was the case of Neoplatonic Sinesio-was undoubtedly one of the distinctive emblems of the new religion which, therefore, would also become authority requirement apostolic characters who had greater authority among the first Christian communities were precisely those who had witnessed the resurrection of Christ. See in this regard the passage in which he was appointed apostolic successor Matthias as Judas in Acts 1, 21-22: "it is necessary that men who have accompanied us all the time that Jesus lived among us, beginning from the baptism John, until the day of us was taken up, one is a witness with us of his resurrection. "

Well, if we follow the four evangelists, was Mary Magdalene, good company of other women or herself, the first witness of the resurrection. Hence, in the medieval tradition, at least from vitae beatae Mariae De Rabanus magdalenae Mauro, in the s. IX- was known as apostola apostolorum , ie, the apostle to the apostles, which was the central message of the resurrection to their own messengers.

I do not understand what is behind the attempts of both corners of Piñero as so revealing overthrow tradition. Part of what we might call the affair Magdalena quite complex and very tricky recently, especially from the novel-movie "The Da Vinci Code." We will not get us now to mismatch eyed alien, but to put the question in such disallowance of the Gospel tradition and medieval about Magdalene as the first witness of the resurrection. Piñero argues (pp. 214-217) that the only true story that counts Marcos (16, 1-8), the oldest Gospel source, according to which women have fled in panic and have remained silent on the angel's message they had announced the resurrection of Jesus. The other evangelists, as Piñero, try to correct this negative image of Mark giving it a spin and put to Magdalene and women as true and joyful apostles. The question is why in a patriarchal tradition so openly and in a community run by and for men were to have any interest in cleaning up the image of a woman ... then be so clearly maligned in later centuries, it would be the apostola apostolorum to be blessed or peccatrix castissima meretrix , ie "holy whore", with apologies.

As for the beautiful love scene narrated by John (Cap 20) (where Magdalena answered the call of Jesus - Mariam! - with the expression Rabbouni! , "my teacher", and he when she approaches, you loose the enigmatic Noli me tangere, "touch me not"), Piñero merely to highlight its "mystical, sometimes symbolic, and trimmed some protognosticismo "completely denying any vestige of historicity (pp. 218-219). However, it does highlight the importance of the Gospel of John gives exclusively to the woman and asks, "Why her?", Then replying: "I do not know exactly, but we can say that it seems useless to do at the scene of Chapter 20 any erotic significance. " And I wonder, if we do not know the reasons for John to highlight the role of this woman, how do know, or at least Piñero, which were certainly not erotic issues such as a possible romantic relationship, or even double- between Jesus and Magdalene?

With respect to the arguments of corners, listen to their conclusions:

"Mary Magdalene, only in John and Matthew, is a witness of the resurrection, and only in John is alone with the Risen. In Mt-whose honor of being the first witness is shared with the guards women are unsure just the first act that will culminate with final endorsement in appearance to the males. In John, the beloved apostle is the first believer, he who believes without seeing even the resurrected body of the Nazarene. Mary Magdalene is the first witness, but everything suggests that the intention to oust Peter and legitimize and the strange doctrines of John, although not fully Gnostic, is set to start a tradition that will end so. " (P.197)

indeed be called Gnostic , "which considered themselves Christians simply - who developed the tradition of the role of Magdalene as a disciple, even as the wife of Jesus. Historicist fetishism of our two authors is that prevents them from seeing that, in any case what really happened - do we know? - Is a documented fact that in certain early Christian communities-Gnostic or not it was in high esteem the figure as disciple Mary Magdalene and, therefore, of a woman.

Moreover, we Swidler notes that there are three resurrections related to the woman, the daughter of Jairus, here Jesus touches the body, which is a violation of the Act, it would be ritually unclean, "the son of widow of Nain and Lazarus, at the request of Martha and Mary.

By the way, is a woman, Marta, which reveals what he had said to any student, "I am the resurrection and the life." Following that scene, which has no waste, we need Jesus seems to claim the possibility of a contemplative life to women and reported against the stereotype of female submissive role when he tells Martha, worried that Mary leaves housework to listen to Jesus, that "Mary has chosen the better part." Ben Chorin also highlights this "appears unlikely" (p.45)

Then we would have the role of so-called disciples of Jesus, the deaconesses , paper authors also challenged by our critics. In any case, as I said earlier, seem to ignore the documented fact that in certain early Christian communities, as Quintilian he named Epifanio and quoted in the previous post-officiated women even as bishops.

Finally, I find revealing, as Swidler and Ben Chorin, "but not, of course, Esquinas-Piñero or a series of transgressions of Jesus to the rituals of purity and danger", I would say Mary Douglas imposed by the Act, as already mentioned, touched the corpse of a woman (the daughter of Jairus), was anointed by a prostitute left, forgave an adulteress; cured a hemorrhage, a woman with menstrual flow constant, therefore permanently impure, "spoke with a Samaritan-a rabbi addressing a woman, and also non-Jewish, and was not exactly a trivial conversation, and said Swidler," first time and in an explicit manner, revealed himself as the Messiah. "

remains to be seen suggestive Swidler section that focuses on "God as a woman", but it is a juicy topic enough to taste another time. For now, here is the article by Ben Chorin, affecting many of the issues discussed, and introduces another no less juicy, and will also be subject to future investigations, namely: if Jesus was married or not.

With respect to our discussion, I think Swidler complies well with the expectations that had been proposed in the introduction clarification of terms. And as to the serious doubts cited by Piñero and corners, I think at first he blinds his meticulous philological historicism, which prevents him from capturing a zeitgeist that certainly seemed to back the equality of women, while the second is, in my opinion somewhat intoxicated by the philosophical materialist reductionism of his revered teacher Gustavo Bueno-dogmatic and cryptic "categorical closure" - which puts him in a horizon of understanding which does not blow any spirit, and if it did, soon be reduced to mere gas ...

Jesus and Women-S. Ben Chorin