Simon Peter's Mother in Law Revisited. Or Why One Should Be More

More documents

Recommendations

Info

© Smit, Peter’s Mother in Law lectio difficilior http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/03_1/smit.htmApostle for the Whole Church, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994, 58-9) suggest that a (mere)confirmation of the reality of the miracle should be regarded as the core of the story. Unfortunately, SimonPeter’s mother-in-law does not get much attention in Irene Danneman, Aus dem Rahmen fallen, Frauen imMarkusevangelium, eine feministische Re-Vision (Berlin: Alektor Verlag, 1996, 70), as the author prefers to dealmore thoroughly with some longer narratives. But what Simon Peter’s mother-in-law has to do with preaching orbeing an authoritative person in the community (p. 162), and even leading this community (p. 248, but her role isagain reduced to that of a disciple of Jesus on p. 267 and 272) remains unclear. I myself cannot think of aconvincing argument in favour of this view. Confessing agnosticism as to the leadership of the community inCapharnaum seems better to me.12 Krause, ‘Mother-in-Law,’ 42, note 14.13 Krause, ‘Mother-in-Law,’ 43, for the verb diakone/w, see Hermann W. Beyer, ‘ diakone/w, diakoni/a,dia/konoj’, in: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament II, 81-93.14 See Hans Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1-59 (transl. Hilton C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 129-132.15 Krause, ‘Mother-in-Law,’ 44, she does not combine these two features of the text, but points to it elsewhere; itwould have strengthened her argument here as well, of course. See Idem, 47.16 Krause, ‘Mother-in-Law,’ 45, referring to Maria Selvidge, ‘And Those Who Followed Feared (Mark 10:32),’Classical Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983), 396-400.17 Krause, ‘Mother-in-Law,’ 45f.18 Krause, ‘Mother-in-Law,’ 46f.; Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 320-321.19 Krause, ‘Mother-in-Law,’ 47-8 (see p. 48, note 31 for bibliographical references).20 See Winsome Munro, ‘Women Disciples in Mark,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982), 225-241. For thediscussion between Munro and others, see Munro, ‘Women Disciples: Light from Secret Mark’, Journal ofFeminist Studies in Religion 8 (1992), 49-51.21 Krause, ‘Mother-in-Law,’ 49.22 Krause, ‘Mother-in-Law,’ 50, confirmed by Kathleen Corley, Private Women, Public Meals: Social Conflict inthe Synoptic Tradition (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), 241.23 Krause, ‘Mother-in-Law,’ 50, see Joanna Dewey, ‘Mark,’ in: E. Schüssler Fiorenza (ed.), Searching theScriptures: A Feminist Introduction and Commentary I (2 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1993), 470-509, esp. 476.24 Krause, ‘Mother-in-Law,’ 50.25 Krause, ‘Mother-in-Law,’ 50f.26 Krause, ‘Mother-in-Law,’ 52.27 Krause, ‘Mother-in-Law,’ 52f.28 On the basis of I Corinthians 9:5 most scholars accept the existence of Simon Peter’s mother-in-law, as Paulstates that Peter took his wife with him on his missionary journeys. See Raymond E. Brown / Karl P. Donfried /John Reumann, Der Petrus der Bibel, Eine Ökumenische Untersuchung (transl. Erminold Füssl, Stuttgart:Calwer Verlag/Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976), 35. See also Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to theCorinthians (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000),679-682, who refers to Matthew 8:14 instead of Mark 1:29ff. for the ‘widely known’ fact that Peter was married.Historically speaking, it would have been rather exceptional, if a fisherman like Peter would have remainedunmarried.10
© Smit, Peter’s Mother in Law lectio difficilior http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/03_1/smit.htm29 An extensive list can be found in Krause, ‘Mother-in-Law,’ 48, note 31.30 See also Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Louisville:Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 27-57, 134-160. Another view, which is based on less (and only textual)data, is presented by Ross S. Kraemer, ‘Jewish Women and Women’s Judaism(s) at the Beginning ofChristianity,’ in: Ross Shepard Kraemer / Mary Rose D’Angelo, Women and Christian Origins (Oxford/NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1999), 50-79. However, this valuable contribution to the discussion seems to bedealing with two quite privileged women, the one a land-owner the other a princess. I suspect, however, thatmost women in first century Palestine were not exactly rich land-owning widows or successful princesses whowere courting Roman conquerors as in the case discussed by Kraemer. At least, nothing suggests that this wasthe case with Simon Peter’s mother-in-law. In another article in the same volume Kraemer also pays attention tothe tendency to present a very gloomy picture of the position of women in first century Judaism, in order to havethe light of Christ’s liberation of them shine all the brighter. According to Kraemer, this view is neitherhistorically justified, nor a good safeguard against anti-Judaism. Kraemer, ‘Jewish Women and ChristianOrigins: Some Caveats’, in: Kraemer / D’Angelo, Women and Christian Origins, 35-49.31 See Malina, New Testament World, 143ff.32 See also Sylvia Schroer, ‘Häusliche und ausserhausliche religiöse Kompetenzen israelitischer Frauen – amBeispiel von Totenklage und Totenbefragung’, Lectio Difficilior 2002-1.(http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/02_1/schroer.htm) What she states for the Hebrew Bible seems to hold true for NewTestament times as well.33 See Krause, ‘Mother-in-Law,’ 42, note 14.34 See Malina, New Testament World, 33ff.35 See Malina, New Testament World, 43ff.36 See Malina, New Testament World, 47ff. In these respects Jesus is indeed revolutionary, although the result ofhis actions seems to remain within the social boundaries. Historically speaking, one should also ask if it is fair toexpect another outcome, which does not mean that this story could be used as a legitimisation for keeping peoplesuccessfully unhappy (or happy) within a given system. In other words, one should not read the story asencouraging a Gospel that tells the oppressed to ‘just serve us as Simon Peter’s mother-in-law did, because thatis what the Gospel tells you to do.’37 Apart from the article mentioned earlier see also Monika Fander, Die Stellung der Frau im Markusevangelium(Münsteraner Theologische Abhandlungen 8; Altenberge: Telos-Verlag, 1989), 17-25.38 Fander, ‘Frauen’, 413f.39 Fander, Stellung, 21 suggests that the au)toi=j in Mark 1:31 should have been au)tw?~ in the Vorlage, butarguments are lacking here, only Matthew 8:15 actually has au)tw?~ but the text -critical situation is less ideal inMark 1:31 and in Luke 4:39 nothing can be deduced from this, apart from a ‘christologisation’ of the story inMatthew.40 Mary Rose D’Angelo, ‘(Re)presentations of Women in the Gospels: John and Mark’ in: Ross ShepardKraemer / Mary Rose D’Angelo (eds.), Women & Christian Origins, 129-159, 139.41 Kraemer / D’Angelo, Women & Christian Origins, 139.42 See also Esther A. de Boer, The Gospel of Mary. Beyond a Gnostic and a Biblical Mary Magdalene(Proefschrift Theologische Universiteit van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland te Kampen, 3-12-2002),11
Page 1 and 2: © Smit, Peter’s Mother in Law le
Page 9: © Smit, Peter’s Mother in Law le

Simon Peter's Mother in Law Revisited. Or Why One Should Be More

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?