JFSR 23.2 (2007) 27-49

CHRISTIAN ORIGINS, EGALITARIANISM, AND UTOPIA

Mary Ann Beams

In recent years, several scholars have challenged the widely held : hypothesis that the historical Jesus and the kingdom of God

movement were egalitarian, but that as early as the time of Paul the early church began conforming to the nonegalitarian norms of the ancient Mediterranean world. In particular, "feminist myths of Christian origins" have been criticized for anachronis-tically projecting contemporary gender egalitarian ideals back into the first century. Beavis critiques this argument, especially as presented by John Elliott, and suggests that opposition to the "egalitarian theory," much like Cynthia Eller s The Myth ofMa-tnarchal Prehistory, sets up a biased and incomplete account of feminist reconstructions of Christian origins, and then proceeds to refute it. As such, appealing to "feminist myths" of proto­Christian egalitarianism may be used, much like Eller s book, to discredit feminist scholarship and spirituality. Beavis shows that the basileia movement expresses egalitarian ideals—including gender egalitarianism—similar to those of other ancient Utopian writings and movements.

In recent years, several scholars have challenged accounts of Christian ori­gins that represent Jesus as initiating a unique and revolutionary golden age of inclusiveness and egalitarianism, especially gender egalitarianism, which en­dured into the earliest churches, but that quickly succumbed to the patriarchal cultural values of the Roman world.1 Most notably with respect to proto-Chris-

1 Kathleen E. Corley, Women and the Historical Jesus: Feminist Myths of Christian Origins (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2002), Kathleen E. Corley, "Feminist Myths of Christian Origins," in Reimagining Christian Origins: A Colloquium Honoring Burton L. Mack, ed. Elizabeth A. Cas­telli and Hal Taussig (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 51-67; and Elizabeth A. Castelli, "Rethinking the Feminist Myth of Christian Origins" (paper presented at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, February 15,1994).

28 Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion

tian egalitarianism, John Elliott has published two vigorous refutations of femi­nist scholars who take this view, as well as of scholars who, while not explicitly feminist, describe Jesus and the movement associated with him as a discipleship of equals.2 Elliott trenchantly asserts:

The currently-advanced theory that Jesus was an egalitarian who founded a "community of equals" is devoid of social and political plau­sibility and, more importantly, of textual and historical evidence. More­over, it distorts the actual historical and social nature of the nascent Jesus movement and constitutes a graphic example of an "idealist fallacy." The biblical texts to which proponents of the egalitarian theory appeal show Jesus and his followers engaged not in social revolution, democratic in­stitutions, equality, and the eradication of the traditional family, but in establishing a form of community modelled on the family as redefined by Jesus and united by familial values, norms, and modes of conduct.3

The scholars Elliot singles out as representing this view are Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, John Dominic Crossan, Gerd Theissen, and Annette Merz, although he subjects Schüssler Fiorenza s work to the most criticism.4

It is not my aim in this article to defend the "Jesus was egalitarian" thesis as formulated specifically by Schüssler Fiorenza, Crossan, Theissen, or Merz, all of whom are eminently capable of upholding their own work.5 Nor do I dispute the value of the challenges to egalitarian constructions of the "Jesus movement" that Elliott and others offer; these legitimate scholarly interrogations of argu-

2 John H. Elliott, "Jesus Was Not an Egalitarian: A Critique of an Anachronistic and Idealist Theory," Biblical Theology Bulletin 32 (2002): 75-91, and John H. Elliott, "The Jesus Movement Was Not Egalitarian but Family-Oriented," Biblical Interpretation 11 (2003): 173-210. See also Kathleen E. Corley, "The Egalitarian Jesus: A Christian Myth of Origins," Forum, n.s. 1-2 (1998): 291-325; and John Jefferson Davis, "Some Reflections on Galatians 3:28, Sexual Roles, and Bibli­cal Hermeneutics/'/ETS 19 (1976): 201-8.

3 Elliott, "Jesus," 75. 4 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, "The Oratory of Euphemia and the Ekklësia of Wo/man," in

Jesus: Miriams Child, Sophia's Prophet (New York: Continuum, 1995), 3-31, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Discipleship of Equals: A Critical Feminist Ekkeslialogy of Liberation (New York: Crossroad, 1993), Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983); John Dominic Crossan, The Essential Jesus: Orig­inal Sayings and Earliest Images (San Francisco: Harper, 1998), John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: Harper, 1993), John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper, 1991); Gerd Theissen, "'We Have Left Everything . . .' (Mark 10:28): Discipleship and Social Uprooting in the Jewish-Palestinian Society of the First Century," in Social Reality and the Early Christians: Theology, Ethics, and the World of the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), Gerd Theissen, Sociol­ogy of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978); and Gerd Theissen and An­nette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999). Elliott does refer to "others" representing this view, whom Corley cites in "Egalitarian Jesus," 291n3,4.

5 See, for example, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Jesus and the Politics of Interpretation (New York: Continuum, 2000).

Beavis: Christian Origins, Egalitarianism, and Utopia 29

ments have significantly affected not only biblical scholarship but also popular theology and feminist historiography6 As Elliott notes, feminist scholars like Amy-Jill Levine, Mary Rose D'Angelo, and Kathleen Corley have challenged the many feminist accounts of Christian origins that idealize women's status in Jesus s circle and the early church at the expense of an exaggeratedly misogy-nistic Judaism, pointing to the gender-egalitarian impulses in Second Temple Judaism that nurtured Jesus and the early church, and to the greater social free­dom that Roman women enjoyed in the early empire, in which some Chris­tian women participated.7 Schüssler Fiorenza, particularly, has acknowledged the justice of these critiques, especially the charges of Christian feminist anti-Judaism, which have significantly influenced the direction of her work.8

Challenges to egalitarian reconstructions of Christian origins constitute an interesting parallel to Cynthia Eller's The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory, a book that opponents of "Goddess feminism" (also called "spiritual feminism" and "feminist spirituality") have lauded since it claims to demolish the claims of "feminist matriarchalists" that prehistory was a peaceful, woman-centered, egalitarian, Goddess-worshipping epoch supplanted by warlike, patriarchal, and hierarchical cultures that revered dominant male deities.9 Jane Schaberg, whose construct of "Magdalene Christianity" upholds a feminist and egalitarian model of Christian origins, is careful to distinguish her work from what Kath­leen Corley and Elizabeth Castelli have dubbed the "feminist myth of Christian origins"—"that there was an original moment of perfect egalitarianism, from which subsequent history is a 'fall.'"10 Schaberg also explains that her recon-

6 On the influence of the egalitarian Jesus hypothesis, see Corley, Women, 11-14. 7 Elliott, "Jesus Movement," 174, citing Corley, Women, 71-73; Amy-Jill Levine, "Second

Temple Judaism, Jesus and Women: Yeast of Eden," Biblical Interpretation 2 (1994): 302-31; and Mary Rose D'Angelo, "Theology in Mark and Q: Abba and 'Father' in Context," HTR 85 (1992): 611-30. It should be noted that Schüssler Fiorenza initiated the discussion of Christian feminist anti-Judaism in In Memory of Her (105-10). See also Corley, Women, 20-25, Kathleen E. Corley, Private Women, Public Meals: Social Conflict in the Synoptic Tradition (Peabody, MA: Hendrick­son, 1993), 53-59; Carolyn Osiek and David Balch, Families in the New Testament World: Houses and House Churches (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 57-60; and Carolyn Osiek and Margaret Y. Macdonald with Janet Tulloch, A Woman's Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 2-3.

8 See, for example, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, "Jesus, Women, and Christian Anti-Judaism," in Jesus and the Politics of Interpretation, 67-96.

9 Surprisingly, neither Elliott nor Corley cites Eller. Cynthia Eller, The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future (Boston: Beacon, 2000). Eller admits that no feminist social scientist, historian, or thealogian actually uses the term matriar­chal prehistory (12), and her critique of feminist matriarchalism does not distinguish between the works of such renowned scholars as Marija Gimbutas and Gerda Lerner and popular fantasy novel­ists like Marion Zimmer Bradley and Mary Mackey (12,20-29).

10 Jane D. Schaberg, "Magdalene Christianity," in On the Cutting Edge: The Study of Women in Biblical Worlds, ed. Jane Schaberg, Alice Bach, and Esther Fuchs (New York: Continuum, 2004), 194, citing Corley, "Feminist Myths" and Women in the accompanying endnote.

30 Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion

struction is not "a version of the myth of matriarchal origins, which posits a women-centered, goddess-centered culture of peace and harmony destroyed by 'patriarchy,' " citing Eller as having discredited this "myth."11 However, Scha-berg does not acknowledge that Eller has been incisively criticized by several feminist scholars who fault her, among other things, for parodying the com­monly held hypothesis of a gynocentric, peaceable prehistory, and for ignor­ing significant evidence of prepatriarchal goddess worship and the subsequent decline of Goddess-centered religion.12 Moreover, although Schabergs intent is to nuance her own egalitarian vision of "Magdalene Christianity," her mention of Eller s work and Corley and Castelli s "feminist myths of Christian origins" in such close proximity comes perilously close to branding other feminist ac­counts of early Christian egalitarianism as the kind of unscholarly wishful think­ing pilloried in The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory. Like Eller s portrayal of the "matriarchal myth" as an unhistorical fantasy concocted by sloppy scholars and naïve practitioners of feminist spirituality, "feminist myths" (Corley) and anachronistic and idealist "egalitarian theorists" (Elliott) may be invoked in order to discredit feminist historical and theological/thealogical reconstructions of Christian origins as egalitarian, particularly with respect to gender.13

In the following section, I engage primarily with Elliott s articles, which he wrote to challenge the discipleship of equals theory, which he finds "wanting." Elliott s first piece focuses on "the teaching and activity of Jesus pnor to his death" (he does not explain how Jesus could teach and act after his death); the second "concerns the Jesus Movement from the ipenodfollowing Jesus' death to the end of the first century" (although he does not clarify why that particular pe-

11 Schaberg, "Magdalene Christianity," 194. Why a religious myth should require refutation is not explained.

12 See the review article by Kristy Coleman, "Matriarchy and Myth," Religion 31 (2001): 247-63; Cynthia Eller's "Response" in the same issue (265-70), and Coleman's "Reply" (271-73). See also Max Dashu, "Knocking Down Straw Dolls: A Critique of Cynthia Eller's The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future (2000), http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/eller.html; and Joan Marler, "The Myth of Univer­sal Patriarchy: A Critical Response to Cynthia Eller's Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory (2003), http://www.belili.org/marija/eller_response.html. See also the review by Asphodel Long at http://www.asphodel-long.com/html/myth_of_matriarchal_prehistory.html.

13 See, for example, the gleefully appreciative (and superficial) review of Eller's book by Natalie Angier, "Goddess Theory: A Survey of the Matriarchal Myth and Its Origins," New York Times (September 17,2000), http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/09/17/reviews/000917.17angiert .html?_r=l&oref=slogin. See also Christine Stolba, "Three Cheers for Patriarchy!" Women's Quarterly (Spring 2002), http://findarticles.eom/p/articles/mi_mOIUK/is_2002_Spring/ai_ 86504526#continue; Lawrence Osborne, "The Women Warriors: For Decades, Scholars Have Searched for Ancient Matriarchies. Will They Ever Find One?" Lingua Franca (1997): 50-57, and Lawrence Osborne, "False Goddess," Salon.com (June 28, 2000), http://www.salon.com/books/ feature/2000/06/28/matriarchy/index.html.

Beavis: Christian Origins, Egalitarianism, and Utopia 31

riod is significant).14 In the discussion that follows, I consider both Jesus and the prophetic reign of God movement to which he belonged, and that endured and evolved after his death.15 Subsequently, I argue that the accusations of Elliott and other scholars that descriptions of the "Jesus movement" as a "community of equals" are "utopian" (idealistic, mythical, and so on) both point to and miss the intrinsically utopian character ofthat movement.

Egalitarianism and Christian Origins

Early second-wave feminist scholarship on women in the "Jesus movement" and the early church gave an account of Christian origins that emphasized the openness of Jesus and the early church to "nontraditional" roles for women as disciples, financial supporters, apostles, missionaries, teachers, ministers, and leaders of house churches.16 This view, whose optimistic portrayal of women is captured by Schüssler Fiorenzas famous phrase "the discipleship of equals," envisioned the ekklësia as a liberating space for women and men relative to the patriarchal and authoritarian familial, social, political, and religious regimes of antiquity, both Jewish and non-Jewish. Similar reconstructions were character­istic of feminist biblical scholarship in the 1970s and 1980s, and remain highly influential, especially at a popular level, among Christian feminists today.17

Many other scholars whose work is not explicitly feminist (Crossan, Theissen, and Merz among them) have offered similar reconstructions of Christian ori­gins in terms of an early stage of openness and egalitarianism (including gender egalitarianism), followed by a later stage of accommodation to the patriarchal and hierarchical norms of the broader society.

As the next section of this article will show, the argument that the early church was egalitarian in its initial stages but subsequently "fell" into the author-itarianism and institutionalism of proto-orthodoxy (or "early Catholicism") dates to the Reformation, and has undoubtedly influenced contemporary accounts of Christian origins, whether explicitly feminist or not, that highlight gender

14 Elliott, "Jesus Movement," 173. 15 D'Angelo, "Theology in Mark and Q," 628. Following D'Angelo's approach (in "Re­

membering Jesus: Women, Prophecy, and Resistance in the Memory of the Early Churches," Ho­rizons 19, no. 2 [1992]: 199-218), the phrase "reign of God movement," "kingdom of God move­ment," or "basileia movement," situating Jesus within the movement rather than at its head (or center) has been adopted by several feminist interpreters, such as Schüssler Fiorenza, Jesus Poli­tics, 48-51; and Jane D. Schaberg, The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament (New York: Continuum, 2002), 300-56. However, it should be noted that Schüssler Fiorenza made the point that Jesus should be conceptualized as part of the move­ment in In Memory of Her (105-53).

16 A classic expression of this line of argument is Leonard Swidler's "Jesus Was a Feminist," Catholic World 212 (1971): 177-83.

17 Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 140-50; and, for example, Corley, Women, 8.

32 Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion

egalitarianism. Here, it should be emphasized that early in the development of second-wave feminist biblical scholarship, Jewish feminists, notably Judith Plaskow, challenged Christian feminist scholarship that presented Jesus and the early church as emancipating women from the strictures of an exaggeratedly restrictive, misogynistic, and monolithic "Judaism."18 As Schüssler Fiorenza ob­serves, thanks to such critiques, "Christian feminist scholarship much earlier than malestream Historical-Jesus scholarship has recognized and discussed the anti-Jewish prejudice resulting from attempts to depatriarchalize Jesus without challenging the scholarly construction and popular understanding of Judaism as patriarchal."19 Thus Christian feminist anti-Jewish bias is an inheritance from malestream Christian scholarship.

The relationships among feminist biblical scholars and "nonfeminist" schol­ars who see gender egalitarianism as a salient feature of the "Jesus movement" have been complex. For example, feminist scholars have been chided for not engaging in the kind of historical Jesus research the Jesus Seminar has pro­moted, most notably in an interaction between John Dominic Crossan and Jane Schaberg, wherein Crossan asked why there were no feminist sources on the historical Jesus, and Schaberg responded by citing the "ignoring, censoring, dismissing, silencing and trivializing of feminist scholarship, as well as its ap­propriation without attribution, which is a form of silencing."20 Moreover, as Schüssler Fiorenza has shown in Jesus and the Politics of Interpretation, there are unacknowledged political and religious dimensions—including antifemi-nism—at work in supposedly value-neutral historical scholarship that may affect the portrayal of the Jesus movement in "malestream" scholarship. Finally, not surprisingly, there are many differences among feminists on the aims, methods, and outcomes of feminist biblical scholarship in general and specifically regard­ing the hypothesis of early Christian egalitarianism.21 It is into this multidimen­sional and sometimes contentious debate regarding method, unstated biases, and even ethics that Elliott so adamantly weighs in on in his two-part refutation of "egalitarian theorists."

According to Elliott, "egalitarian theorist" scholars, especially Schüssler Fiorenza, Crossan, and Theissen and Merz, have anachronistically (and wish­fully) read back the kinds of eighteenth-century revolutionary ideals proclaimed

18 See Judith Plaskow, "Anti-Judaism in Christian Feminist Interpretation," in Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ed., Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Introduction (New York: Crossroad, 1993), 117-29.1 cite other Jewish feminist critiques elsewhere in this article.

19 Schüssler Fiorenza, Jesus and the Politics of Interpretation, 39. 20 Jane D. Schaberg, "A Feminist Experience of Historical Jesus Scholarship," in Whose His­

torical Jesus? Studies in Christianity and Judaism 7, ed. William Arnal and Michel Desjardins (Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997), 146.

21 See, for example, the range of approaches and opinions represented in Schaberg, Bach, and Fuchs, On the Cutting Edge.

Beavis: Christian Origins, Egalitarianism, and Utopia 33

by the U.S. Declaration of Independence into the ministry of Jesus and the earliest churches.22 According to these theorists:

Jesus' injunctions to his followers to leave home, family, possessions, and protection are interpreted as an implied critique and rejection of the conventional patriarchal family and its hierarchical, male-dominated kinship structure. This supposed critique of the conventional patriarchal family structure, in turn, is then assumed by some to have involved a repudiation of the family as a model for the organization for the group associated with Jesus during his lifetime because the conventional fam­ily was patriarchal and hierarchical in structure and hence constituted a social form diametrically opposed to the egalitarianism that Jesus in­tended to establish.23

This theory also asserts that the egalitarianism of Jesus s circle endured after his death. For example, "Equality, according Schüssler Fiorenza, prevailed in the believing communities until Paul, who was the first to 'revert' to patriarchal thinking and models and commence a process leading eventually to the com­plete loss of the vision and reality of equality in the early church."24 Elliott ar­gues on several grounds that this egalitarian theory is "fatally flawed"—an asser­tion that would have devastating consequences, if true, not only for the scholars specifically cited in his articles or for Christian feminism but also, as shall be noted below, for many generations of interpreters of the New Testament.

Elliott places considerable emphasis in both of his critiques on the linguistic difficulties with egalitarian theory, which, he asserts, has not adequately defined the key terms equal, equality, egalitarian, and egalitarianism?^ He offers dic­tionary and sociological definitions of these terms to clarify what the egalitarian theorists might mean by using these terms: he takes equal and equality to mean, "The same in quantity, quality, degree, value, merit, rank, level, status, position"; and "parity in social status, rights, responsibilities or economic opportunities."26

Egalitarian, according to the 1987 edition of the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, means, "Asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic or social fife."27 He defines egalitaríanism as "the doctrine that all so-called social classes contain approximately the same relative proportions of genius, talent, mediocrity and defectiveness."28 These post-Enlightenment concepts, Elliott says, particularly

22 Elliott, "Jesus," 75. 23 Ibid. 24 Elliott, "Jesus Movement," 176. 25 Ibid., 174; cf. Elliott, "Jesus," 76. 26 Elliott, "Jesus Movement," 174. 27 Ibid. For the dictionary citation, see 174n6. 28 Elliott, "Jesus," 76, citing Henry Pratt Fairchild, Dictionary of Sociology (Westport, CT:

Greenwood Press, 1944).

34 Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion

the doctrine of egalitarianism, have little in common with the worldview of the biblical authors or with ancient thought in general.29 The ancients believed that "humans were by nature born unequal and that this unalterable inequality was evident physically (dominant males vs. inferior females), socially (superior par­ents vs. inferior children; freeborn vs. slaves; natives vs. aliens), and ethnically (Greeks vs. barbarians; Romans vs. nations; Israelites vs. goiim). The notion that unequal social statuses and roles were allotted by nature made these allot­ments permanent and unalterable."30 According to Elliott, ancient discussions of equality actually dealt with either exact sameness ("quantitative/mathemati­cal equality") or proportional equality, in other words, equity, the treatment of persons proportionally with their social status and rank.31 The related concept of democracy, while known in antiquity, was limited to propertied males and was regarded with disfavor by both Plato and Aristotle.32 Elliott dismisses Schüssler Fiorenza s claim that ancient voluntary associations were structurally and socially egalitarian.33 And although he seems to accept Crossan's assertion that "egalitar­ian visions" are characteristic of peasant societies like the Mediterranean Jewish peasant milieu to which Jesus belonged, he insists that such ideological visions do not constitute "concrete social structures embodying equality."34 Here and elsewhere, Elliott seems to concede that while some ancient people could con­ceive of something approximating egalitarian social ideals, they were incapable of putting them into practice in any significant way.

Elliott, with some justice, faults the egalitarian theorists for not considering the New Testament terms for equal and equality: isos, -a, -on; isotës; isotimos; isopsychos?5 He argues that since the theorists do not consider this vocabulary, it is "irrelevant or non-probative" to their position.36 However, we should at least examine the passages Elliott cites as using such language for evidence in

29 Elliott, "Jesus Movement," 174-75. 30 Elliott, "Jesus," 77. 31 Ibid. Elliott offers extensive documentation of ancient sources where these concepts of

equality are expressed (77-78). 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid., citing Thomas Schmeller, Hierarchie und Egalität: Eine sozialgeschichtliche Un­

tersuchung paulinischer Gemeinden und griechisch-römischer Vereine (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 162; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995). For a more positive evaluation of the egalitarianism of the Pauline churches and their similarities to voluntary associations, see John S. Kloppenborg, "Egalitarianism in the Myth and Rhetoric of Pauline Churches," in Reimagining Christian Ori­gins, 252-59.

34 Elliott, "Jesus," 78; cf. Crossan, Historical Jesus, 263-64. On the pages Elliott cites, Cros­san does not claim that Jesus actually implemented these peasant egalitarian visions, but rather points out that visions of an earthly utopia that hark back to a "mythic Eden" are cross-culturally attested among peasants. Crossan is citing James C. Scott, "Protest and Profanation: Agrarian Revolt and the Little Tradition," Theory and Society 4 (1977): 225-26.

35 Elliott, "Jesus Movement," 178; and "Jesus," 78. 36 Elliott, "Jesus," 78.

Beavis: Christian Origins, Egalitarianism, and Utopia 35

support of or against the egalitarian theory.37 The passage in Matt 20:12, where the laborers in the vineyard complain that those who have worked for only a few hours have been paid as much as those who have worked all day ("you have made them equal to us"), surely is a negation of the principle of equity (pro­portional equality) in favor of mathematical equality—all workers get the same pay instead of being paid for the duration of their labor.38 Luke 6:34, where sinners are said to lend to other sinners to receive "the same things'' (ta isa), is followed by the instruction that believers should lend "expecting nothing in return" (v. 35), pointing to a requirement for strictly equal treatment of persons of different statuses (sinners, enemies, believers). Peters speech in Acts 11:17 refers to God granting "the same gift" (tên isën dorean) to the Gentiles as to the Jews, again, referring to the "equal" (not "equitable") treatment of persons of different statuses and ethnicities. In 2 Cor 8:13-14, Paul uses the language of equality in his appeal for a contribution to the Jerusalem church. The apostle argues that the "abundance" (pensseuma) the Corinthians enjoy should com­pensate the "lack" (hysterëma) of the poor in Jerusalem leading to "equality" (isotës) between two geographically and ethnically disparate churches. The pas­sage in 2 Pet 1:1 refers to those who "have obtained a faith of equal standing (isotimon) with us," implying that the addresses share a surprising equality with the prestigious (and pseudonymous) Peter.

In an article entitled "Egalitarianism, Equality, and Equitable Power," so­cial anthropologist Susan Kent notes (with particular reference to gender equal­ity) that "egalitarianism is not discussed in highly egalitarian societies because inequality is not a part of their culture. The only societies . . . that are fixated on egalitarianism in their conversations and writing are those that know that both kinds of societies exist."39 Arguably, Kent's observation also applies to highly nonegalitarian societies; if, as Elliott sweepingly asserts, there were no ancient egalitarian societies or movements, then it would have been extremely difficult to express or describe a discipleship of equals in the language available to the

37 These are Matt 20:12; Mark 14:46, 59; Luke 6:34; John 5:18; Acts 11:17; Phil 2:6; Rev 21:16 (isos); 1 Cor 8:13, 14; Col 4:1 (isotës); 2 Pet 1:1 (isotimos); and Phil 2:20 (isopsychos). It should be noted that Mark 14:46 does not contain the term isos; neither does 1 Cor 8:13 (there is no v. 14-presumably the reference is to 2 Cor 8:13-14). In Mark 14:59, the term isë refers to the fact that the witnesses against Jesus were not the same. In John 5:18, the reference is theological, as it is in Phil 2:6. The reference in Rev 12:16 is architectural, and Phil 2:20 refers to Pauls inabil­ity to find anyone to equal Timothy s genuine concern for the Philippian ekklësia.

38 Elliott asserts that the point of this parable cannot be "an affirmation of social or economic equality within the Jesus movement or a demonstration of Jesus' egalitarianism" ("Jesus," 81), but rather the envy of some of the workers over the landowner's "generosity" to the latecomers. How­ever, since the employer's offense is to make the two groups of laborers "equal" (isous), surely "economic equality" is at issue.

39 Susan Kent, "Egalitarianism, Equality, and Equitable Power," in Manifesting Power: Gender and the Interpretation of Power in Archaeology, ed. Tracy L. Sweely (London: Routledge, 1999), 44.

36 Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion

proto-Christian community.40 Elliott insists that the evidence egalitarian theo­rists routinely adduce to support their claims—sayings that call for the aban­donment of (biological) family ties, status reversals, and the baptismal formula of Gal 3:28 (see also 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:11)—does not support the hypothesis of egalitarianism in the new community.41 Rather, he argues, rejection of biological ties points to the adoption of the (patriarchal) household (oikos, familia) as the model for the new community, the status reversal sayings express the prefer­ence of God for those of low status rather than those of high status, and the bap­tismal formula denotes "inclusion and oneness in Christ" rather than equality between persons of different ethnicities, social classes, and genders.42 However, in a highly class-stratified and gender-nonegalitarian society, using the language of family abandonment, "new family," social reversals, and baptismal unity irre­spective of nationality, class, or gender can just as well be interpreted as strain­ing to express the near-inexpressible reality of an "egalitarian movement" in words and metaphors that both cite and subvert dominant social norms. Simi­larly, the extreme difficulty of resisting the highly nonegalitarian structure of ancient society would support rather than undermine the "feminist/egalitarian myth" of an early state of proto-Christian equality gradually (and perhaps inevi­tably) supplanted by nonegalitarian church structures.

Patriarchy, Kyriarchy, and Gender Egalitarianism

As noted above, the argument that Jesus and the early church were egali­tarian is nothing new in the history of religious scholarship; and it is certainly not confined to the scholars Elliott criticizes. In fact, as John Kloppenborg as­serts, "It has now become something of a truism that the earliest churches—the Pauline churches, at least, and perhaps some sectors of the Jesus movement in Galilee—were 'egalitarian.' ',43 Martin Luther combined the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers with the centrality of preaching, rather than the sacraments, to argue that "no inner distinction could be made between those who acted as officers and other Christians. All were priests and all [with the 'exemption' of women, children, and incompetent persons] were called to the priestly ministry of preaching." Kloppenborg notes that this position was typi­cal of the Reformation: "On their view, the primitive Church was 'egalitarian' in a theological sense: by virtue of their baptism, all Christians were called to the ministry of the word. This issued—at least initially—in an essentially con-gregationalist polity that makes ecclesiastical office a matter of practical man­agement and deprived it of any sacerdotal character." Pietist founder Philipp

40 Elliott, "Jesus," 78-79. 41 Ibid., 78-91; and Elliott, "Jesus Movement," 178-87. 42 Ibid. 43 Kloppenborg, "Egalitarianism," 248.

Beavis: Christian Origins, Egalitarianism, and Utopia 37

Jakob Spener (1635-1735) and his disciple Gottfried Arnold (1666-1714) con­tended that "ministers in the early church were chosen for their piety rather than their erudition and this meant that those of low estate were as eligible as the elite." Kloppenborg observes that as the nineteenth century dawned, the argument was well established that the earliest church was nonhierarchical and was supplanted by hierarchical leadership only in the second century.44 The eighteenth- and nineteenth-century insistence on the "egalitarianism" of the early church was related to questions of the origins and legitimacy of hierar­chical leadership, and reflected the struggle against the hegemony of German Lutheran orthodoxy.45

Discussion of early Christian egalitarianism resurfaced in the mid-1970s, when scholars like Robin Scroggs, John Gager, and Gerd Theissen asked ques­tions about the "social interaction among Christians in general and, usually, the contrast between Christians and the institutions of their environment."46 Here, interest in ecclesiastical hierarchy gave way to issues of gender and class equal­ity in the Pauline churches: "The issue of leadership was certainly present, but now arguments that Phoebë (Rom. 16:1-2) or Cloe (1 Cor. 1:11) or Syntychë and Euodia (Phil. 4:2) were in fact leaders within Pauline congregations were made to reinforce the more basic point that the earliest communities were so­cially inclusive."47 Appealing to the same kinds of evidence of egalitarianism El­liott rejects, Wayne Meeks's groundbreaking book The First Urban Chnstians used Victor Turner's notion of "normative communitas" as a theoretical model to make sense of "the high frequencies of fictive family terms and of strongly affec­tive language, alongside metaphors of 'reintegration' in [pre-]Pauline baptismal formulae such as those in 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:28, and Colossians 3:ll."48 In this model, early Christian rejection of the dominant society and in­tegration into the ekklësia constituted a state of communitas, which Turner con­ceived as "the social leveling that occurs in the liminal state, often signaled by the use of fictive family language, and normative communitas,... the 'perduring social system' of a group that attempts to maintain communitas on a more or less permanent basis."49 Subsequently, Kloppenborg observes, similar estimates of

44 Ibid. 45 Ibid., 249-51. 46 Ibid., 251, citing Robin Scroggs, "The Earliest Christian Communities as Sectarian Move­

ment," in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Religions: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty 2, ed. Jacob Neusner, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 12/1-4 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 1-23; John G. Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity (Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1975); and Gerd Theissen, Soziologie der Jesusbewegung (Munich: Kaiser, 1977).

47 Kloppenborg, "Egalitarianism," 251. 48 Ibid., 248-49, citing Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the

Apostle Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), 90. 49 Kloppenborg, "Egalitarianism," 249; cf. Meeks, First Urban Christians, 84-107.

38 Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion

the egalitarian character of the earliest churches have become commonplace.50

Kloppenborg himself admits that Pauline churches were egalitarian insofar as they admitted persons of disparate social ranks, women (who acted as patrons and perhaps leaders), and (echoing Gal 3:28), both slaves and free.51

To this impressive list of egalitarian theorists can be added the feminist scholars Elliott cites as the critics of egalitarian theories of Christian origins: Corley, D'Angelo, and Levine. While all three critique Christian feminist schol­arship that denigrates a caricature of Judaism in order to portray Jesus and the earliest church as remarkably and uniquely accepting of women in contrast to unrelenting Jewish misogyny, Corley and, especially, D'Angelo find the ori­gins of proto-Christian egalitarianism in Second Temple Judaism. Corley refers to "Jesus' egalitarian impulse" and explains it with reference to "some kind of progressive Jewish framework."52 D'Angelo observes that the gospel of Mat­thew reveals a community that had both egalitarian and androcentric features;53

elsewhere, she asserts that "If 'discipleship of equals' portrays women as equal to the men of the movement because all are the disciples of Jesus the unique teacher and prophet, then 'shared prophecy' implies that women as prophets share fully in the same spirit that empowered Jesus and the other men of the prophetic movement."54 Although Levine is skeptical of claims of gender egali­tarianism for Jesus and the hasileia movement, she suggests that "if Jesus and/or his earliest followers are seen as offering a liberating worldview for women, then this view should be regarded as representing 'the critical feminist impulse' already present in Judaism."55 She concludes the same article with the observa­tion that the words attributed to Jesus "inspire the liberation of all peoples," and that "today women of various persuasions can unite to reclaim those words of liberation," which hold the potential for creating "the ideal, egalitarian com­munity."56 This begs the question of what in Jesus's message is so liberating and potentially egalitarian for women today that did not have that effect on women in Jesus's circle.

What Elliott calls "egalitarian theory," then, in some form, has been upheld by prominent scholars for centuries, although the gender implications of the

50 Kloppenborg, "Egalitarianism," 249, citing John E. Stambaugh and David L. Balch, The New Testament and Its Social Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 55; Gerd Theissen, Social Reality and the Early Christians (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 218; and James T. Burtch-aell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communi­ties (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), xii.

51 Kloppenborg, "Egalitarianism," 258-60. 52 Corley, "Feminist Myths," 59-60. 53 D'Angelo, "Theology in Mark and Q," 629. 54 D'Angelo, "Re-membering Jesus," 208. 55 Levine, "Second Temple Judaism," 307. The argument that a feminist impulse was already

present in the Judaism of Jesus's time was first made by Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 105-53.

56 Levine, "Second Temple Judaism," 331.

Beavis: Christian Origins, Egalitarianism, and Utopia 39

theory were not prominent until the 1970s, coinciding with the rise of second-wave feminism. Interestingly, the scholars whose interpretations Elliott singles out for the most criticism all emphasize the "antipatriarchal" character of the reign of God movement, especially Schüssler Fiorenza, whose work is both exegetical/historical and feminist theo/alogical. According to Elliott, Schüssler Fiorenza s use of the term patriarchy is highly problematic, since she does not, he claims, adequately define it and because it depends on "a notion of which Jesus and his followers never speak, namely, patriarchy and its hierarchical structures, or more accurately, its stratification.,,S7 In fact, Elliott insists, the at­tribution of a critique of patriarchy and hierarchy to anyone in the ancient world is anachronistic, since those terms did not exist.58 Elliott would perhaps be even less convinced by Schüssler Fiorenzas coinage of the term kynarchy, which refers to "the rule of the emperor/master/lord/father husband over his subor­dinates/'59 Although he does not mention kyriarchy, he knows that the term well describes the social system that prevailed in the Roman Empire, where the emperor posed as "the pater patrìae with supposed father-like solicitude toward all his subjects, including the Christian community."60 Notwithstanding his reservations regarding egalitarian theorists' anachronistic use of the terms egalitarian and patriarchy, Elliott regularly employs contemporary terms like Jesus movement, male dominance, values, and family that are just as foreign to the ancient world.

Elliott concedes that many of the egalitarian theorists whose work he is determined to refute describe die egalitarianism of proto-Christianity as vision­ary rather than as manifested in "concrete economic and social terms."61 He notes that William Countryman saw in Gal 3:28 "a hint of a utopian vision of equality, framed most often in eschatological terms."62 Similarly, Gerd Theissen interpreted the baptismal formula as promising equal status to all believers, but "at the same time . . . all of this was internalized; it was true In Christ/ '>63

Similarly, Klaus Thraede was reading 1 Corinthians 12:13 and Galatians 3:28 in terms of an eschatological vision of equality that involved "no actuality of social freedom."64 Other scholars Elliott indicts for speaking of "ideal" rather than "actual" egalitarianism include Crossan, Thomas Schmeller, Klaus Schäfer, and

57 Elliott, "Jesus," 81. 58 Ibid. 59 Schüssler Fiorenza, Miriam's Child, 14. 60 Elliott, "Jesus Movement," 198. 61 Ibid., 176. 62 Ibid., 185, citing William Countryman, "Christian Equality and the Early Catholic Epis­

copate," Australasian Theological Review 63 (1981): 115-38. 63 Elliott, "Jesus Movement," 185, citing Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Chris­

tianity: Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 109. 64 Elliott, "Jesus Movement," 185, citing Klaus Thraede, "Gleichheit," Reallexikon für Antike

und Christentum 11 (1981): 143-44.

40 Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion

Aloys Funk.65 Such scholars, Elliott asserts, are guilty of the "idealist fallacy," confusing "visions, ideas, and ideals" with "concrete realities."66 He is also highly critical of those like Schmeller who see the movement as having both egalitarian and nonegalitarian elements.67 According to Elliott, egalitarianism and hierar­chy are mutually exclusive: "Organizations that are hierarchical are, by defini­tion, the opposite of those that are 'egalitarian.' Social groups can be one or the other but not both simultaneously. Imagining a group to be predominantly hierarchical but a little bit egalitarian . . . is like imagining a virgin to be a little bit pregnant."68 However, Elliott himself seems to admit that the implementa­tion of the eighteenth-century notion of egalitarianism was not fully achieved (if it ever has been) until almost two centuries after the American and French revolutions, since slaves and women were not counted as equals. Moreover, he observes, "The quest for equality eventually also was felt in religious bodies resulting not only in the restructuring of admission and leadership policies but also in religious movements supportive of the abolition of slavery, the affirma­tion of women's suffrage and the active support of civil rights movements at­tempting to make the quality of all persons a reality in the ecclesiastical as well as the civil sphere" (emphasis added).69

Equality, then, even in modern states whose governmental polities have been shaped by post-Enlightenment egalitarian ideals have retained (and con­tinue to perpetuate) nonegalitarian and hierarchical elements, which coexist with egalitarian features of those states (for example, democracy, universal suf­frage, and human rights legislation). Elliott is guilty of the "idealist fallacy" him­self in that he imagines that because many modern nations profess egalitarian

65 See Elliott, "Jesus Movement," 187, citing Schmeller, Hierarchie, 189-90; and Klaus Schäfer, Gemeinde als "Bruderschaft": Ein Beitrag zum Kirchenbegriff des Paulus (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1989); and Aloys Funk, Status und Rollen in den Paulusbriefen: Eine inhalts­analytische Untersuchung zure Religionssoziologie (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1981).

66 Elliott, "Jesus Movement," 186. 67 Ibid., 188, citing Schmeller, Hierarchie, 52-53, 92-93; see also Karl Olav Sandnes,

"Equality within Patriarchal Structures: Some New Testament Perspectives on the Christian Fel­lowship as Brotherhood or Sisterhood and a Family," in Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social Reality and Metaphor, ed. Halvor Moxnes (London: Routledge, 1997), 150-65. To this list should be added Dennis Duling, who is cited with approval by Elliott ("Jesus," 77-78) for observing that "the term 'egalitarian' in the modern Enlightenment, individualist, political-philosophical sense in which equality is a self-evident human right and/or social goal for everyone" (" 'Egalitarian' Ideology, Leadership, and Factional Conflict within the Matthean Group," Biblical Theology Bulletin 27 [1997]: 124-37, quotation on 126). Duling actually argues that Matthew reflects what he calls a "limited 'egalitarian' ideology" in tension with "social reality" (134); in other words, a community in the process of evolving (or devolving) from a more egalitarian to a less egali­tarian polity.

68 Elliott, "Jesus Movement," 188. 69 Elliott, "Jesus," 76. The phrase "the quest for equality" indicates that social equality is not

an all or nothing proposition, but a process of constant struggle, even in states founded on egalitar­ian ideals.

Beavis: Christian Origins, Egalitarianism, and Utopia 41

ideals, egalitarianism reigns supreme within them, a supposition that is mani­festly mistaken.

Contrary to Elliott s assertion that hierarchy and egalitarianism cannot co­exist, Susan Kent has developed a cross-cultural classification of degrees of gen­der egalitarianism that may exist within societies.70 Her typology, based on living cultures, includes six classifications of gender relations:

1. Highly egalitarian cultures organize gender relations coopera­tively. Little emphasis is placed on differences between females and males, and the division of labor is flexible. Group decisions are made by consensus between both sexes, and individual deci­sions are made autonomously. She classes within this group Ba-sarwa peoples (Bushmen or San), Pygmies, and Bateks.

2. Strongly egalitanan societies are organized in terms of gender complementarity; differentiation exists without hierarchy. Kent cites the Navajo as an example: "Women and men often have separate, frequently non-overlapping jobs, but neither the jobs nor the sexes are ranked.. . . While political power in the posi­tion of an informal chief with achieved status is held by males, it is not considered better or superior to the power and control the matrilineal Navajo women have over land, residence patterns or descent." Kent notes that Westerners, including anthropologists, have difficulty recognizing this kind of system, since they tend to interpret differentiation in hierarchical terms.

3. Moderately egalitanan societies, such as the New Guinea Vanatnai, rank complementary gender relations hierarchically, in that both "big" women and men can rise through their own efforts and achievements, gain equal respect and status, and ex­ercise equal power. There is sociopolitical stratification within sex-specific hierarchies, but not between them. In other words, "there is a hierarchy for each gender within which there is stratification."71

4. In moderately nonegalitarian societies, males and females have unequal power and there is a major conceptual dichotomiz­ing of the sexes. Often, men are considered superior to women.

70 As she notes, many such schemes "are too simplistic and Western-biased to be useful. Their simplicity has been noted by a number of scholars, particularly in reference to the perceived public/private-domestic (i.e., male/female) dichotomy or belief in universal two-tiered male domi­nance and female subordinate categories" (Kent, "Egalitarianism," 37).

71 Ibid., 38-39. She notes that these types of societies are just beginning to be recognized archaeologically, including the Yayoi of Japan (c. 100-700 CE) and the Korean Old Silla Kingdom (57BCE-668CE).

42 Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion

Kent observes that asymmetric gender relations characterize "many patrilineal societies where gender is an important means of stratification, but highly developed sociopolitical hierarchy is lacking. " She cites the Sambia horticulturalists of Papua New Guinea, who are both patrilineal and patrilocal, and have a rigid gendered division of labor.

5. Strongly nonegalitarian societies like the Batswana of south­ern Africa feature gender relations that are "sometimes opposed and even confrontational." Gendered division of space and labor, belief in female inferiority (including perpetual legal minority), male domination, and female exclusion from politics are charac­teristic of this kind of culture.

6. In highly nonegalitanan societies, which tend to be highly complex and include some contemporary regimes, gender rela­tions are competitive and even antagonistic. Stratification and hi­erarchies organize many cultural domains, and men and women are believed to be fundamentally different: "from the physiology of their brain, to their intellectual abilities and their emotional constitution/' Differential treatment of women by men is legiti­mized by the supposed differences between the sexes, affecting "jobs, education, crime, wages, expectations, opportunities, daily activities of many types, and on."72 Ironically, post-Enlightenment Western societies founded on egalitarian principles show many of the characteristics of high nonegalitarianism.73

Kent offers these classifications with the proviso that "egalitarianism and power are continua, not absolutes. There is no society that is absolutely egali­tarian; rather, there are only societies which are more, less, or equally egalitar­ian as others."74 As she observes, diversity in gender and power relations have existed historically and continue to exist today.75 Her work clearly shows that egalitarianism and hierarchy are not mutually exclusive opposites, but can oper­ate together in a range of permutations and combinations. Contrary to Elliotts assertions, proto-Christianity (or better, proto-Christianities) could well have manifested varying degrees of egalitarian and hierarchical features at different times and locations.

72 Ibid., 40-41. 73 A point not noted by Kent is that the Roman Catholic Church is an example of an inter­

national religious organization that displays all of the characteristics of a highly nonegalitarian system.

74 Kent, "Egalitarianism," 37. 75 Ibid., 41.

Beavis: Christian Origins, Egalitarianism, and Utopia 43

Egalitarianism and Utopianism

As noted above, Elliott is dismissive of scholars who hold that proto­Christian egalitarianism was simply an ideal never put into practice. Of the egal­itarian theorists Elliott addresses, however, he is especially critical of Schüssler Fiorenza for maintaining that the egalitarianism of the kingdom of God move­ment was real as opposed to ideal:

If such an egalitarian community had been established by Jesus and such monumental changes had been achieved, where is the evidence thereof? And of course what qualifies as evidence is not alleged ideas of equality, but concrete proof of a radical alteration of social relation­ships having taken place within the Jesus movement and indicative of an "equality of its members." On this, the New Testament is silent as are extra-biblical sources. No historical evidence is to be found in the writ­ings of Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius or any other author outside the New Testament indicating or alluding to a movement in first century Palestine that accomplished a social transformation along the lines re­quired by the egalitarian hypothesis.76

However, as Elliott shows in his articles, most of the egalitarian theorists do not in fact posit a widespread social revolution where absolute equality was established immediately among all members of the movement. Rather, some posit an ideal or vision of equality that would have been difficult to implement fully in the context of Greco-Roman society; others find evidence of both hier­archical and egalitarian elements within the movement. The "invisibility" of the struggle to realize the vision may be accounted for by its smallness and lack of importance to outsiders, and, as suggested by some scholars, the emergence of egalitarian features within traditional household structures.77

In order to understand the "thorough-going egalitarianism" that Elliott finds so objectionable in Schüssler Fiorenzas work, it is helpful to consider Elizabeth Castelli s suggestion that the construct of the ekklësia of women/dis-cipleship of equals constitutes "feminist utopian space."78 Castelli notes that Schüssler Fiorenza conceives the ekklësia of women both as a historical reality but "much more centrally [as] an activist site within Christian community in the present day and, perhaps even more importantly, an imagined future possibil­ity."79 That is, Schüssler Fiorenzas historical work is always conceived as part of

76 Elliott, "Jesus," 85. 77 On the limited size, itinerancy, and duration of Jesus's career, see D'Angelo, "Re­

membering Jesus," 206n27. For egalitarianism within traditional household structures, see Sandnes, "Equality within Patriarchal Structures."

78 Elizabeth A. Castelli, "The Ekklësia of Women and/as Utopian Space: Locating the Work of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza in Feminist Utopian Thought," in On the Cutting Edge, 36-52.

79 Ibid., 43.

44 Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion

a larger thealogical and activist project that presupposes a dialectical relation­ship between past, present, and future; as Castelli observes,

the ekklësia of women aims at a radical reconceptualization of both time and space. Situated in a historical past to which access is most easily achieved through processes of critical memory, the ekklësia of women reperiodizes the history of the church and offers a broad counternarra-tive to challenge the traditional and dominant meta-narratives. In place of the metanarratives of progress or decline [or of unbroken kyriarchy and inevitably unequal relationships], the story of the ekklësia of women requires constant struggle.80

This transformation of historical narrative creates connections across time, in that the past becomes both the object of present-day critique and a "resource for rethinking the future."81 Schüssler Fiorenzas approving citation of Alicia Suskin Ostriker s concept of a "hermeneutics of desire" points to this aspect of her thought.82

The utopian character of Schüssler Fiorenzas conceptualization of the discipleship of equals is particularly appropriate to the interpretation of the hasileia movement, which in itself was utopian (it proclaimed the reign of God) and eutopian (it posited a better way to live). Elliott asserts that there is no his­torical evidence of "thorough-going" egalitarian communities or "even egalitar­ian visions" in antiquity.83 On the contrary, there is a substantial body of ancient literature that can be described as "utopian" in that it posits ideal societies either as theoretical possibilities, as existing in remote parts of the world, in the past, or in the future.84 Some of these works envision egalitarian social arrangements as part of the utopian ideal. In Platos Republic (2.369-8.544), for example, the patriarchal household is abolished, and women and men are reared and trained for the same occupations, with some provision for women's lesser physical (and possibly intellectual) strength. Even the role of the "philosopher ruler" is open to properly endowed and educated women. While Plato's ideal society has clas­sisi and totalitarian aspects (for example, he never mentions slavery), it certainly portrays what can accurately be described as gender egalitarianism and a radical

80 Ibid., 45-46. 81 Ibid., 46. 82 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Sharing Her Word: Feminist Biblical Interpretation in

Context (Boston: Beacon, 1998), 106. 83 Elliott, "Jesus," 85; and Elliott, "Jesus Movement," 204. 84 Of course, the term utopia was not coined until the sixteenth century by Sir Thomas More

in his book about an ideal, communistic society set on a remote island. The name of the island, Utopia, is a wordplay on the Greek ou-topos, "no-place," and eu-topos, "good place." As Clarence Miller observes, More's Utopia "adhered more or less to traditional literary devices that More himself had received from Lucían of Samosata, who in turn had inherited them from Hellenistic novels, many of them no longer extant." Clarence Miller, "Introduction," Thomas More, Utopia, trans. Clarence Miller (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), ix.

Beavis: Christian Origins, Egalitarianism, and Utopia 45

critique of the patriarchal family. Hellenistic historiographer Diodorus Siculus includes an account of a fantastic voyage of a certain Iambulus to the remote "Islands of the Sun" (2.55-59). The islands are all perfectly spherical and of the same size, days and nights are of equal duration, die inhabitants, called Helio-politans, all practice the same customs, eat the same foods, dress similarly, and take turns serving each other. Marriage does not exist, and children are raised as wards of the community. The only ruler is the eldest man, who is obeyed im­plicitly by all. Community harmony is their ideal.85 Again, while the element of male gérontocratie rule does not conform to contemporary feminist ideals, the Iambulus romance portrays a society pervaded by egalitarian features, includ­ing gender egalitarianism and the absence of the patriarchal household.

Hellenistic Jewish writers were certainly aware of Greco-Roman utopian literature.86 Doron Mendels has gone so far as to argue that the Essenes were founded on principles inspired by Diodorus s account of the Islands of the Sun.87 Mendels offers a persuasive list of parallels between the Essenes and the Heliopolitans: location in isolated areas; distinctive "national identities"; em­phasis on internal harmony; leadership by elders; no private property; common meals; asceticism; uniformity of dress; natural derivation of subsistence; ritual baths; rejection of marriage; communal child-rearing; rejection of temple wor­ship; simple burial system; dualistic worldview; association of the deity with the sun; love of learning, especially astrology; cryptic writings; and special skill in healing.88 Mendels argues that all of these parallels are supported not just by the descriptions in Philo and Josephus, but also by references in the Dead Sea Scrolls.89 Consequently, according to Mendels, the resemblance is more than the portrayal of the Essenes in idealized terms by Greek-educated Jews.90

Elliott asserts (without further discussion) that "the Therapeutai described by Philo were no example of the thorough-going egalitarianism of which the

85 For other summaries of Iambulus, see E. F. Manuel and F. P. Manuel, Utopian Thought in the Western World (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1979), 86-87; John Ferguson, Utopias of the Clas­sical World (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1975), 127-29; and David Winston, "Iambulus' Islands of the Sun and Hellenistic Literary Utopias," Science Fiction Studies 10, no. 3 (November 1976), http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/10/winstonl0art.htm.

86 See Doron Mendels, "Hellenistic Utopia and the Essenes," in Identity, Religion, and His­toriography: Studies in Hellenistic History, ed. Doron Mendels, JSPSup 24 (Sheffield: Academic, 1998), 420-39; Mary Ann Beavis, "Philo's Therapeutai: Philosopher's Dream or Utopian Con­struction? "Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 14 (2004): 30-42, and Mary Ann Beavis, "The Kingdom of God, 'Utopia,' and Theocracy," Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 2 (2004): 91-106. See also Ferguson, Utopias, 22,116.

87 Mendels, "Hellenistic Utopia," 423. 88 Ibid., 424-36. 89 Mendels, like the majority of Dead Sea Scrolls scholars, attributes their origin to the Es­

senes ("Hellenistic Utopia," 421n6). 90 Ibid., 436-37.

46 Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion

theorists speak."911 have argued elsewhere that Philo s account of the Thera­peutai in De Vita Contemplativa shows many parallels with Hellenistic utopian writings, especially Diodorus s account of the Heliopolitans. Notably, like the Islanders, the Therapeutai, both male and female, all eat pure, natural foods, dress simply, reject marriage and family, eschew slavery (the younger mem­bers of the community serve the elders), and love harmony.92 While the gen­der equality of Philo s sectarians is not absolute—the Therapeutrides are "aged virgins," whereas the men (possibly widowed) have left behind their marital families, and only an "elder man" (presbyteros) presides at their weekly assem­blies—he describes a community whose egalitarianism is notable in antiquity and that fits well into Kent s category of "moderately egalitarian" social organi­zation as summarized above.

Not only do the Essenes and the Therapeutai show evidence of influence by Hellenistic utopian thinking (including the egalitarian aspects of such thought), but, as noted above, the very notion of he basileia tou theou is utopian.93 In the famous "reversal" sayings, beatitudes, and similar traditions, the kingdom has a Saturnalian quality: the first will be last and the last first (Markl0:31// Matt 19:30; 20.16//Luke 13:30//Gos. Thorn. 4:2-3; cf. Matt 20:1-15); leaders must be slaves to all (Mark 9:35; 10:44; Matt 23:11);94 the poor, hungry and dejected are blessed (Luke 6:20//Matt 5:3; Gos. Thorn. 54; Luke 6:21a//Matt 5:&/Gos. Thorn. 69:2; Luke 6:21b//Matt 5:4); enemies are loved (Luke 6:27b; Matt 5:44b; Luke 6:32,35a).95 As Elliott rightly notes, the rejection of biological family ties in favor of the community of disciples characterized the basileia way of life (Matt 19:12).96 Simplicity in food, drink, and clothing is prescribed (Luke 12:22-31//Matt 6:25-34//Gos. Thorn. 36; Matt 6:11//Luke 11:3). What Crossan calls "open commensality"—table fellowship that disregarded class, gender, and other social distinctions—was practiced (Luke 14:15-24//Matt 22:l-14//Gos.

91 Elliott, "Jesus," 85. 92 Beavis, "Philo's Therapeutai," 34-40. On the question of the historicity of the Therapeu­

tai, see ibid., 31-32. 93 Josephus, coining the similar term theokratia, admits that this distinctively Jewish system

of governance is so sublime that Greeks would mistake it for a romantic fantasy (Against Apion, 2.220-224).

94 The Jesus Seminar attributes these sayings to Mark's concerns about relationships within his own community; however, the reversal theme and the radical social ethos of the sayings be­speak an early stage of the development of the basileia movement. See Robert W. Funk, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? (New York: Scribner, 1993), 84-85.

95 The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-35) would also fit this theme; however, contra the Jesus Seminar, the parable is probably a Lucan composition: it is found only in Luke; the ministry to Samaria is a particularly Lucan interest (Acts 1:8; 8:1,14,25; 15:3). See Funk, Five Gospels, 323-34.

96 See Crossan, Historical Jesus, 299-302.

Beavis: Christian Origins, Egalitarianism, and Utopia 47

Thorn. 64:1-12; Mark 2:15-17; Matt 9:10-13; Luke 5:29-32).97 A serene, sim­ple lifestyle, dependent on Gods providence, was an ideal (Luke 12:6-7//Matt 10:29-31; cf. Luke 21:18; Matt 7:9-ll//Luke 11:11-13; Luke 12:25//Matt 6:27; Matt 7:7-8//Luke ll:9-10//Gos. Thorn. 94:1-2; cf. Gos. Thorn. 2:1; cf. Luke 10:7-8; Gos. Thorn. 14:4; Luke 12:22-23//Matt 6:25; Gos. Thorn. 36:1; Luke 12:16-20; Gos. Thorn. 63:1-6),98 Harmony within and outside the community was nurtured (Matt 5:39//Luke 6:29a; Matt 5:40//Luke 6:29b; Matt 5:41; Matt 18:23-34; Matt 7:3-5//Luke 6:41-42//Gos. Thorn. 26:1-2; Matt 6:12//Luke ll:4a-b; Luke 6:37c//Mark ll:25//Matt 6:14-15; Luke 6:32//Matt 5:46; Matt 5:43-48//Luke 27:28, 32-35)." While slavery remained a social reality, there is no evidence that slavery was practiced in Jesus s immediate circle or actively condoned by the basileia movement; rather, mutual service is a metaphor for right relationships within the community (for example, Mark 10:43-44 and par­allels).100 As with other utopian movements, the countercultural aspects of the basileia made it difficult to become what the Matthean evangelist calls "children of the kingdom" (huioi tes basileias) (Matt 8:12; 13:38).

Contra Elliott, the use of fictive familial language by the basileia movement does not mean that the patriarchal family was the model for proto-Christianity any more than the language of hë basileia tou theou means that it was mod­eled on the Roman Empire, except insofar as the oikos of God was a reaction against the traditional family as the basileia was an implicit repudiation of the Roman regime.101 Even Elliott admits that "the chief metaphor for human so­ciality and for explaining the nature of the reign of God was . . . 'family,' but a family defined along religious and moral, rather than biological, lines, a new surrogate family entered by repentance, conversion, and voluntary submission

97 Ibid., 261-64; Robert H. Brawley, "Open Table Fellowship: Bane and Blessing for the Historical Jesus," Perspectives in Religious Studies 22 (1995): 13-31; and Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 41-49.

98 The association of the divine with the sun noted in the Therapeutai, Essenes, and Helio-politans is found in one saying of Jesus classified as "pink" by the Jesus Seminar (see Funk, Five Gospels, 145). Of course, like the Therapeutai, the children of the basileia knew better than to worship the sun; however, in Matt 5:45, the sun is connected with divine providence. The meta­phorical association of God with the sun is found frequently in the Psalms (Ps. 19:4; 37:6; 50:1; 72:5; 74:16; 84:11; 136:8; 148:3; cf. Luke 1:78).

99 That the historical Jesus cured some people of their illnesses is accepted even under the skeptical criteria the Jesus Seminar adopted (see Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998], 531). The six healing narratives that the seminar considers to have some claim on historicity are Mark 1:29-31; 1:40-45; 2:1-12; 5:24b-34; 8:22-26; 10:46-52.

100 See my "Ancient Slavery as an Interpretive Context for the New Testament Servant Para­bles with Special Reference to the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-8)," Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 37-54.

101 On the anti-imperial tenor of the reign of God movement, see D Angelo, "Re-membering Jesus," 209-14; and Crossan, Historical Jesus, 265-302.

48 Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion

to the heavenly Fathers will and unswerving trust in the Fathers favor and benefactions."102 He insists that this arrangement reflects "radical inclusivity" rather than "radical egalitarianism," but at the same time holds that this "rela­tivized" (he does not seem to notice the pun) all conventional lines of authority, including, presumably, the authority of human patriarchs.103 Elliotts descrip­tion of the proto-Christian oikos/basileia conforms well to the Utopian patterns of the Heliopolitans (fictional) and the Therapeutai (historical), both of which eschew traditional family structures and posit equality between members of the community, while acknowledging the authority of a male elder; in the case of the basileia movement, the "elder" is God (sometimes) constructed as meta­phorical father.

The Kingdom of God Movement: Egalitarian and Utopian

As noted above, John Elliott is not the only scholar to argue that Jesus and the movement to which he belonged were not egalitarian in die modern sense, but the two articles I engage above are the most ambitious and thoroughgoing attempt to discredit the "egalitarian theorists" who supposedly make this anach­ronistic claim. However, he fails to discredit the hypothesis of proto-Christian egalitarianism on several counts. Much like Cynthia Eller in The Myth of Ma­triarchal Prehistory, Elliott gives an exaggerated and inaccurate account of an "egalitarian theory" that posits a massive and widespread "Jesus movement" in which all believers enjoyed absolute social, economic, gender, and spiritual equality, and then establishes (of course easily) that no such phenomenon ever existed in the first century. He discounts the work of scholars who have observed that proto-Christian writers express ideals of equality, although the presence of such ideals certainly demonstrates that they were capable of conceiving of an alternative social order, and, by extension, of trying to implement it. He denies, despite the availability of ample evidence to the contrary, that hierarchy and egalitarianism can coexist within social institutions; therefore, he concludes, the basileia movement must have been one or the other, and, since egalitarianism did not exist in antiquity, hierarchy (modeled on the "relativized" oikos) was the only alternative. He overlooks the utopian literary accounts of ideal societies with egalitarian characteristics (for example, Plato's Republic or Diodorus s He­liopolitans), and the egalitarian features of actual ancient Jewish utopian move­ments (Essenes or Therapeutai).

Elliott also overlooks the long history of egalitarian interpretations of Chris­tian origins, which, as Kloppenborg has shown, goes back to the Reformation, preferring to single out for criticism scholars who posit gender egalitarianism as characterizing the basileia movement, especially Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza.

102 Elliott, "Jesus," 87. 103 Ibid.

Beavis: Christian Origins, Egalitarianism, and Utopia 49

He cites in support of his position feminist women scholars who supposedly reject the "myth" of proto-Christian egalitarianism, but whose work actually admits the presence of egalitarian elements in the movement, although none of them posits the "thorough-going" egalitarianism Elliott decries. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a serious scholar, feminist or not, who supported the "egalitarian theory" as constructed by Elliott. Much as Eller is criticized for constructing a "straw doll" only to knock it down, Elliott sets up an imaginary egalitarian theory that he "proves" is unsupported by the evidence.

As I noted at the beginning of this article, critics of the "feminist myths of Christian origins" have provided a necessary corrective to the implicit (and often naïve) Christian triumphalism and anti-Judaism of some feminist recon­structions. But, as Karen King notes with reference to the interpretation of Mary Magdalene, "Since so much in Christian belief and practice rests upon historical claims, an accurate view of history is crucial.... Christians will better understand and responsibly engage their own tradition by attending to an ac­curate historical account of Christian beginnings."104 Moreover, "Communities of believers need to engage critically with their tradition and be held respon­sible for how they appropriate it. Although nothing can guarantee that people will five wisely and morally, an account that includes all the historical resources of tradition might create a surer basis upon which theological judgments are made."105 Elliott is a reputable and accomplished scholar whose contributions to the social scientific interpretation of the New Testament are well known and highly respected. His vociferous dismissal of a (nonexistent) "egalitarian theory" and his misrepresentations and misunderstandings of feminist scholarship (in­cluding scholarship that he meretriciously claims supports his case) run the risk of being used to discredit feminist reconstructions of Christian origins, much as Eller s equally problematic Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory has been embraced by opponents of Goddess feminism to "prove" that it is without historical foun­dation.106 Elliotts tendentious arguments notwithstanding, an "accurate histori­cal account of Christian beginnings" continues to include what Jane Schaberg calls "struggles regarding egalitarianism," not a perfectly realized social reality conforming to modern feminist ideals, but real efforts of women and men to coexist as equals, under a variety of conditions and understandings of the reign of God.107

104 Karen King, "Letting Mary Magdalene Speak," http://www.beliefnet.com/story/131/ story_13186_4.htmlhttp://www.beliefnet.com/story/131/story_13186_l.html.

105 Ibid. 106 See the reviews of Eller's book by Angier, Stolba, and Osborne cited in note 13 above; and

Philip G. Davis, Goddess Unmasked: The Rise ofNeopagan Feminist Spirituality (Dallas, TX: Spence, 1998).

107 Schaberg, "Magdalene Christianity," 193-94.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.