The historical Jesus debate aims to reconstruct the first century Jesus’ life and teachings. There are many perspectives about if the research into the historical Jesus should be done. However, many scholars have weighed in on their finding of the historical Jesus as an attempt to reinterpret the new testament. In this essay I am going to discuss the overview of the feminist perspective of the historical Jesus debate in conversation with the Asian perspective.
One of the debates of the Historical Jesus is that Jesus was a feminist. Many scholars assert that Jesus’ teachings fostered inclusive communities in full participation of women.[footnoteRef:1] Scriptures such as Gal 3:28 suggest that this was a teaching of Jesus and affirms that Jesus must have been a pioneer for egalitarianism among Jewish women. Therefore, modern feminists use this thought as a point of contention regarding the place of women in relation to the Historical Jesus debate. There are many perspectives or voices in the feminist understanding of Jesus in relation to liberating women during the first century. Kathleen Corley being a voice for feminism argues that Jesus was not revolutionary in debunking ancient patriarchal systems thereby liberating women. The foundational story that Jesus was a feminist serves as a myth of Christian origins.[footnoteRef:2] This notion serves as a theological agenda by scholars to posit a revolutionary view of Jesus in opposition against his culture, religion and environment. [1: Kathleen E. Corley, Women and the historical Jesus: feminist myths of christian origins (Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 2002), 3.] [2: Kathleen E. Corley, Women and the historical Jesus: feminist myths of christian origins (Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 2002), 8.]
In an attempt to argue the objectionable customs of Jewish people, scholars would often separate Judaism from Hellenistic cultures. As a means of being anti-Semitic and validating their theological feminist position of the Historical Jesus. Suggesting that Judaism was not affected by Hellenistic practices. However, Corley argues “Hellenistic cultures became part of the cultural mix of Palestine and fostered further cultural diversity by the time of Jesus.”[footnoteRef:3] She further states that if some of the women enjoyed certain freedoms then all of them did. Therefore, there would have not been a need for Jesus to be revolutionary or unique in his attitude toward women.[footnoteRef:4] However, modern women should not have to argue that Jesus was instrumental in bridging the gender divide. By virtue of being created in the image of God “imago Dei” woman should be considered equal to men. Now that we have observed how feminine perspectives very among scholars, let’s take a closer look at two authors and how their perspectives of the historical Jesus debate intersect in culture and ethnicity. One primarily asian perspective and other primarily feminist perspective. [3: Kathleen E. Corley, Women and the historical Jesus: feminist myths of christian origins (Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 2002), 13] [4: IBID]
In Kathleen Corley’s book (Woman and the Historical Jesus) her perspective relies a lot on the culture of Jewish woman during the time of Jesus. For instance, Corley argues that in Matthew 21:31-32 “Jesus recognized woman among his followers and yet repeated cultural stereotypes to defend them by calling the women who sought the kingdom of God whores.”[footnoteRef:5] However, in Aruna Gnanadason’s book (Jesus and the Asian Woman) her perspective relies on ethnicity more then it does culture. For instance, in Mk 7:24-30 “Jesus is found calling the Syro-Phoenician woman a dog because she is viewed as an outsider or the excluded other.”[footnoteRef:6] Both scholars bring an interesting perspective to the view of the historical Jesus. Both scholars argue that Jesus was a product of his environment and did not serve as the sole liberator of women. [5: IBID] [6: Aruna Gnanadason, Jesus and the Asian Woman: A post- colonial look at the Syhro-Pheonician woman/Canaanite woman from a Indian perspective (2001). ]
Furthermore, early Christians who interpreted Jesus’ teachings and life used those teachings to further their patriarchal quest. In matter of fact “the encounter of Syro-Phoenician woman with Jesus, has been taken by the church, as a basis for mission to the Gentiles, Christian missionaries often regarded people in Asia an in other parts of the world who belonged to other faith traditions as pagans and heathens.”[footnoteRef:7] Corley would argue that before the 4th century woman experienced more freedom and liberation then before the early church was introduced. In fact, she argues that the respect for women was erased by the early Christian church.[footnoteRef:8] [7: Aruna Gnanadason, Jesus and the Asian Woman: A post- colonial look at the Syhro-Pheonician woman/Canaanite woman from a Indian perspective (2001).] [8: Kathleen E. Corley, Women and the historical Jesus: feminist myths of christian origins (Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 2002), 141]
Therefore, it is safe to say that the Christian Church has been the perpetrator of injustice and anti-egalitarianism for modern women. The Christian Missionary movements came in the name of Jesus to “liberate” brown women from brown men. Therefore, it is necessary to get an understanding of the historical Jesus in the context of his world. Secondly, it is important to see how biblical misinterpretation and bias theological agendas upholds a male dominated hierarchy that unjustly dehumanizes woman socially, culturally, ethnically and economically. Gnanadason ends her book with this statement. “If we take seriously our feminist task, then we are challenged to read each text with a renewed vision, to retell the story of salvation so that it can offer a word of liberation to all women at the moment it does not.”[footnoteRef:9] [9: IBID]
Based on the two authors argument and other readings for this class. I find is valuable to take seriously the task of understanding Jesus in his context. I have personally learned how we place limitation on scripture when we assert own theological agendas into biblical narratives. However, I understand Jesus to be a liberator of the poor but had not realized before embarking on this assignment how morally dysfunctional the early church and todays church is. Using Jesus’s teachings and other scripture to oppress and to place dominance over woman is wrong. As a pastor of a primarily black church and one that is primarily women. I have a lot to think about. Honestly, it is in this class module that I have come to know that some of former theological training (church) has been oppressive and not solely based in scripture but early church practices. Therefore, I must take much consideration into what role my teachings as a pastor play in the continuation of male dominance and the dehumanization of women.
In conclusion there are many lenses as to how to view the historical Jesus debate. As we have observed many scholars weigh in differently. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that the historical Jesus may not appear to be similar to our personal views of Jesus. Therefore, when we view Jesus in his context as 1st century Jewish person, who was active in the day to day life of Jewish culture and customs. We walk away with a different understanding, however, in my opinion it does not take away from but rather add too what we know about Jesus in the world he lived in. Therefore, as it is well to say that Jesus was not a feminist and the way he treated women was similar to the customs of his day.
Bibliography
Corley, Kathleen E. Women and the historical Jesus: feminist myths of Christian origins. Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 2002.
Gnanadason, Aruna. Jesus and the Asian Woman: A post- colonial look at the Syhro-Pheonician woman/Canaanite woman from a Indian perspective. 2001
pretig
ExampleofGradeAPaper.docx
0
