AUSTRALIAN BIBLICAL REVIEW
BOOK REVIEW Published in Volume 51, 2003
M. M. Beirne, Women and Men in the Fourth Gospel:
a Genuine Discipleship of Equals. (London: Sheffield Academic Press,
2003). Pp. Xiii+254. £60.00.
Since Raymond Brown in 1975, a number of studies have focused on the role
of women in the Fourth Gospel (4G), pointing out that in that gospel women
play significant roles in the development of the evangelists literary and
theological concerns. While applauding those writings, Margaret Beirne has
sought to redress what she perceives as an imbalance in the studies, namely,
the lack of a critical study of the roles of both women and men in the 4G.
In some cases, that imbalance has been driven by a hermeneutic of suspicion,
arising from the belief that the text is essentially androcentric and patriarchal.
Beirnes study leads her to a different conclusion: It seems to me more
accurate to say that the fourth evangelist presents women disciples as of
equal standing with men (p. 9), and he does this by means of contrived literary
partnerships of women and mengender pairs. These gender pairs enable the
reader to see that, in the eyes of the evangelist, women and men share an
equality of discipleship in all respects, and together they serve to further
the evangelists purposes of revealing the person of Christ.
In a methodologically controlled study, Beirne adopts the criteria for identifying
gender pairs established by T. K. Seim in her work on Luke-Acts. In order
for two characters to be seen as a literary gender pair, they must share
a common theme. As well, where they are not part of the same event/pericope,
there must be clear evidence of at least one form of literary parallelism:
structure, imagery or verbal formulae (p. 221). By applying these criteria,
Beirne identifies six gender pairs in the 4G. Three of them share a narrative
unity: Mary of Bethany and Judas (12:18), Mary and the Beloved Disciple
(19:2527), and Mary Magdalene and Thomas (20:1118 and 20:2429). The
other three, though separately presented, are bound together by structural
association and by literary and theological motifs in common: the mother
of Jesus and the royal official (2:112 and 4:4654), Nicodemus and the Samaritan
woman (3:112 and 4:115), and the blind man and Martha (9:144 and 11:154).
It is a pleasure to read this work (presented as a thesis to the Melbourne
College of Divinity). The English is graceful and easy, the argument is at
all times clear, and the author writes with obvious love for the text of
Scripture. Typographical errors are few: apart from the occasional error
of accent, I noted incorrect Greek spelling at pages 114, 147, 148, 177,
207, 208 and 211 (bis).
In my judgement, Beirne has established the main burden of her thesis: that
in the 4G there is an absolute equality of discipleship among women and men.
Moreover, the evangelist presents women not as models for women and men for
men, but each as models for all. It is for the reader to identify with particular
characters presented, not according to gender, but according to ones stage
in the faith journey. For example, Beirne well points out that it is a
woman, Martha, who makes the true confession of the person of Jesus (11:27),
a role reserved in the synoptic tradition for Peter at Caesarea Philippi.
At the same time, she notes that it is a male, Thomas, who has the last word
and who makes a confession which brings the reader back to the beginning
of the Prologuethe glorified Logos who is God (1:1) is so confessed by a
post-Easter disciple (point overlooked by Beirne).
There are many minor areas where I would respectfully take issue with Beirne
mainly points of exegesis which do not affect the argument of the book. More
importantly, I remain unconvinced that the blind man in John 9 and Martha
in John 11 are a literary pair, unpersuaded as I am by the case for seeing
the Lazarus story as structurally or thematically linked to chapter 10. Rather,
I believe the case is stronger for seeing 11:144 as moving on into 11:4557
and as having thematic and structural links with the events that follow.
I would also like to explore further with Beirne her case for considering
the other two sets of characters separated by distance (2:112/4:4654; 3:112/4:115) either as pairs or as gender pairs.
There is no doubt that Beirne has uncovered something of importance in the
literary technique of the fourth evangelist, viz the existence of discrete
pairs of characters who share something in common and who together reveal
something of the person of Jesus Christ. But are they gender pairs? On that
question, I believe more work still needs to be done. Surely, in order for
us to demonstrate that gender pairing (as opposed to pairing) is a deliberate
Johannine device, ought we not also to look for examples of single gender
pairing (possibilities exist in chapter 1 and elsewhere) If single gender
pairs do exist, then the issue of gender may not (always) be the primary
focus of the evangelist, but simply the literary device of pairing.
In conclusion, a notable work on women and men in the 4G that has advanced
our studies in this area one step further.
Dr. John W Pryor