Lazarus, Mary and Martha: Social-Scientific Approaches to the Gospel of John [Paperback]

Philip Francis Esler (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: June 1, 2006

Using social identity theory, Esler and Piper set out what social identity theory actually means, how it works, and how it applies to John's Gospel. They then show how their ecclesiological reading of the Lazarus story finds confirmation in the catacomb art from Rome. The book includes four pages of full-color illustrations from the catacombs and concludes by setting out some of the theological dimensions of the investigation, and ultimately provides fresh theological insight into this New Testament text.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Philip F. Esler is Professor of Biblical Criticism at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland. Among his publications are Conflict and Identity in Romans (Fortress Press, 2003), The Early Christian World (editor, 2000), Galatians (1998), and The Early Christians and Their Social Worlds (1994).

Product Details

• Paperback: 212 pages
• Publisher: Fortress Press (June 1, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0800638301
• ISBN-13: 978-0800638306
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.6 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 7.2 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,389,661 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Professor Philip Esler is Principal, and Professor of Biblical Interpretation, at St Mary's University College, Twickenham, London, which will soon become the first Catholic university in the UK since the Reformation. He was raised in Sydney, Australia, and worked there as a solicitor and barrister for eleven years (with three years out from 1981-84 doing a New Testament doctorate in Oxford). In 1992 he moved to the University of St Andrews to take up a career as a biblical critic. He served as Chief Executive of the UK's Arts and Humanities Research Council from 2005-09. He is well known for his social-scientific interpretation of biblical texts and is one of the founding members of the Context Group, which specialises in such an approach. He has also published in the areas of New Testament theology and the Bible and the visual arts. During the course of his career he has authored six books, co-authored two and edited four, while publishing some 20 journal articles and 40 essays. He has a Doctor of Divinity degree from Oxford University and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. He is married with three adult children.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars John's three heroes, August 4, 2006

By 

Loren Rosson III (New Hampshire, USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Lazarus, Mary and Martha: Social-Scientific Approaches to the Gospel of John (Paperback)

Esler and Piper raise intriguing questions about the role of gospel heroes and their relevance in the modern age. The heroes in question are Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, whom we are to understand as prototypes for Christian believers in John's gospel (Jn 11:1-12:11). Against scholars who insist that the raising of Lazarus primarily prefigures Jesus' own resurrection, the authors favor soteriology over Christology. It's not always easy to separate the two, but the former wins out by a long shot in this case. As the authors put it:

"In the context of the Lazarus narrative the phrasing 'I am the resurrection *and the life*' is not just saying something about Jesus. Its main point is to say something remarkably specific relating to the fears about believers who have died."

Confirmation of this comes from Roman catacomb frescoes and sarcophagi dating to the third century. These artistic representations of Jesus are valuable, say the authors, because they represent a common point of view more than that of elites and theologians. By this time the Christian tradition had become suffused with pagan elements, the most notable one being Jesus depicted as using a wand to raise Lazarus. Whether Jesus had become assimilated into a magician or god, the salient point is that he was understood primarily as one who raised other people (with a wand) -- something that has nothing to do with his own resurrection through the agency of God.

The book's major contribution lies in its use of social identity theory to understand prototypes (Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, in this case) and the manipulation of collective memory. Too often in honor-shame cultures the past becomes a battleground as religious sects compete and claim ownership of heroes (whether real or fictional) for support of their vision. Just as Paul used Abraham to redefine what it meant to be an heir to salvation, so John uses three characters -- Lazarus, Mary, and Martha -- to redefine what it means to be true followers of Christ, over against other (synoptic) understandings.

In the authors' view, "it is difficult to understate the significance of John taking the tradition of a woman, whose very name was unknown, who anointed Jesus shortly before his death (Mk 14:3-9/Mt 26:6-13; cf. Lk 7:36-50), and identifying this woman with Mary". Indeed, Jn 11:2 represents "an audacious attempt by the evangelist to rework the collective memory of the Christ-movement". John evidently saw the unnamed woman's anointing of Jesus as a powerful tool that he could re-use for his purposes stressing devotion and care in grim domestic settings. Mary becomes as much a prototype (representing care and devotion) as Lazarus (representing the fate of believers).

The book concludes by asking how the heroes may continue to function as prototypes for modern believers. Esler and Piper see the raising of Lazarus more a sign of divine love than victory over death, offering the reassurance of care and support in Christian households. John had little use for the new heaven-and-earth anticipated by Paul and the synoptic writers, thinking more in terms of a new "house" (Jn 14:2-3) -- and that's exactly what is prefigured in the account of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha (Jn 11:1-12:11). "The imagined future stresses care and support (and in a domestic context) more than victory".

The authors even suggest that a revival of house churches may be in order, especially in a world where many of us have lost direct experience of death (as the corpses of loved ones are immediately whisked away to mortuaries and the crematorium). I agree that something has been lost here. We have become increasingly screened from the natural process of death, and a "mystery" is muted as a result. But at the same time I should be honest: I'm rather comfortable being shielded this way in my modern lifestyle. Maybe that's part of the problem.

This is the best book to date dealing with Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. There's something about a Philip Esler book that makes it impossible to put down. I don't know what his trick is, but he's got some failsafe -- you just have to keep turning the pages. That reflects well on Piper too (though I have to read more of him). For whatever my opinion is worth as an infidel, the way these authors bridge historical criticism and modern theology represents the best approach I'm aware of.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Thoughtful Reflection on Lazarus of Bethany's family in John's Gospel, June 20, 2009

By 

Marc Axelrod (Potter, Wi USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Lazarus, Mary and Martha: Social-Scientific Approaches to the Gospel of John (Paperback)

The authors get it. They know that John's Gospel is all about the presentation of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. But they also feel that a social-scientific look at the Lazarus narratives is warranted by the evidence. They contend that Lazarus, Mary, and Martha are presented as the prototypical family that Jesus loves. Lazarus' resurrection not only shows that Jesus is the resurrection and the life, but it also hints at the destiny of all who are in Christ.

It is also posited that the dinner table scene in John 12:1-2 is prophetic of the table fellowship all believers will share someday in the Father's house (John 14:-3), though this latter interpretation is less certain to me.

Social science studies often highlight the role of the leader/authority figure in a community, and Jesus is that figure in John 11-12.

I am sympathetic to the authors' overall case. I am concerned about their less than high view of the inspiration of the Bible. They claim that the anointing story in John 12 is contradictory to the anointing story in Luke 7, though it is far from certain that these two accounts come refer to the same event.

The authors also feel that in Mark 14, the anointing of Jesus occurs two days before the Passover, while in John 12, it is six days before. I believe they are correct about the timing in John, but I am not sure that they are right about the timing of the anointing in Mark 14.

They also state that the anointing occurs in the home of Simon the Leper in Mark 14 (correct, in my view), but in the home of Lazarus in John 12 (correct again, but John's silence regarding Simon the leper does not rule out him being there).

The authors also reject the notion that Lazarus could be the beloved disciple of John 13-21, though on questionable grounds.

But these are side issues that are not germane to the main point of the book, which is to show that the Lazarus family and their love for each other and for Christ symbolizes the entire Johannine Christian community. I agree with this, but the authors go a little too far. They suggest rather strongly that the gospel of John was written primarily for the Johannine community and not for Christians scattered throughout the world. This is a challenge to the recent findings of Richard Bauckham and other recent scholars. This last point is more difficult to sustain.

The authors also contend that the passage in John 10:14-16 about Jesus having sheep that are not of this fold refers to other churches, not to Gentiles. This is also unlikely in my opinion, because Jesus goes to say that he must bring these other people in also so that there may be one flock and one shepherd. This must refer to unsaved people, because Jesus speaks of bringing them in, and non-Johannine congregations can hardly be described as people who have yet to be brought in.

I do not mean to digress. The gist of it is that the authors have proved their thesis, but I disagree with them on a number of other related details.