Mimesis: Foot Washing from Luke to John

Keith L. Yoder University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Introduction

In this paper I argue that the Foot Washing of John 13,1-17, as literary composition, is a mimesis of the Sinful Woman narrative of Luke 7,36-501. Maurits Sabbe first proposed this mimetic association in 19822, followed by Thomas Brodie in 19933 and Ingrid Rosa Kitzberger in 19944, but the pro- posal dropped from view without ever being fully explored. Now a fresh comparison of the two texts uncovers a large array of previously unsurveyed parallels. Evaluation of old and new evidence will demonstrate that this is an instance of creative imitation, that combination of literary μίμησις (imi- tatio) and ζήλωσις (aemulatio) widely practiced by writers in antiquity5. Key directional indicators will point to Luke as the original and John as the emulation. I will here examine fifteen features in Luke that are paralleled in John. Throughout, I reference the internal tests for intertextual mimesis developed by Dennis R. MacDonald: the density, order, distinctiveness, and interpretability of the parallels6. Since external evidence pertinent to the relative dating of the Gospels of Luke and John is scarce and subject to debate, I will not address his tests of accessibility and analogy, but will focus instead on pointers of directionality arising from the internal evidence.

1. This paper was first presented at the March 2016 Annual Meeting of the Eastern Great Lakes Region of the Society of Biblical Literature, in Perrysville, Ohio, USA. 2. M. Sabbe, The Footwashing of John 13 and Its Relation to the Synoptic Gospels, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 58 (1982) 279-308, pp. 299-304; reprinted in Id., Studia Neotestamentica (BETL, 98), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 1991, 407- 438 (with additional note on pp. 439-441). 3. T.L. Brodie, Quest for the Origins of John’s Gospel, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 173. 4. I.R. Kitzberger, Love and Footwashing: John 13:1-20 and Luke 7:36-50 Read Intertextually, in Biblical Interpretation 2 (1994) 190-206, pp. 203-205. 5. D.A. Russell, De Imitatione, in D. West – T. Woodman (eds.), Creative Imitation and Latin Literature, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1979, 1-16, pp. 9-10; also G.N. Knoppers, The Synoptic Problem? An Old Testament Perspective, in Bulletin for Biblical Research 19 (2009) 11-34, pp. 14-19 and 24-32. 6. D.R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2000, pp. 8-9.

99394_ETL_2016-4_05_N02_Yoder.indd 655 21/12/16 10:37 656 K.L. Yoder

1. Fifteen Features in Luke Paralleled in John

a) Storyline Setting the two texts side by side, we first see that they follow a common outline, with parallel plot elements, in the same order: 1 – Men gather for a meal Luke 7,36-37b John 13,1-4 2 – Delayed foot washing involving Jesus Luke 7,37c-38 John 13,4-5 3 – Dialog between Jesus and Simon Luke 7,39-46 John 13,6-11 4 – Jesus’ “I say to you” pronouncement Luke 7,47-48 John 13,12-17 Both set the stage with a group of men gathering for a meal (1). After the meal has commenced and before the expected after-dinner conversation7, Jesus is involved either as recipient or giver in a fully described foot washing (2), an element that is quite distinctive within New Testament narrative. That foot washing then provokes an extended dialog between Jesus and a “Simon” (3), which leads into a pronouncement or teaching by Jesus featur- ing an “I say to you” statement (4).

b) Mid-Meal Timing In both stories, the foot-washing occurs in mid-meal rather than in prep- aration before the δεῖπνον. The delay is intelligible in Luke 7,44-46 where Jesus chides the host for neglecting to provide him, upon entering the house, with “water for [his] feet” for a self-washing. In John, the delay is clearly indicated in that Jesus “arose from the dinner” to begin the washing (John 13,4), while subsequent serving of food (John 13,26-27) implies it happened before dinner was finished. Yet John’s delay is completely unexplained, even though such delay was con- trary to prevailing social custom8. John says nothing of why feet were not washed before the meal began, or if they were, why Jesus is washing them again. Physical evidence is overt: towel (λέντιον9 13,4), water (ὕδωρ 13,5), and the basin (τὸν νιπτῆρα 13,5) are all in place, at hand for Jesus to use.

7. Sabbe, Footwashing (n. 2), p. 302, notes the shared feature of a “meal having a clear symposion character”. 8. W.A. Becker – H. Göll, Charikles: Bilder Altgriechischer Sitte, Vol. 2, Berlin, Calvary, 1877, p. 305, “The first thing a man did when he wanted to recline at the table was to allow the servants to remove his sandals and wash his feet (ὑπολύειν and ἀπονίζειν). Thereupon he first sits himself on the κλίνη…” (translated); also D.E. Smith, From Sym- posium to Eucharist, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2003, pp. 16 and 27; and J.C. Thomas, Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community (Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series, 61), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1991, pp. 47-48 and 55-56. 9. All Greek New Testament citations herein are from B. Aland et al. (eds.), Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Revised Edition, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012; all translations and paraphrases are my own.

99394_ETL_2016-4_05_N02_Yoder.indd 656 21/12/16 10:37 Mimesis: Foot Washing from Luke to John 657

That he “pours” (βάλλει) water “into the basin” in 13,5 suggests that the basin has not yet been used. Finally, the phrase “except to wash the feet” (εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας νίψασθαι) in 13,10 would not make sense had their feet already been washed. That leaves the obvious question: why did not the disciples wash their own feet with the available implements before reclining for dinner? None of the many proposals explaining John’s foot washing as either symbolic or ceremonial adequately addresses this irregularity. I suggest that John’s delayed timing is an unintended result of imitating Luke’s order of narra- tion, rendering this anomaly intelligible.

c) Foot Washer “Knows” In the initial stage setting (1), both texts describe a meal (φάγῃ μετ’ Luke 7,36; δείπνου John 13,2.4) involving men who are “reclining (together)” (συνανακείμενοι Luke 7,49; ἀνακειμένων John 13,28). We hear further that each foot washer “knows” certain key facts, which immediately propels her or him at once into the foot washing sequence in d) below: • Luke 7,37 – the woman “knowing (ἐπιγνοῦσα, present participle) that he [Jesus] was reclining at table in the house of the Pharisee…” • John 13,1.3 – Jesus “knowing (εἰδώς, perfect participle) that his hour had come … knowing (εἰδώς) that the Father had given everything into his hands…”.

d) Seven-Verb Action Sequence The washing itself10 may be analyzed at three levels of granularity. As a whole, both descriptions comprise a closely connected and uninterrupted sequence of seven action verb phrases:

Luke 7,37c-38: 1 – having-conveyed (κομίσασα) an alabaster of perfume 2 – and taken-her-stand (στᾶσα) behind aside his feet, 3 – crying (κλαίουσα), 4 – with her tears she began to-shower (ἤρξατο βρέχειν) his feet 5 – and with the hairs of her head she was-wiping (ἐξέμασσεν) them 6 – and she was-kissing (κατεφίλει) his feet 7 – and was-anointing (ἤλειφεν) them with the perfume

10. Obviously noted as parallel items by Sabbe, Footwashing (n. 2), p. 302 and by Kitzberger, Love (n. 4), p. 203.

99394_ETL_2016-4_05_N02_Yoder.indd 657 21/12/16 10:37 658 K.L. Yoder

John 13,4-5: 1 – he rises (ἐγείρεται) from the dinner 2 – and puts-off (τίθησιν) his garments, 3 – and taking (λαβών) a towel 4 – he girded (διέζωσεν) himself, 5 – then he pours (βάλλει) water into the basin, 6 – and he began to-wash (ἤρξατο νίπτειν) the disciples’ feet 7 – and to-wipe (ἐκμάσσειν) them with the towel with which he was girded Luke’s description is framed by “perfume” (μύρον) in lines 1 and 7. John’s is delimited by verbs of movement, “he rises” (ἐγείρεται) in line 1, and “then he comes (ἔρχεται οὖν)” right after line 7 in 13,6, where οὖν indicates transition to something new11. The two segments share near- identical size: Luke has 34 words with 72 syllables, while John has 33 words with 69 syllables. Both are skillfully visualized body-action discourses, without speech. While stylistically different, both move in the same rhythm and tempo. More closely, these two seven-verb texts are examples of “behavior description” action discourse12 that share additional limiting features: each has no change in the subject agent, object focus, location, or time; both are well ordered; neither contains any speech; each is a complete action segment. An example from elsewhere is the Mocking of Jesus in Mark 15,16- 20. That selection has 14 action verbs in the inclusive span of 62 words between “leading” Jesus into (ἀπάγω 15,16) and then out of (ἐξάγω 15,20) the palace. Here I list all the narratives in Luke and in John containing extended action sequences of four or more verb phrases; four is the verb count in John’s second Foot Washing sequence in John 13,12. Our two texts are bolded. Verb counts equalling or exceeding seven are also bolded. Each list uses the display format: Title / Reference / First–Last Verbs / VerbCount- WordSpan.

Extended Action Sequences in Luke: 1. Finding Jesus / Luke 2,44-45 / ἦλθον–ἀναζητοῦντες / 5-19 2. Healing Lame Man / 5,25 / ἀναστὰς–δοξάζων / 4-13 3. Sinful Woman / 7,37-38 / κομίσασα–ἤλειφεν / 7-32 4. Woman with Hemorrhage / 8,47 / ἰδοῦσα–ἰάθη / 8-25 5. Feeding 5000 / 9,16 / λαβών–ἐδίδου / 5-19

11. F.W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press, 32000, pp. 736-737, οὖν, 2.b. 12. T. van Dijk, Action, Action Description, and Narrative, in New Literary History 6 (1975) 273-294, p. 283: a behaviour description narrative “refers only to overt (observable) doings interpreted as actions”, without reference to anyone’s thoughts or intentions.

99394_ETL_2016-4_05_N02_Yoder.indd 658 21/12/16 10:37 Mimesis: Foot Washing from Luke to John 659

6. Good Samaritan A / 10,30 / ἐκδύσαντες–ἀφέντες / 4-7 7. Good Samaritan B / 10,33-35 / ὁδεύων–εἶπεν / 12-42 8. Prodigal Son A / 15,13-14 / συναγαγών–δαπανήσαντος / 5-18 9. Prodigal Son B / 15,20 / εἶδεν–κατεφίλησεν / 5-16 10. Prodigal Son C / 15,22-23 / ἐξενέγκατε–εὐφρανθῶμεν / 7-29 11. Rich Man and Lazarus / 16,22-23 / ἀπέθανεν–εἶπεν / 7-32 12. Last Supper / 22,19 / λαβών–λέγων / 5-8 13. Burying Jesus / Lk 23,52-53 / προσελθών–ἔθηκεν / 5-15 14. Peter at Empty Tomb / 24,12 / ἀναστάς–θαυμάζων / 6-16 15. Breaking Bread at Emmaus / 24,30 / κατακλιθῆναι–ἐπεδίδου / 5-11

Extended Action Sequences in John: 1. Cleansing Temple / John 2,15-16 / ἀνέβη–εἶπεν / 7-47 2. Healing Blind Man / 9,6-7 / ἔπτυσεν–εἶπεν / 4-18 3. Foot Washing A / 13,4-5 / ἐγείρεται–ἐκμάσσειν / 7-28 4. Foot Washing B / 13,12 / ἔνιψεν–εἶπεν / 4-13 5. Mocking Jesus / 19,2-3 / πλέξαντες–ἐδίδοσαν / 6-26

Several observations are evident: • John uses this narrative device only one-third as often as Luke, 5 times for John to 15 for Luke. • John’s Foot Washing B is an inverse abbreviation of his own Foot Washing A, repeating selected elements of the latter in reverse order. • The seven verbs in John’s Foot Washing A are equalled only in his Temple Cleansing, while the seven in Luke’s Foot Washing is equaled or exceeded by four other selections. • Closer examination of John’s three non-Foot Washing selections – Cleansing Temple, Healing Blind Man, and Mocking Jesus – suggests that in each he is working off Markan parallels: o Cleansing Temple: John’s seven-verb sequence is an analog of Mark’s seven-verb sequence in his Temple Cleansing in Mark 11,15-17. Note that Mark begins with “and he-comes (ἔρχονται) into Jerusalem”, which matches John’s beginning, “and he-ascended (ἀνέβη) into Jeru- salem”, while he ends with “he-said” (ἔλεγεν) matching John’s final “he-said” (εἶπεν). John also repeats Mark’s paratactic καί throughout this sequence, reverting to typical asyndeton or οὖν when he leaves Mark in John 2,17-22. The Luke and Matthew parallels have only three or four verbs. o Healing Blind Man: Here John’s four-verb sequence corresponds with the five-verb sequence in the Blind Man healing of Mark 8,23, includ- ing the distinctive “spit” feature, πτύσας in Mark 8,23 matching the ἔπτυσεν and πτύσματος in John 9,6. Mark already used πτύσας in another healing in 7,33, so both Gospels use “spit” twice, a healing story feature distinctive to Mark and John.

99394_ETL_2016-4_05_N02_Yoder.indd 659 21/12/16 10:37 660 K.L. Yoder

o Soldiers Mocking: John’s seven-verb sequence is an abbreviation of the 14-verb sequence in Mark’s mocking scene of 15,16-20 cited above. That this corresponds with Mark rather than Matthew is suggested by John’s “coming” (ἤρχοντο) in 19,3, a sound-alike emulation of “began” (ἤρξαντο) in Mark 15,18, a verb completely omitted in Matthew 27,27-31. o Extended multi-verb action sequences are easy to find elsewhere in Mark: for example, six verbs in Mark 2,3-4, five in 2,25-26, nine in 5,25-28, six in 5,33-34, five in 6,12-13, six in 6,20, five in 6,41, seven in 7,33-34, and seven in 12,1-2. Summarizing, the data assembled here demonstrate that both Mark and Luke use this narrative device frequently and independently, but John uses it rarely and only in the presence of a parallel structure in Mark or Luke. The number of verb phrases in John’s constructions is consistently equal to or less than the verb phrase count in the Mark or Luke parallel, and never exceeds seven. This cannot be mere coincidence. I here propose that the presence of a parallel extended action verb sequence in John be treated as a marker of literary connectedness between John and Mark or Luke, a sign- post of Johannine dependence, if not emulation.

e) Water / Wash Feet / Wipe Zooming in one stop, we observe that both texts describe the washing in three steps. In this layout of selected rows from the preceding chart, verbal constituents are bolded, inanimate agents underlined, and objects double underlined. Note the identical ordering and similar phrasing in the two columns:

Action Luke (rows 3-5) Woman John (rows 5-7) Jesus washes washes Jesus Disciples Step 1 κλαίουσα τοῖς δάκρυσιν βάλλει ὕδωρ εἰς τὸν νιπτῆρα Get water crying, with her tears he puts water into the basin Step 2 ἤρξατο βρέχειν τοὺς πόδας ἤρξατο νίπτειν τοὺς πόδας τῶν Wash feet αὐτοῦ μαθητῶν she began to shower his feet he began to wash the disciples’ feet Step 3 καὶ ταῖς θριξὶν τῆς κεφαλῆς καὶ ἐκμάσσειν τῷ λεντίῳ ᾧ ἦν Wipe (feet) αὐτῆς ἐξέμασσεν διεζωσμένος and with the hair of her head and he wiped with the towel with she wiped which he was girded

Kitzberger aptly describes this silent foot washing activity as “simply body language, carried out without words”13. Both narratives exhibit close

13. Kitzberger, Love (n. 4), p. 203.

99394_ETL_2016-4_05_N02_Yoder.indd 660 21/12/16 10:37 Mimesis: Foot Washing from Luke to John 661

body-to-body contact. Luke’s woman applies only what is part of or from her own body, centered on her hands and head, directly to Jesus’ body, to his feet. John parallels her tears, hair, and lips with Jesus’ water, basin, and towel. Luke writes “with the hair of her head” (ταῖς θριξὶν τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτῆς), which John matches in level of detail, number of Greek words (five), and instrumental noun phrase in “with the towel with which he was girded” (τῷ λεντίῳ ᾧ ἦν διεζωσμένος)

f) “Began to” Finally, a closer comparison of the elements in Step 2 of the preceding chart reveals a parallel constituent sequence at the most granular level, and a distinctive detail:

Lk 7,38 ἤρξατο βρέχειν τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ (she) began to-shower the feet of him Jn 13,5 ἤρξατο νίπτειν τοὺς πόδας τῶν μαθητῶν (he) began to-wash the feet of the disciples

The phrase ἤρξατο (ἄρχω, “begin”) plus an infinitive verb constitutes a unique detail in John. This sequence is a common feature in all three Synoptics, occurring 12 times in Matthew, 25 in Mark, 28 in Luke, and 6 in Acts14. It appears in John, however, only here in 13,5. In fact, outside of one occurrence in the interpolative John 8,9, this is the only usage of ἄρχω in the entire Johannine corpus. Even the verbs βρέχειν and νίπτειν, while lexically different, are near synonyms, and are both bisyllabic present infinitives with accented first syllable. John could easily have used historical presents for both “wash” and “wipe”. His singular replication here of a characteristic Lukan style feature assumes high probative value as a piece of hard evidence that John is indeed dependent on Luke15.

g) “And Wiped” The “wiping” is especially distinctive, as there are no other examples of feet being wiped or dried after washing or anointing anywhere in Thomas’ comprehensive survey of Jewish and Greco-Roman foot washing texts16,

14. Matt ǁ Mark ǁ Luke (1): 26,22 ǁ 14,19 ǁ 22,23; Matt ǁ Mark (5): 12,1 ǁ 2,23; 16,21 ǁ 8,31; 16,22 ǁ 8,32; 26,37 ǁ 14,33; 26,74 ǁ 14,71; Matt ǁ Luke (1): 11,7 ǁ 7,24; Mark ǁ Luke (2): 11,15 ǁ 19,45; 12,1 ǁ 20,9; Matt (5): 4,17; 11,20; 14,30; 18,24; 24,49; Mark (17): 1,45; 4,1; 5,17.20; 6,2.7.34.55; 8,11; 10,28.32.41.47; 13,5; 14,65.69; 15,18; Luke (23): 3,8; 4,21; 5,21; 7,15.38.49; 9,12; 11,29.53; 12,1.45; 13,25.26; 14,9.18.29.30; 15,14.24; 19,37; 21,28; 23,2.30; Acts (6): 1,1; 2,4; 11,15; 18,26; 24,2; 27,35. 15. Sabbe, Footwashing (n. 2), p. 302, calls this a “Johannine hapax legomenon … dependent directly on Lk 7,38”. 16. Thomas, Footwashing (n. 8), pp. 26-60.

99394_ETL_2016-4_05_N02_Yoder.indd 661 21/12/16 10:37 662 K.L. Yoder

nor in the recently discussed foot washing in the Life of Aesop17. Distinc- tion is heightened in that the verb “wipe” (ἐκμάσσω) in Luke 7,38.44, and John 13,5, 12,3, and 11,2 is not used elsewhere in the New Testament18. The sharing of such a highly distinctive characteristic clearly ties Luke’s Sinful Woman closely with John’s Foot Washing and with his two foot anointing texts. The foot washing sequences are also conspicuously alike in what we do not see: both are missing an explicit object for the verb “wipe” in Step 3 in chart e) above. That object is, of course, implicitly the “feet” in both columns of Step 2. This phenomenon is an integral part of Luke’s composition: note how he distributes “his feet” in alternating rows 2, 4, and 6 of the first chart in d) above. Thus, in each line pair 4-5 and 6-7 we find the sequence verb1 / “his feet” / verb2, where “his feet” serves as the object of both verbs. Only by completely missing the elegant balance of Luke’s presentation could anyone misconstrue his wiping of Jesus’ anointed feet as “superfluous” or “awkward”19. John duplicates this same structure here, but differently so when he fash- ions two close parallels of “anointing” and wiping Jesus’ feet in John 11,2 and 12,3. In both of those texts, the “feet” object is explicitly supplied for the second verb. That difference confirms the mimetic significance of the absence of “his feet” for the second verb in John 13,7. Since this pattern is integral in Luke’s narrative but not so in John’s, it becomes another indicator of Lukan priority.

h) Seven-Segment Ordered Dialog with Simon The next shared structure is a seven-segment dialog between Jesus and his respondent. Jesus’ dialog partner in both is named “Simon”. The same order of speakers occurs in both dialogs: Simon / Jesus / Simon / Jesus / Simon / Jesus / Jesus. Note the similarity with and differences from Jesus’ other extended dialog with Peter, in John 21,15-17: Jesus/Simon/Jesus // Jesus/Simon/Jesus // Jesus/Simon/Jesus. Further, the appearance of “Simon” as Jesus’ verbal antagonist in both texts is not inconsequential. MacDonald notes instances where Homeric emulators flagged their works as imitations by using Homer’s proper names20. Although not weighty, the shared name fills in an otherwise open gap.

17. A. Destro – M. Pesce, The Colour of the Words: The Domestic Slavery in John – From ‘Social Death’ to Freedom, in the Household, in P. Arzt-Grabner – C.M. Kreinecker (eds.), Light from the East: Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2010, 27-46, p. 33. 18. Noted by Sabbe, Footwashing (n. 2), p. 302. 19. As done by J.F. Coakley, The Anointing at Bethany and the Priority of John, in Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988) 241-256, p. 251. 20. MacDonald, Homeric (n. 6), p. 6.

99394_ETL_2016-4_05_N02_Yoder.indd 662 21/12/16 10:37 Mimesis: Foot Washing from Luke to John 663

Here are the speech segments and speakers of the parallel dialogs of Luke 7,39-46 and John 13,6-11:

Luke Text Speaker John Text 7,39 If he were a prophet Simon 13,6 Are you washing my feet 7,40 I have something to Jesus 13,7 You don’t know what I am say doing 7,40 Say it, Teacher Simon 13,8 You will never wash my feet 7,41-42 Two debtors Jesus 13,8 If I don’t wash you 7,43 I suppose Simon 13,9 Not just my feet 7,43 You judge rightly Jesus 13,10 One cleansed does not need to wash 7,44-46 See this woman Jesus 13,11 Not all of you

i) Simon Resists – Jesus Prevails The dialog is initiated in both texts by the resistance of Simon to the foot-washing activity that is in progress21. At first glance, there is little verbal correspondence between the opening speech segments of Luke 7,39 and John 13,6 in chart h) above. Thematically, however, both Simons display the same antipathy to the foot-washing. The shared focus of their aver- sion is the perceived impropriety of the person who is the foot washer and the linked complicity of Jesus: Simon the Pharisee in Luke 7,39 is aghast that Jesus is unaware of “what sort of” woman is touching him (ποταπὴ ἡ γυνὴ ἥτις ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ), and Simon Peter in John 13,6 is incredulous that “you”, Jesus, are about to wash “my” feet (κύριε σύ μου νίπτεις τοὺς πόδας;). Simon’s resistance to the same issue falls in the same relative position and performs the same narrative function in both stories, triggering the ensuing dialog and the closing teaching of Jesus.

j) Odd Dialog Segment – Jesus “Knows” Both dialogs have one out-of-place segment, the beginning of Luke’s and the end of John’s: • Lk 7,39 is a soliloquy of Simon to himself, “if he were a prophet ...” • Jn 13,11 is a repeated segment of prior speech, “therefore, he said ‘Not all of you...’”

21. Sabbe, Footwashing (n. 2), p. 303: Peter’s negative reaction in John parallels Simon’s criticism in Luke 7,39f.

99394_ETL_2016-4_05_N02_Yoder.indd 663 21/12/16 10:37 664 K.L. Yoder

Distinctiveness increases, as both odd segments involve Jesus “knowing” the true state of a third party, using the same verbs as in #3 above, γινώσκω and οἶδα, respectively: • Lk 7,39 – “if he were a prophet he would have known (ἐγίνωσκεν) the sort of woman…”22 • Jn 13,11 – “for he knew (ᾔδει) the one betraying him…” In these paired segments, Jesus “recognizes” the inner reality of the woman as his Lover and Judas Iscariot as his Betrayer, in or coincident with the act of foot washing23.

k) Simon Does “Not Know” While Luke’s Jesus (and anointing woman) and John’s Jesus accurately “know” the people around them, the two Simons do “not know” what is happening. Luke’s Simon surmises “to himself” (ἐν ἑαυτῷ) that Jesus does not “know” (ἐγίνωσκεν) what sort of woman is washing his feet (Luke 7,39). But, when Luke immediately has Jesus’ “answering” (ἀπο- κριθείς) Simon’s silent thoughts (Luke 7,40), the reader is directly led to infer that Jesus “knew” very well, not only Simon’s unspoken opinions, but also who and what this woman really was. Simon is ironically shown as “not knowing”, which is not stated but becomes an act of “knowing” for the reader. John casts his Simon in an ignorant and even more hostile role. Simon Peter opposes Jesus’ foot washing with unknowing, disproportionate objections: “are you washing my feet?” (13,6), “you will not wash my feet to eternity (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα)” (13,8), climaxing with “Lord, not just my feet but my also my hands and my head” (13,9), more mockery than enthusiastic agreement. John has not prepared his readers for such exaggerated posturing from Peter24. The suggestion that Peter’s objections are based on a perceived cultural impropriety of Jesus’ slave-like role cannot fully explain his bom- bast. After all, everyone in John has already proven oblivious to cultural expectations of foot washing, in that water, basin, and towel in plain view were insufficient to remind them to wash feet before dinner!

22. Sabbe, Footwashing (n. 2), p. 303, cites this Lukan element as parallel to Jesus telling Peter in John 13,7a, “you do not know what I have done to you”. That is certainly a prominent element in John’s text, but it is not the only parallel for the Lukan ἐγίνωσκεν. Comparing the structure of the two dialogs, John’s assertion of Jesus’ (fore-) knowledge at the end of his dialog corresponds to the questioning of Jesus’ knowledge at the beginning of Luke’s. 23. There may be a Homeric antecedent for Luke, in a distinctive lexical match: Eury- cleia “knew” (ἔγνων) Odysseus in touching him, as she “washed” (νίψεν) his feet and “anointed” them (ἤλειψεν) richly with oil (Od. 19,475.505). 24. John’s Peter has only made the loyal utterance of John 6,38. Readers of Mark/Matthew would not be surprised at Peter’s bluster, which exceeds the hostility of Simon in Luke 7, and may reflect the three-fold denial “I do not know” (οὐκ οἶδα ≈ John 13,8!) of Peter in Matthew 26,70-74, and Peter’s rebuke of Jesus in Mark 8,32 ǁ Matthew 16,22.

99394_ETL_2016-4_05_N02_Yoder.indd 664 21/12/16 10:37 Mimesis: Foot Washing from Luke to John 665

Just what did Peter not “know”? Jesus tells him in 13,7, “what I am- doing (ποιῶ) you do not know (οἶδας) now but you will know (γνώσῃ) after these-things (ταῦτα)”. Then “after” that in 13,12-17, Jesus’ teaching is enveloped with word play repeating these same words: γινώσκω, οἶδα, ποιέω, and ταῦτα25. John closes in 13,17 by doubled focus on ταῦτα with a paired αὐτά: “if you know these-things (ταῦτα), blessed are you if you do them (αὐτά)”. “These-things/them” in 13,17 must then equate to what Jesus is “doing” back in 13,7. If the disciples understand (“know”) foot washing and also “do” it, they will be “blessed”.

l) His Feet – My Feet “Feet” is the dominant word in Luke’s text, used seven times. It is also dominant in John, but the count is uncertain due to the textual variant in 13,10 regarding “except for the feet” (εἰ μὴ τοὺς πόδας). If that occurrence is excluded, John’s “feet” count is also seven; or eight otherwise26. The closely tied “wash” (νίπτω) also occurs eight times in John. Either way, “feet” is dominant in both, and John’s count matches Luke’s, or is one bet- ter. Either is commensurate with the priority of Luke’s text27. A subset of “my feet” parallels tightens the link between Luke and John further. In the last segment in the Luke column (Luke 7,44-46) of the Seven- Speech Dialog chart h) above is an unbroken triadic sequence of “my feet” (μου τοὺς πόδας) in 7,44b.45b.46b, which closely matches the unbroken triad of “my feet” (μου τοὺς πόδας / τοὺς πόδας μου) in the John column in 13,6b.8a.9. These sequences comprise the only instances of “my feet” in either text, spoken here in Luke by Jesus and in John by Simon Peter. Note how John has Jesus say “if I do not wash you…” in 13,8b, rather than “your feet”, preserving his unbroken triad.

m) Love “Love” (ἀγαπάω) is a strong theme word in both texts, occurring three times in Luke (7,42.47.47) and twice in John (13,1). More specifically, the

25. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1971, p. 462, calls it a “grotesque misunderstanding” to find γνώσῃ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα realized right away in 13,12-17. But, that is in fact suggested by the repetition of γινώσκω, οἶδα, and ποιέω and by John’s use of μετὰ ταῦτα elsewhere to reference what has just happened (2,12; 3,22.26; 5,1.14; 6,1; 7,1; 11,7; 19,28.38; 21,1). 26. Corresponding uses of “feet” were noted by Sabbe, Footwashing (n. 2), p. 302. 27. There may be here an emerging shared significance of “seven” in these two texts: a seven-verb action sequence, a seven-part dialog, and the use of “feet” seven (or eight) times. The numeral itself appears only in Luke, immediately adjacent to our text, in the “seven demons” of Mary Magdalene in Luke 8,2. John also emulated the seven pattern of Mark’s Temple Cleansing, but he abbreviated his Mocking sequence so as not to exceed seven.

99394_ETL_2016-4_05_N02_Yoder.indd 665 21/12/16 10:37 666 K.L. Yoder

“quantity” of love is emphasized as abundant (Luke) or lasting/complete (John). This is the only parallel in John that does not follow its Lukan order! Luke 7,42 which loved “more” John 13,1 Jesus loved his own in (πλεῖον) the world Luke 7,47 loved “much” (πολύ) … John 13,1 he loved them “to the loved “little” fullest” (εἰς τέλος) Using an intensive variant of φιλέω, Luke describes his Sinful Woman as “kissing” (κατ-εφίλει, Luke 7,38) Jesus’ feet. In the following rebuke of Simon who had not greeted Jesus with a “kiss” (φίλημα), Jesus observes that the woman had “not left-off kissing” (οὐ διέλιπεν κατα-φιλοῦσα) his feet any time since entering the house (7,45). After the detailed reprise of 7,44-47, Jesus summarizes it all as “she loved much” (ἠγάπησεν πολύ, 7,47), identifying her with the debtor who “loved more” (πλεῖον ἀγαπή- σει, 7,42-43). Luke paints a sensuous picture of her intense love for Jesus, with artistry that would attract the full attention of any reader, especially author John. So also John, in setting his scene for Jesus’ washing the disciples’ feet in 13,1, identifies Jesus’ great love for them, “having loved his own” (ἀγαπήσας τοὺς ἰδίους), as the motive for the action he was about to undertake. Like Luke’s woman who could not stop kissing/loving Jesus’ feet, John’s Jesus “loved to the end” (εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς).

n) Love More? While John does not use (κατα-)φιλέω, φίλημα, or φίλος in chapter 1328, he does use both ἀγαπάω and φιλέω, repeatedly and interchangeably in Jesus’ other dialog with Simon Peter in John 21,15-19. Herold Weiss has shown the intimate connection between these two dialogs29, to the extent that we may consider 21,15-19 as a structural reprise of, if not the final answer to, 13,6-11. With that connection in mind, it is no surprise to encounter elements of our Luke text in this John 21 dialog. As in Luke, we find in John 21,15-19

28. Sabbe, Footwashing (n. 2), p. 304, notes the lack of “kiss” in John 11–13, as well as in Jesus’ Arrest in John 18, but John does use φιλέω / φίλος of Jesus’ love for Lazarus (John 11,3.11.36) and for the Beloved Disciple (John 20,2). 29. H. Weiss, Foot Washing in the Johannine Community, in Novum Testamentum 21 (1979) 298-325, p. 321: both texts a) are dialogs between Jesus and Simon Peter; b) occur during a private meal; c) twice use the verb “gird” (δια-ζώννυμι, 13,4-5 and 21,7.18); and d) are explicitly connected by the near-verbatim quote of 13,25 in 21,20, “the disciple / whom Jesus loved / in the supper / leaned back / on Jesus’ chest / said ‘Lord who is it?’”. I would add a fifth parallel, e) each dialog is constructed around three objections or questions.

99394_ETL_2016-4_05_N02_Yoder.indd 666 21/12/16 10:37 Mimesis: Foot Washing from Luke to John 667

prominent repetitions of both “love” verbs. Then, recalling Jesus’ leading question to Simon the Pharisee about “which of loved him more?” (Luke 7,42), we hear in John that same leading question rephrased by Jesus to Simon Peter with the same two key lexemes, “do you love (ἀγαπᾷς) me more (πλέον) than these” (John 21,15). Note that πολύς is associated with ἀγαπάω in the New Testament only in Luke 7,42.47 and John 21,15!

o) Turn – See – This – (Be)Loved This second Lukan feature appears at the end of the John 21 dialog with Simon. Just as Jesus in Luke “turns” (στραφείς) and tells Simon to “see” (βλέπεις) “this” (ταύτην) woman (Luke 7,44), Simon Peter in John “turns” (ἐπιστραφείς) and “sees” (βλέπει) the Beloved Disciple (John 21,20) and asks Jesus about “this” (οὗτος John 21,21) man. Both of these “seen” persons are said in context to have a “love” relationship with Jesus: Luke’s woman “loved (Jesus) much” (ἠγάπησεν πολύ, Luke 7,47), and John’s disciple is “he whom Jesus loved” (ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς, John 21,20). Finally, the respective dialogs close with Jesus’ remarks about these individuals. As with the prior feature, this one does not appear in John’s foot washing, but the close connection between the dialogs of John 13 and John 21 pro- vides intelligibility to the appearance of these Lukan features in John 21. That works, however, only if there is a prior close connection between John’s Foot Washing and Luke’s Sinful Woman. Thus, the joint appear- ances of “turn-see-this-lover/beloved” and “love more” in John 21 indi- rectly provide additional linkage between John 13 and Luke 7.

Conclusion: “I say to you” The dense Lukan parallels we have observed in John 13,1-11 abruptly thin out now in 13,12-17 to the single “I say to you” phrase. Other than observing the Lukan order, this marks the end of John’s feature‑by‑feature emulation of Luke. John, however, is not finished here with his mimesis. As already noted, the sequence in 13,12 is an abbreviated inversion of 13,4- 5, and 13,16 is most likely an emulation of Matthew 10,24-2530. Moreover, 13,15-17 instructs the disciples to emulate Jesus’ example. How fitting for John to close his Foot Washing with a full embodiment of literary and ethi- cal mimesis. We will further see below that Luke’s final joining of foot washing with love and forgiveness of sins also contributes to the overall interpretability of John’s foot washing.

30. G. Van Belle – D.R.M. Godecharle, C.H. Dodd on John 13:16 (and 15:20), in T. Thatcher – C.H. Williams (eds.), Engaging with C.H. Dodd on the Gospel of John: Sixty Years of Tradition and Interpretation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013, 86-106, pp. 92-98.

99394_ETL_2016-4_05_N02_Yoder.indd 667 21/12/16 10:37 668 K.L. Yoder

2. Evaluation and Interpretation

a) Tests of Mimesis The density, diversity, and matching order of these plot, structural, the- matic, and verbal parallels between Luke 7,37-46 and John’s foot washing affects every single verse of John 13,1-11. Each of the preceding 15 features is substantial and multi-faceted. The only parallel feature not in the same order is “love” (feature m). Commonality is further strengthened by shared narrative interconnections between the parallels: for example, the “knowing” (c) motivates the foot washing (d-f), which results in resistance (i), which in turn leads into the dialog (h). Distinctiveness is obvious. First, these two texts comprise the only foot washing narratives in all four Gospels and Acts (feature a). Second, the shared language of showering/washing and wiping of feet is unparalleled in the New Testament, the Septuagint, and in the broader Jewish and Graeco- Roman environment (g). Third is the distinctive-to-John combination of “began to” (ἤρξατο) plus infinitive verb (f). Fourth, the shared cultural anomaly of mid-meal timing sets these two texts apart from most if not all other contemporary reports of foot washing (b).

b) Directionality As already mentioned, external evidence of accessibility and analogy is ambiguous and subject to debate, but sufficient internal textual evidence has arisen to adjudicate directionality of influence. First, the delay of the foot washing to mid-meal, which is explained in Luke, is intelligible in John only when that text is considered emulative of Luke (feature b). Second, the inclusion of an extended action verb sequence in John has emerged as a reliable marker of literary influence from a Synoptic parallel, elsewhere from Mark and here from Luke (d). Third, the singular Johannine appearance of “begin” (ἄρχω) plus infinitive verb is a clear remnant of Lukan narrative “DNA” (f). Fourth, John’s use of “and wiped” (ἐκμάσσω) without an explicit object “feet” is similarly atypical of John but integral in Luke (g). These literary and rhetorical findings irresistibly move the needle to point at Luke as the original text with John as the emulation.

c) Interpretability Besides lending intelligibility to the anomalous timing of John’s foot washing, the intertextual dependence on Luke also supports associating John’s washing with forgiveness of sins, confirming its character as reli- gious ceremony. John’s Gospel mentions “forgiveness of sins” only once, in 20,23 where Jesus delegates authority to remit or retain sins to his Spirit- infused disciples. It takes very few dots to tie the “cleansing” of Jesus’ foot

99394_ETL_2016-4_05_N02_Yoder.indd 668 21/12/16 10:37 Mimesis: Foot Washing from Luke to John 669

washing (13,10-11) and his mandate (13,14-17) that the disciples emulate that action, together with his authorization for them to “forgive sins”. The resulting network reveals a distinctly Johannine practice of giving and receiving forgiveness of sins in the act of communal foot washing. The intertextual “love” association also fits well in this scenario, con- necting to the cross symbolism often assigned to John’s foot washing. Thus, Johannine forgiveness of sins, flowing originally from Jesus’ death, was experienced by the disciples in their collective practice of communal foot washing that was performed out of mutual love, where each declares willing- ness to “give his life for his friends”, preparing one another for potential martyrdom31, all in imitative memory of Jesus himself. Only such profoundly parallel significance could allow John to audaciously substitute Foot Wash- ing in place of the Synoptic Eucharist in his Last Supper. By contrast, inter- pretations of Jesus’ action as chiefly parabolic or prophetic, which demote the physical act of foot washing to a symbol, ring hollow32. As to dissimilarities, John does exhibit notable variances from Luke: reversed roles of Jesus, male rather than female foot washing partner(s), wiping with towel rather than hair, absence of anointing, absence of kissing, absence of crying/tears. How striking then that all these original Lukan features except the kissing and crying/tears are present in John 12,1-8 where Mary anoints Jesus! Then again, Luke’s crying and tears show through elsewhere when Mary meets Jesus in John 11,33-35, while “kissing” is replicated in the “love/friend” phraseology elsewhere in John’s Lazarus story and his final chapter 21 (Peter dialog). John follows known mimetic practice as he “diffuses” material from the single Lukan Anoint- ing text into his separate episodes of Foot Washing, Peter and the Beloved Disciple, Anointing, and even Lazarus33.

3. Conclusion

For decades it has been out of style to argue for literary influence between the Synoptics and John. However, that is exactly what the evidence here demands: that the author of John intentionally and skillfully emulated a written form of Luke’s Sinful Woman story that was much the same as our canonical text. A literary connection is manifest, as oral tra- ditional influence cannot begin to explain the finely replicated structural and narrative features shared by the two stories. That this connection is

31. Weiss, Foot-Washing (n. 29), p. 300. 32. Another view taking seriously the physical practice is that of J.S. Kloppenborg in his Disaffiliation in Associations and the ἀποσυναγωγός of John, in HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 67 (2011) 1-16. 33. A. Winn, Mark and the Elijah-Elisha Narrative, Eugene, OR, Wipf and Stock, 2010, pp. 26-29, describes how Virgil diffuses material from the single Homeric story of Elpenor into three separate episodes of his Aeneid.

99394_ETL_2016-4_05_N02_Yoder.indd 669 21/12/16 10:37 670 K.L. Yoder

mimetic is demonstrated by the abundant density, order, and distinctiveness of the parallel features. Finally, that the direction of influence within this connection flows from Luke to John is indicated by consistent pointers found in the textual evidence, and further validated by significant new intelligibility gained for John’s text. The only conclusion to be drawn here is that John used Luke 7,36-50 as the narrative model for his own Foot Wash- ing, while also diffusing selected elements from that Luke text into his final Simon Peter dialog, and into his Lazarus and Anointing narratives. Several implications for future investigation are evident. First, observing John at work, we have seen that he emulates the story line, structures, and transitions of Luke’s narrative, but only occasionally mimics exact phraseology. John indeed fits D.A. Russell’s description of the ideal imitator as one who could, “penetrate below the superficial verbal features of his exemplar to its spirit and significance” with deep understanding of “character and plot”34. Therefore, a determination of literary relationship between John and another text must consider these broader compositional components, rather than resting solely on the presence or absence of verbal parallels. Second, Lukan influence in John’s Lazarus and Anointing stories must be seriously reconsidered in light of these findings. Finally, text developmen- tal and historical reconstructions of John’s Foot Washing must now take into account the intertextual relationship with Luke demonstrated herein.

1566 Glen Manor Ct. Keith L. Yoder Carmel, IN 46032 Senior Research Fellow USA Warring States Project [email protected] University of Massachussetts at Amherst

Abstract. — This paper argues that the Foot Washing of John 13, as literary composition, is a creative imitation, or mimesis, of the Sinful Woman narrative of Luke 7. Maurits Sabbe first noticed this connection in 1982, but his suggestion fell from scholarly discussion before it was ever fully developed. A fresh examination of the two texts now reveals a large array of previously unsurveyed parallels. Evalu- ation of old and new evidence shows first, that the two narratives share multiple structural and linguistic features, demonstrating a literary rather than oral connection. Second, the density, order, and distinctiveness of the parallels prove the connection to be mimetic. Finally, directional markers within the textual evidence indi- cate that the flow of literary influence was from Luke to John, a result validated by new interpretive options that these findings provide for John’s text.

34. Russell, De Imitatione (n. 5), p. 5.

99394_ETL_2016-4_05_N02_Yoder.indd 670 21/12/16 10:37