Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 92/4 (2016) 655-670. doi: 10.2143/ETL.92.4.3183465 © 2016 by Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. All rights reserved. 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 interpret- ability 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 com- mon 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 wash- ing (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 seg- ment. 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.