SBL Annual Meeting: Atlanta, Georgia, 20-23 Nov, 2010 Contextual Biblical Interpretation Group
© Derek Tovey. For personal use only: please do not redistribute (quote only with author’s permission).
The Gospel of John as a defence of Jesus’ honour? Some reflections out of intercontextual analysis with the Maori concept of “mana”.
In this paper, I want to examine the concept of doxa (or “glory”), by drawing analogically upon the Maori concept mana (of which more anon) to make a case for the use in John’s Gospel of this “glory” concept and language to establish the status and honour of Jesus (both as a character in the story, and as portrayed in the dynamics of the implied author’s narrative), so that readers, by understanding Jesus’ honour and status as both ascribed and achieved, may accept the Gospel’s claim for Jesus as God’s Son.
The argument proceeds by way of an intercontextual review of the connotations and denotations (if such a word may be used of such capacious terms) of the key vocabulary of doxa and mana. Examination of the concept mana yields the understanding that, as a social value, mana is both ascribed and achieved. Here lies the basis for a comparison with the way in which honour was understood in ancient Mediterranean societies. My comparative analysis draws upon the insights of anthropologists and scholars who apply the models and methods of social-science to the New Testament. Finally, I examine how the discourse of John’s Gospel is structured in order to provide a defence of Jesus’ honour, which is shown to be both ascribed and achieved.
In an article that relates the concepts of glory and glorification to the value of honour and the dynamics of patron-client relations, Ronald Piper notes that ‘[t]he concepts of “glory” and “glorification” have long been considered themes of major theological significance within that work’.[1] By correlating doxa with mana, I want to moderate what I think is a sometimes overly severe divide between a “theological understanding” of Jesus’ glory which emphasises his divine status over against a “view from below”, which sees that doxa, or “glory” as manifest in and through a human character.
Doxa is used eighteen times in John’s Gospel, while the verbal form, doxazw (appearing, of course, in a variety of cases and tenses) is used twenty-two times. This use of the noun “glory” () and a range of uses of the verb “to glorify” () requires an examination of the connotations of these words, for as a number of commentators have noted, the concepts contained within these words are varied and not easy to capture.[2] In ancient secular Greek, the word had two basic meanings. One was “opinion” in the sense of one’s own perspective, or thoughts on a matter; as Aalen puts it, it refers to ‘the opinion about a person or thing that I am prepared to defend’[3]; while Ramsey correlates this with the Latin word opinio.[4]
Secondly, it was used in an objective sense to refer to one’s standing or repute in the eyes of others. Thus, it was used for “reputation” and “renown”, or to denote the “honour” in which one was held. For this sense, Ramsey offers the Latin, gloria, and speaks of it meaning “distinction” or “fame”.[5] It is this latter sense that contributed most likely to its choice by the Greek translators of the Hebrew Bible for its use in the Septuagint to translate . derives from the verb , “to be heavy, weighty”, and from this developed its use to denote someone who is a “weighty” person in society, ‘someone who is honourable, impressive, worthy of respect’[6] or as G.B. Caird puts it, ‘is always used metaphorically to connote the weight a person carries, his status, importance, worth, impressiveness, majesty’.[7] It referred to the esteem and respect that one might receive on account of one’s power or wealth;[8] or one’s rank as a king (hence it could mean “majesty”).[9] Hegermann states that ‘[i]t can be used fundamentally of every person, probably with respect to his or her position within the creation (Ps 8:6) or within the community of mankind, where is manifest in a graduated way as rank, dignity, and position of power’.[10] Dale Patrick states that “glory” ‘denotes admiration won by doing something significant or by possessing attributes held in high esteem. It is more than fame, because it is experienced as a quality of something or someone, the aura emanating from the person or being’.[11] We might use here the Latin word, gravitas.[12] With this word, the idea of “authority” is introduced, though, of course, a given position or rank within society carries its own inherent authority.
The use of to translate in the Septuagint led to an important extension of the meaning of the word when used in contexts to do with God and the presence of God. Partly, I suspect, because it is used in contexts where the presence of God is marked by theophanic images where the radiance or brightness of God, the “splendour” of God, is in view, the word itself has come to connote “divine radiance” or “brightness” – a sense that “glory” conveys strongly[13]. Such passages as Ex. 33.18 where Moses asks to see God’s glory, surrounded by elements of a theophany (the “pillar of cloud”, which at night has been a pillar of fire) and followed by a description of Moses’ own face shining because he has been in God’s presence (Ex. 34.29-31), contribute to this sense of radiance. In Ex. 40.34 there is a description of the “glory of the Lord” filling the tent of meeting (or, the tabernacle) and in Is. 6.3, as Isaiah has his vision of God, the seraphim sing of the glory of the Lord filling the earth. Thus, the word , especially in its association with the concept of the “glory of the Lord” (; cf. ) comes to refer to a divine mode of being.[14]
Like , mana is a big concept: it is one, says Rangimarie Pere, that is ‘beyond translation from the Maori language’,[15] while Joan Metge states that it has ‘not one clear-cut meaning but a range of related meanings with many ramifications’.[16] Pere says that ‘its meaning is multiform and includes psychic influence, control, prestige, power, vested and acquired authority and influence, being influential or binding over others, and that quality of the person that others know he or she has!’[17] Interestingly, Metge draws a subtle distinction between a Pakeha (European/non-Maori) understanding of mana and a Maori perspective. When asked about its meaning, Pakeha tend to ‘suggest “prestige” or “standing” first, then “power” and “authority”’ and interpret it in ‘personal and social terms’. ‘Maori’, she writes, ‘give the same answers as Pakeha when questioned about the meaning of mana, but listening carefully to the way they use the word, in Maori and English, we find that they place the primary stress on “power” and “authority”, see “prestige” and “standing” as derived from the demonstrable possession of power and authority, and in many cases identify the power involved as being of a spiritual, supernatural kind’.[18]
We shall return to this last aspect in a moment, but for the present we may say that in secular, worldly terms to have mana is to have authority and the power of control (or sovereignty) over some people or something, or in given contexts.[19] In personal terms, to have mana is to be a person who has prestige, status, charisma, dignity and influence. Mana is, however, something that every person is born with, inherited from one’s parents. The degree of mana inherited depends upon the parents achievements, their social position, the regard in which they are held by others, and their contribution to the well-being of the tribal group.[20]
It should be noted that mana is closely associated with tapu. Indeed, there are tribal differences in the use of the words so that, as Shirres points out, ‘where some tribes speak of tapu, others speak of mana’,[21] and in some instances the terms are used interchangeably.[22] Tapu is a difficult concept to render in English; it can mean “sacred”, but this appears to be a modern sense of the word.[23] When someone or something is tapu, he, she or it is placed under “a religious or spiritual restriction”[24]. This can mean either that the person or thing that is tapu is “holy”, or one might even say “consecrated, set apart”;[25] or that the person or thing is off-limits as “polluting” or unclean, depending on the context. Though a person had an intrinsic tapu from birth, the mana which derived from this was not intrinsic to the person but was an endowment from the gods.[26]
Individuals of high rank in Maori society inherited an initial store of mana, but they could increase or decrease their mana by their own actions.[27] It was something not only built up by the individual but also “given” by the community. Mana derives from the recognition and respect given by others.[28] It is interesting to note that a Maori scholar, Professor Hugh Kawharu, writing about rangatiratanga (or “chieftainship”, more broadly, “sovereignty”), and quoting an important dictionary of the Maori language, where the meaning of the word is given as “evidence of breeding and greatness”, writes as follows:
Here, ‘breeding and greatness’ allude to the two main criteria for leadership: primogeniture (generally male) and proven ability. ‘Evidence’, for its part, turns on the concept of ‘mana’. Mana is that power and authority that is endowed by the gods to human beings to enable them to achieve their potential, indeed to excel, and, where appropriate, to lead…What is looked for, then, in a rangatira [chief, leader] is evidence of a high order of spiritually sanctioned power and authority. Primogeniture, in so far as it refers to proximity by way of a line through the ancestors to the supernatural source of such power and authority, may thus be called the prescribed factor in rangatiratanga, and ability the achieved factor.[29]
Associated with this is the fact that mana is not simply something which someone has, but one is also granted mana by others, so that we might also speak of “honour” as an aspect of mana.
Mana also has spiritual connotations, though it is a stretch to relate the word to the sense of “glory” that we have been speaking about earlier in connection with doxa. Mana is, according to Maori Marsden, ‘spiritual power and authority’, a charisma that is greater than the ‘vital force or personal magnetism’ which may be an inherent, intrinsic quality in a human being. Mana is given by the gods, or God – it is a gift – an endowed authority or power.[30] Mana ‘is divine power made manifest in the world of human experience’ writes Joan Metge.[31] ‘Mana as spiritual power is closely linked with tapu. People and things which “have” mana “are” tapu, and vice versa. While mana is a moving force, tapu is a state of being – the state of being which results from the indwelling of mana…When the indwelling of mana comes from God…, tapu is virtually identical with the Christian concept of sacred as set apart under the care and for the service of God…’.[32]
The spiritual aspect of mana, though in effect all mana has its origin in the endowment of God, or in traditional Maori thought , “the gods”,[33] enables a person to do great deeds and perform healings. This sort of mana, according to Metge, is accompanied by signs. Margaret Orbell writes of how ‘[i]n many circumstances, mana had to be protected by being entrusted to a guardian. A powerful rangitira [chief] might possess (and be responsible for) the mana of his people, and the mana of their land as well; his mana would ensure the safety of these other mana’.[34] One thinks of Jesus stating how he has protected his disciples while he was with them in the world in John 17:12.
The pertinence of drawing an analogy between mana and the use of the doxa concept and language in John’s Gospel lies precisely in the way in which mana sees a nexus between the divine and the human. This draws together what might be described as a more “theological” understanding of doxa in relation to Jesus, that is, the aspect that points up his divine status and identity, with what might be called a more “sociological” descriptor, that is, his bearing of doxa as a human character in the world of the story. This means that, in the rhetoric of the implied author, the doxa, or mana (if you will) of Jesus is seen “from below” (through his works, or “signs”, for instance), as much as it is portrayed “from above” through the implied author’s narrative, and the discourse of Jesus.
The way in which mana, in the literature I have surveyed, may be understood as being both ascribed and achieved coheres well with the way in which these sociological categories are discussed in the literature on the value of honour in ancient Mediterranean societies. In the first place, primogeniture was important in both ancient Maori, and in Mediterreanean, specifically, Israelite societies.[35] In reference to Israelite society, Matthews and Benjamin state that ‘[f]athers used primogeniture or birth order to designate an heir in order to achieve stability for their household’.[36] This reduced competition amongst other males and females within the household. Similarly, succession in Maori chiefly families was decided by primogeniture, the eldest son inheriting the mana of the chiefly position.[37] Birth, then, was the primary way in which honour was ascribed.[38] One might also have honour ascribed by someone else, through say, adoption into a well-born family, or the gift of an inheritance of wealth.
On the other hand, honour was also achieved and could be built up or broken down by one’s actions. Buck writes: ‘Besides the inherited mana, a new ariki [paramount chief, eldest son] could acquire additional mana by the wise administration of his tribe at home and by the successful conduct of military campaigns abroad…One the other hand, poor administration and defeats in war might lead to loss of power and prestige. The mana of a chief was integrated with the strength of the tribe. It was not a mysterious, indefinable quality flowing from supernatural sources; it was basically the result of successive and successful human achievements’.[39] Joan Metge includes proficiency in Maori speech-making, genealogy, history and ceremonial alongside “seniority of descent” as sources of honour and respect.[40]