"Spaced Out: 'Territoriality' in the Fourth Gospel"

Jerome H. Neyrey

University of Notre Dame



1.0 Introduction: Status Quaestionis and Focus



The geography in the Fourth Gospel differs from that in the Synoptics. Early on, after Jesus confronts the Jerusalem temple, he proclaims that should his enemies "destroy this temple," "in three days I will raise it up" (2:19). Jesus was not speaking of a physical building erected in geographical space, but "the temple of his body" (2:21). All subsequent visits to the temple should be read in light of this saying. Paralleling this, Jesus answers the Samaritan woman who questioned him on the correct place to worship with a denial of fixed sacred space: "Not on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem" (4:21). Thus from the gospel's beginning, Jesus rejects certain space but elects other. Similarly, the most mis-understood item about Jesus has a spatial element. Whence comes he? From Nazareth? (1:46) From heaven (6:41-42)? Whither does he go? To the diaspora (7:35)? To his suicide (8:22)? To heaven and his Father? In the Farewell Address Jesus states that "In my Father's house there are many rooms" and "I go to prepare a place for you" (14:2-3); "house. . .rooms. . .place" all suggest space articulated as buildings of some sort, somewhere -- which would be a wrong conclusion! Finally, Jesus describes the world in terms of binary opposites: "I am from above, you are from below; I am not of this world, you are of this world" (8:23). This suggests that one's characterization and thus one's ability to appropriate Jesus and the word of God he brings is fully reflected by one's place or one's location.(1)

The Fourth gospel contains these and other significant data about place that deserve to be treated as redundant examples of the phenomena called "territoriality." I propose to use the model of "territoriality" found in current anthropology because it is suited both to gathering data and assessing their social significance. This enterprise will make a contribution to Johannine studies, inasmuch as many spatial data relate to the gospel's high christology and membership in the group. The mapping process of the Johannine author reinforces the view of Jesus as an alien and his disciples as living in "no where."

2.0 The Anthropological Model "Territoriality"

What is "territoriality"? Robert Sack, a representative of modern research, defines it as:



"Territoriality will be defined as the attempt by an individual or group to affect, influence, or control people, phenomena, and relationships, by delimiting and asserting control over a geographic area. . .Territories require constant effort to establish and maintain."(2)



His emphasizes the attempt to control some place or some persons. Control presumes that the controlling group has in some way labeled or classified some place in relationship to itself. Sack notes that the controlling group tries to "affect, influence or control" places, and the object of control might be "people, phenomena, relationships." "Territory," then, may be geographical or trans-geographical. Some knowledge of the history of "territoriality" may help us understand its significance and utility.

Modern research into "territoriality" began with studies of animal behavior, especially that of birds.(3) From the beginning, certain concepts emerged which remain integral parts of all models of it. Birds could be observed performing some conspicuous behavior which was interpreted as communication of an exclusive claim to a certain area, and which resulted in control of that territory. For example, a male bird becomes intolerant of other males as he confines himself to a certain area for the purposes of ensuring an adequate food supply and safe nesting space for his mate.(4) Even as anthropologists later focused on human patterns of "territoriality," the three foci of the model remain: (1) classification of places, (2) communication of these, and (3) control of the places so classified.

2.1 Classification Systems. The classification system, the key to the model, refers to the ways in which humans invest space with meaning or label it for some purpose. For example, people declare this space "ours," but that space "yours," thus making "our" space sacred and set apart from other, profane spaces.(5) Parents often classify their bedroom as "off limits" for their children, thus distinguishing adult from family space. Muslims and Israelis both claim that the temple mount in Jerusalem as their own sacred space, and thus see the presence of the other there as profaning it.

Anthropologists provide many general patterns for classifying territory, all of which contain binary opposites which set certain spaces apart as restricted and unrestricted, ours and yours, holy and profane, and the like.(6) These labels are intended to have dramatic impact on how we and others think of and behave in regard to a certain space. Typical inventories of classification systems would include: 1) public/private, 2) sacred/profane, 3) honorable/ shameful, 4) clean/unclean, 5) fixed/fluid sacred space, 6) center/periphery(7) and 7) civilization/nature.(9) Inasmuch as only the first five have direct bearing on this study, they alone will be examined here.

1. Public and Private.(10) The Greco-Roman world used these and similar labels to indicate when males were engaged in "public" civic affairs or "private" social events such as symposia. This "public/private" distinction also applies to situations whereby honorable men speak boldly in public, while the fearsome speak only in private. Jesus boasts to Annas that he has spoken publicly () in synagogue and temple and has not spoken in private ( ) (18:20). Thus he has acted honorably according to expected male behavior in the culturally appropriate space for honorable males.

2. Sacred and Profane. These categories, long used in the study of religion, have tended to have a religious connotation. Mircea Eliade, for example, declared that a theophany or revelation transformed a profane space into a sacred one, and thus it became locally fixed.(11) Jonathan Z. Smith countered that sacred space is founded through ritual and thus is a human choice based on cultural distinctions.(12) He goes on to say: "Within the temple, the ordinary (which to any outside eye or ear remains wholly ordinary) becomes significant, becomes sacred, simply by being there. . .there is nothing that is inherently sacred or profane."(13) A more functional definition is given by Bruce J. Malina, who attempts to give modern college students a broad, cross-cultural sense of "sacred"in their lives. Sacred = something set apart, such as a temple or a house, or even my jeans and my toothbrush.(14)

The Samaritan woman's remark about "this mountain" and the one in Jerusalem as places of worship depends on some notion of the sacredness of each place. Ethnic myths about these mountains explain why each is classified as holy or sacred space.

3. Honor and Shame All are familiar with Nathanael's slur about Jesus' place of origin: "Can any good come from Nazareth?" (1:46), an excellent example of a classification which denies honor to someone based on an honor-less home-of-origin. Correspondingly, Paul boasts of being "a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no low-status city" (Acts 21:39). These are representative examples of a pattern taught in rhetoric.(15) Villages, moreover, are mean places in which to live, utterly lacking the amenities found in Greco-Roman cities for elite citizens. Richard Rohrbaugh cites Pausanias about what makes an honorable city, emphasizing how honor is tied to the city's public architecture:

. . .if indeed one can give the name of city to those who possess no public buildings, no gymnasium, no theater, no market-place, no water descending to a fountain, but live in bare shelters just like mountain huts on the edges of ravines.(16)

4. Pure and Polluted. All Israel know that Jerusalem's holy temple was once polluted by a non-Israelite conqueror who sacrificed an unclean animal there (see 1 Macc 1:54; 2 Macc 6:1-2). Its restoration as a pure place was commemorated at ,, the Feast of the Rededication, which John 10:22 cites as the occasion of one of Jesus' arguments with the Jerusalemites. A holy place may be made polluted and then re-sanctified.

Similarly, the behavior of the high priest and cohorts illustrates this classification when they hand Jesus over to Pilate: "They themselves did not enter the praetorium so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover" (18:28). This passage contains both a classification of Pilate's official space by elite Judeans according to their elaborate purity system.(17) The praetorium is unclean, and the mere entering of it contaminates. By remaining outside, the elite Judeans communicate this and claim respect for observing the purity code.(18)

The author, however, sees irony in the fact that while they observe purity, they nevertheless instigate the murder of Jesus, which is vastly more defiling than entering Pilate's chambers. Thus both the author and his characters label space clean/unclean, but from different classification systems.

5. Fixed/Fluid Sacred Space. Anthropologists and students of religions have developed various notions of this classification.(19) Jonathan Smith, for example, contrasts two types of space, locative and utopian.(20) Locative space focuses on a "center"; it is closed and centrifugal in direction.(21) Utopian space refers to an "open" society, periphery (not center) in focus, and centripetal in thrust.(22) Smith's energies and insights are with utopian space, characterized by rebellion, freedom, and breaking of limits and boundaries by humankind.(23) Yet his insights must be supplemented from the works of Bruce. J. Malina. Expanding Mary Douglas' model of "group/grid," Malina provides many descriptive characteristics of fixed/fluid sacred space. Of fixed sacred space, he write:

Just as persons have their statuses by ascription and perdure in that status indefinitely, the same holds true for places. The topography of the main places where people in this script live out their lives is rather permanent. A palace location, a temple location, and a homestead stay in the same place and with the same lineage through generations.(24)

Thus fixed sacred space correlates with fixed roles and statuses. All of this is characterized by redundant aspects of stability, permanence and continuity. The temple-city of Jerusalem exemplifies this well.(25) Of fluid sacred space, he writes:

This situation of porous boundaries and competing groups stands in great contrast to the solid, hierarchical, pyramidal shape of strong group/high grid [fixed space]. . . as groups form and re-form anew, permanence is no longer to be found outside the group; and where the group is, there is stability. Sacred space is located in the group, not in some impersonal space like a temple. The group is the central location of importance, whether the Body of Christ, the church, for Christians, or the synagogue gathering for Jews, or the philosophical "schools". . .Discourse within these groups, whether the words of a portable Torah, the story of Jesus, or the exhortations of the philosopher-teacher, becomes the mobile, portable, exportable focus of sacred place, in fact more important than the fixed and eternal sacred places.(26)

For our purposes, we note four things. 1) "Group" becomes the equivalent of fixed space, and so the interpersonal dynamics of a "group"rise in importance, namely, loyalty (, + ), love (), service, etc. 2) Since stability and permanence are not found outside the group, we are clued to consider the "spatial" quality of "remain" in the Fourth Gospel. 3) The group might be a scholastic enterprise, either a philosophical school or a midrashic one.(27) If worship entails the reading and hearing of sacred writings, then it can occur anywhere; thus, sacred space is mobile and portable. 4) The group, then, is the central location of importance; and so it is not accidental that the New Testament often calls the Christian group a "temple" and "the household of God."

2.2 Communication and Control. Communication of these classifications could be relatively simple. All a prosperous city need do to communicate that it is honorable, wealthy, or civilized is to build a wall around itself with a well guarded gate (e.g., Josh 2:1-21). The same would apply to sections within cities where various trades or occupations or ethnic groups were separated from each other and from the elites by interior walls and gates (e.g., Acts 19:23-25). Non-elites are thus kept away from the urban elites, as well as from other non-elites with whom there might be rivalry or conflict. Similarly, what a wall and gate are to a city, a barred door manned by a guard would be for a house or residence (see John 18:15-17; 20:19, 26; Acts 28:16).(28) Perhaps the most dramatic example we have of this principle of communication and control is the balustrade in the Jerusalem temple which prohibited Gentile access to the court of the Israelites. Recent temple archaeology has recovered samples of the inscription carved on the balustrade, which reads:

No foreigner is to enter within the forecourt and the balustrade around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his subsequent death.(29)

Both Philo and Josephus comment on this, indicating that it was a well-known device for controlling access within the Temple.(30) Thus by the very building of a door to secure a building, a fence and gate to protect animals or property, and a wall and gate around a city, people communicate that the space within is "ours," "sacred," "pure," etc. The major reasons for control of space seem to be protection and taxation.

3.0 Johannine "Territoriality"

We turn now to the Fourth Gospel and from the many instances of "place" we choose the following seven as the most significant. Some reflect actual geographical places, such as Mts. Gerizim and Zion; other depend on cultural notions of appropriate male behavior, i.e., "public and private." "Galilee" and "Judea" seem at first to refer to actual geographical places, but redactional study of this gospel turns us in another direction. "Whence" Jesus comes is understood by some characters in terms of actual places; but the true "whence" and "whither" of Jesus take us out of this world. Special consideration will be given to "my Father's house" with its many rooms. Finally we must consider the repeated assertions that some persons are "dwelling in" or "being in" another - the cryptic basis of the evangelist's definition of sacred space for the group.

3.1 Galilee and Judea. Our questions about these two places are not at all topological(31) or traditional.(32) We ask instead with what meaning has the author invested each place, their "symbolic" meaning if you will.(33) Yet this study is more than redaction criticism of John, although such studies will be valuable in the course of this inquiry. It has been observed that, while Jesus is described as "remaining" in various towns in Galilee and even in Samaria, he never "remains" in Jerusalem. Using µ as a clue,(34) we observe that disciples "remain" with Jesus (1:38-39); Jesus "remains" at Cana (2:12), Samaria (4:40) and in Galilee (7:9). Conversely, Jesus urges his disciples to "remain" in the vine (15:4), in Jesus himself (15:5-7) and in his love (15:9-10). Thus, if "remaining" indicates loyalty and adherence to Jesus, then the gospel tells us that this happens in "Galilee," wherever that might be. But it does not happen in "Judea." Thus scholars assess these two places, not simply as geographical locations, but as classified places: in "Galilee" Jesus is accepted, gains disciples and remains; in "Judea" he is harassed, put on trial, and killed.(35) He does not remain in "Judea."

"Territoriality" bring to this conversation a careful search for the classification or meaning invested by the author in these two places. The author labels each place in terms of some dualism or binary opposite: "love/hate" or "friendly/hostile" or "remain/not remain." The communication of this comes in the course of the narrative: it is a matter of discovering what place is welcoming or hostile; by noting whether Jesus "remains" or not, one learns the code. Some places in "Galilee," such as Cana, are friendly and safe, but not the synagogue in Capernaum (6:59); and while Jesus generally finds hostility in "Judea,"not so in Bethany (11:1ff; 12:1-8). As regards control of these spaces, the author does not prohibit disciples from residing in any place, nor does he encourage them to migrate to other places. Unlike Mark 13:14, Jesus does not urge the disciples to leave Jerusalem; nor is it clear that he wishes them to flee to Galilee and safety.(36) He does not pray that God take them out of the world (17:15), but protect them from the evil one. Thus "Galilee" and "Judea" indicate that the disciples have friends and foes everywhere, and the control that issues from the classification governs the disciples' association with this or that group, not this or that place.(37)

What is communicated by "Galilee" and "Judea", therefore, is not classification of real or topological space, but rather social space, the Jesus group and the synagogue. Thus no specific geographical space is identified. Moreover, groups need not have a fixed place, as they can meet in various places at diverse times.(38) Yet "Galilee" and "Judea" are genuine classifications, informed by the dualistic system which contrasts friend/enemy, ours/theirs, or love/hate. Some control is exercised because this classification creates a sharp boundary between disciples and foes which functions as a dividing wall or a fence/gate which make up a sheepfold (10:1-11).

3.2 Public and Private: / . Investigation of Johannine territoriality next leads us to a native classification of space which is communicated by Jesus himself. When his captors question Jesus about his teaching, he answers: "I have spoken openly () to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple. . .I have said nothing in secret ( )" (18:20; see 10:23-24). This juxtaposition of "public" vs "private" may be taken in two senses: 1) acceptable speech = "public," but subversive speech = "private"(39) and 2) "public" = authorized speaking role, whereas "private" = no such authorization. In general, this classification pertains to males gathered in public places such as courts and assemblies who have "public voice" to speak on certain matters.(40) The issue of who has "public voice" is no minor matter in the Fourth Gospel.(41) For if it could be maintained that Jesus lacks appropriate schooling (7:15), then he should not be acclaimed as "teacher" (: 3:2; 13:13-14) or "Rabbi" (1:38, 49; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:3; 20:16).(42) Moreover, if Jesus breaks the Sabbath Law, he should be disqualified from public speech as a malefactor. From one point of view, Jesus "leads the people astray" (7:12), a judgment confirmed by the neutralization of the soldiers sent to apprehend him (7:45-47). Indeed, from ch 5 on, most of Jesus' "public speech" is a public forensic duel with his accusers, Jesus both defending himself and judging his judges.(43)

Jesus often claims "public voice" on the basis of his authorization:(44) "He whom God has sent utters the words of God" 3:34 (see 5:30, 38; 7:18; 8:42). God precisely authorized him "what to say and what to speak" (12:48-49; 7:16-17). In his Farewell Address, Jesus honorably claims "to have given them your word" (17:14). Yet a quick look at the formal aims of various speech episodes by Jesus indicates a broad range of things Jesus claims authorization to say: 1) to proclaim God's word, 2) to conduct a cognitio of those who claim to be his disciples (3:3-20; 8:31-58), and 3) to mount a public defense of his claims and actions (5:19-46; 10:25-39; see 9:8-34). Jesus, one might say, speaks as long as he pleases, where he pleases.(45) Furthermore, those who accept Jesus as "prophet" accord him "public voice" (7:40); they argue that he must be from God (3:2; 10:21). His "speech," moreover, results in his hearers having eternal life (5:24) and in being made clean (15:3). The evangelist, then, classifies Jesus as authorized for public speech, which is communicated by Jesus' bold public behavior (). The control of space from the narrator's point of view both honors Jesus' bold public speech, and shames those hiding in private who will not publicly acknowledge Jesus. The issue of public space, then, is situational: in certain circumstances (and places): public speech is both legitimate and urged.

Many, however, deny Jesus "public voice," for they classify him as a deceiver and a false prophet who leads the people astray.(46) At Tabernacles the crowds divide in their judgments of Jesus: the positive evaluation of him ("he is a good man") is countered by those who claim that "he leads the people astray" (7:13; 7:43; 10:19-21; see 9:16). If this were sustained, then Jesus would surely be removed from this space. More proof that "he leads the people astray"comes with the failure of the troops sent to capture Jesus; they blame it on his speech: "No man ever spoke like this man!" (7:46), which the Pharisees interpret as more evidence that Jesus deceives the people (7:47). It goes without saying that in the Fourth Gospel the Pharisees and the Jerusalem elite classify public space in the Temple as sacred or restricted, such that Jesus should have no "public voice" there.(47) They communicate this in a variety of ways: 1) by questioning Jesus' credentials;(48) 2) by sending soldiers to arrest him (7:32, 45-49); 3) by charging him with breaking the Sabbath (7:21-23); 4) by scrupulous examination of his speech to find errors so as to discredit him; and 5) by direct questioning of him (10:22-25). On the side of the temple elite one finds a series of cultural norms which allow "public voice" only to adult males (not women and children), and only to males of a certain status (to elites, not to non-elites, and to rabbis/pharisees/ teachers, but not to the am ha-aretz).(49) Thus they seek to control Jesus' speaking in the Temple and elsewhere in Jerusalem, labeling Jesus as a non-observant, self-important, sinner and deceiver.

So much for "in public." But what if Jesus had only nighttime visits with people "in private"? What if, for fear of the repercussions that speech "in public" would bring, either Jesus or his disciples "hid themselves" (8:59; 12:36) or met secretly? This gospel repeatedly classifies such "private/secret" behavior as cowardly fear of discovery, along with the sanctions imposed on those professing speak publicly on behalf of Jesus (see 9:22; 12:42). Thus when the reader hears Nicodemus' confession of Jesus as "a teacher come from God," which is given "at night," that is, "in private," he is classified as a cowardly person. Even when he appears in public, carrying spices to bury Jesus, he retains the stigma of the one "who had at first come to him by night" (19:39). "In private," then is classified for the Johannine group as un-holy, un-virtuous space. Both Jesus' public behavior and the scorn directed against those afraid to speak (9:22; 12:42) communicate this evaluation. Control in this instance means urging or requiring bold public speech by authentic members and scornful sanctions upon those afraid to speak.(50) It is doubtful how welcome such persons would be in the circle of disciples.

In summary, the classification "in public" is clear to all the characters in the narrative. It was communicated by Jesus himself who claimed ascribed authority from God about "what to say and what to speak." Since "in public" refers to many specific places such as synagogue, Temple and the like, control over them for Jesus means that he and others demand access to places where they are not wanted. In short, they insist that the boundaries be porous, not firm. In contrast, the Pharisees and the Jerusalem elite dog Jesus whenever he appears "in public." Because they classify the public areas of the Temple as holy and sacred, they judge the presence of a deceiver such as Jesus as a pollution. The communication of their classification may be observed in 7:13 where people are afraid to speak of Jesus "for fear of the Jews" (once more: 9:22; 12:42). Control means the attempt to remove Jesus from public space, such as in 7:32, 45-49, and finally to kill him (11:45-50).

3.3 Whence () and Whither ()? Johannine territoriality addresses not only space and place, but also the directional markers which indicate the place whence Jesus came and whither he goes. These markers functions like other double-meaning words, admitting a literal, but erroneous meaning, as well as an in-group and correct meaning. "Whence" and "whither" have everything to do with Jesus' fundamental "territoriality," the bosom of the Father (1:18; 17:5). (51)

Did it matter to the ancients where one was born? In the progymnasmata we find detailed instructions stating that the encomium, a genre of praise, regularly begins with information about the origin and birth of the person being honored.(52) Quintilian's remark exemplifies this, as he tells of the importance of knowing whence a person comes:

. . .then there is nationality, for races have their own character and the same action is not probable in the case of a barbarian, a Roman and a Greek; country is another, for there is a like diversity in laws, institutions, and opinions of different states" (Inst. Orat. V.x.23-25).

This is so because people born in certain places are affected by the balance or excess of the four elements, earth, air, fire, and water. Thus place of origin was a significant piece of information which served to communicate a person's person, worth, honor and status.

When outsiders hear about or ask whence Jesus came, their literal understanding serves as a classification which would control Jesus by disqualifying him as prophet or Christ. For example, Philip told Nathanael that "we have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph" (1:45). But the fact that Jesus comes from Nazareth trumps the claim that he could be this unique person: "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" (1:46).(53) Nathanael's classification of whence Jesus comes argues against his having any significant role or status. It is to Nathanael's credit that when he discarded this erroneous classification, he could come to Jesus and earn praise as one "without guile." Later, when some bystanders wonder if the authorities believe that Jesus is the Christ, they resolve the issue by claiming to know whence Jesus comes. But "when the Christ appears, no one will know whence he comes"(7:26-27). So Jesus cannot be the Christ! An arbitrary classification it would seem, but one which would control Jesus' activity by rejecting his role as "Christ." In the same episode, some acclaim Jesus as the Christ, but others counter, "Is the Christ to come from Galilee?" (7:41-42), a mantra repeated by the Pharisees, "Search and you will see that no prophet is to rise from Galilee" (7:52). Speaking like this to would-be believers Jesus communicates a classification, on the basis of which Jesus' role and status are degraded and he is thus controlled.

But the Fourth Gospel offers another classification of Jesus' place of origin, this time from the side of the author. At a low level, Jesus' signs serve as his authorization by God: "If this man were not from God, he could do nothing"(9:33). But at a higher level, the gospel tells us that he came into the world from heaven (1:9); he is both the bread which came down from heaven and the Son of Man who first descended from heaven. Thus, Jesus' true "whence" is the realm of God. Both Jesus and John communicate the full, spiritual sense of "whence" Jesus came, which serves to legitimate Jesus's works and words, thus controlling access to Jesus. Only insiders, drawn by the Father, know this, thus admitting them, but excluding others Thus group access is controlled on the true classification of "whence" and "whither."

"Whither" goes Jesus? Like "whence," "whither" serves as a double-meaning word which admits some, but excludes others from the group. The classic instance of this arises during Tabernacles in ch 7. After overhearing the misunderstanding of "whence" Jesus comes (7:26-27), we observe a comparable difficulty with "whither" he goes: "I will go to him who sent me; you will seek me . . .where I am you cannot come" (7:33-34). Outsiders guess that Jesus "intends to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks" (7:35), but in fact they do not know what he means when he says "Whither I am going you cannot come" (7:36). Later the crowd offers another literal, dumb interpretation, suggesting that Jesus' "going away" means that he will kill himself (8:22). These and other classifications are communicated by the gospel characters to its audience. Were they successful, they would control Jesus by wishing him off the scene (to the Diaspora, dead), gone from their midst, and thoroughly discredited.

As with the positive meanings of "whence," so also we have positive classifications of whither." The Farewell Discourse provides the richest ore on "whither" Jesus goes. Jesus "goes away". . ."to prepare a place for you" (14:2-4). He explains his "whither," classifying and communicating it to his disciples and the audience. He is going to God "to prepare a place for you"(14:2); "I am going to him who sent me" (16:5). Finally, Jesus delivers the most complete explanation of "whither" he goes: "Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was made" (17:5). This insider, positive classification of Jesus' "whither" means the bosom of God (1:18); it is of course communicated only to insiders. And it thus controls their loyalty during his passion by affirming that they have "rooms" in God's house and thus God's benefaction and protection. Knowing "whence" and "whither" serves to control authentic or elite membership in the Johannine circle by defining it as group sacred space.

3.4 "Not on This Mountain Nor in Jerusalem. . ." The Samaritan woman said: "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet" (4:19) and so asks his opinion on the classification of "this mountain" or Jerusalem as "the place where one should worship." Both mountains compete for the label "holy," "sacred," and "set apart" according to native, traditional classifications (4:20). Jesus, however, completely de-classifies both mountains as "holy" or "sacred" space (4:21), even as he classifies a re-placement for temple-situated sacred space when he declares that "true worshipers will worship in spirit and truth" (4:23). Communication of this facilitates the process whereby the Samaritans later acclaim Jesus as "the Savior of the world." (4:42). By Jesus' dealings with the Samaritans, which are contrary to custom (4:9), and by the de-classification of both we learn that there is no "holy land," no sacred turf, and no chosen place. In de-classifying all and every space, Jesus also de-classifies the entire system represented by a temple, and logically abolishes control of "this mountain."

True worshipers "will worship the Father in spirit and in truth" (4:23), but is there a specific, fixed place for this? At Jesus' first Passover, he says: "[You] destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" (2:19). His opponents misunderstand him to mean the physical temple, thus proving themselves to be outsiders who take his words literally (2:20). The author communicates the hidden meaning, "He spoke of the temple of his body" (2:21). Thus from the beginning, the author classifies a place (his body) as "holy," even as the new "temple." But the author also communicates that this equation of new temple and body of Jesus will be made clear after Jesus' resurrection. Thus the body of the risen Jesus is in view. In what sense is this "new temple" a place? Inasmuch as Jesus shows himself bodily after his resurrection in a great variety of places, there is no fixed, sacred space like Mt Zion. It is a fluid sacred space, which materializes at no fixed time or place. Moreover, is there control of the risen Jesus? Since only insiders believe that he was raised, they alone have access to Jesus. In this first remark about temple, the audience learns that the "body" of the Risen Jesus is its new temple, which is not located in Jerusalem or any other fixed geographical place.

3.5 In My Father's House There Are Many . Does the gospel provide any clues about a sacred "place" for this? One attempt to answer this takes us to parts of the gospel where God is said to have a dwelling. Of Nicodemus Jesus demand: "unless one is born again. . .of water and of spirit," one cannot either see or enter "the kingdom of God" (3:3, 5). This "kingdom," classified as sacred and holy because it is God's, is controlled by admission restricted to those born "from above." But this is hardly a place such as the land of Israel of its Temple. Thus God's "kingdom" is where initiated disciples gather, the household of God.

Later Jesus states that "in my Father's house () there are many 'rooms'" (µ, 14:2). He goes "to prepare a place () for you," after which he declares "I will take you to myself, that where () I am you may be also" (14:2-3). The reference would be to a "household," that is, a community of disciples. Then Jesus' remark that he would come and "take you to myself" is adequately explained as the risen Shepherd gathering his sheep around him.

What, then, are the µ in the Father's house? If we accept as household/temple, then µ indicate ample space for the disciples in God's residence., i.e., "rooms." Jesus, of course, is going to prepare a for the disciples, which suggests insider status for them. Jesus does not promise to take the disciples to the µ in the Father's house; he only says "I will take you to myself, that there I am you may be also" (14:3). Just as 2:18-20 spoke of Jesus' body as the new temple, so too being attached to him means belonging to "the Father's house(hold)."

Clearly Jesus classifies a certain place as sacred, the very dwelling place of God. His discourse in 14:2 and 23 identifies the place and communicates its sacred quality. Inasmuch as only disciples are told of this, control operates here in the sense of exclusivity: insiders, not outsiders belong

3.6 "In-Dwelling" and "Being In" Another. Certain words in the Fourth Gospel carry an enriched meaning, such as "light," "hour," "true" and "dwelling" (µ), the verb from which µ comes. Raymond Brown argued for two basic meanings for "dwelling": (1) permanence and (2) immanence/relationship.(54) For example, the Spirit of God "dwelt/remained" on Jesus (1:33), indicating a permanent relationship with him (see 8:35; 12:34; 15:16); Jesus, on the other hand promises to "dwell" with his disciples (14:25) and demands that they "dwell" in the vine (15:4, 5, 7) - all of which express both permanence and closeness.(55) The majority of the references to "dwell" occur in the Farewell Address and function to balance Jesus' unsettling remarks about "going away" and "coming back" with a strategy of loyalty and faithfulness. Several important usages then emerge: "dwell" refers to "the Father dwelling in me" (14:10), implying that Jesus is like a shrine or temple where the presence of God dwells. But turning to the disciples, Jesus commands them to "dwell" in him in an immanent relationship as branches remain in the vine. Aspects of this relationship include (a) having "the Spirit dwelling in you" (14:17) or the "words of Jesus dwelling" in you (15:7), and (b) "dwelling in Jesus' love" (15:9, 10) which is achieved by keeping his commandments. Thus "dwell" connotes strong relational ties, but not spatial location. Yet, we were told, "dwelling" in Jesus means corresponding proximity to the Father who "dwells" in Jesus. This dwelling-as-relation is not located in any fixed place, yet it is treated as such. Truly it points to Jesus as pontifex, mediator, broker, and priest uniting both God and the disciples.

The relationship is classified (God in Jesus and they in the disciple = maximally holy), communicated by Jesus' very discourse, and with control envisioned (members only). The unfruitful branches, on the other hand, are "taken away and cast forth" (15:2) and "gathered, thrown into the fire and burned" (15:6). Fruitful branches remain, even if they are purified (15:2).

In addition to "dwell in," the author speaks about persons "being in" another, which resembles the immanence/relationship idea of "dwell in." For example, one stream of this speaks

of "being in" God and Jesus: "believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me" (14:10, 11). This expresses a profound relationship: "I am in the Father" states that Jesus is with, alongside, in the bosom of, or in union with the Father -- the holiest possible position in all the world (see 1:18). If that expression looks to the world above, from which Jesus descended, then the second part, "the Father is in me" seems to reverse that direction and envision God enfolding Jesus and empowering him with powers to do God's works (10:38; 14:10) while on earth.. Again, Jesus is positioned as the bridge between the heavenly and earthly worlds.

Several highly significant references remain. Jesus states that on a future day the disciple will "know" the ultimate knowledge: "I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you" (14:20).(56) The triple "being in" expression, of course, refers to relationships. "I am in my Father" and "I am in you" describe Jesus's bridge position as the link binding him to the Father and then to the disciples. Thus the Father is intimately joined to the disciples through Jesus. Other NT writings call Jesus µ (1 Tim 2:5) and priest (Heb 7:26-28), two different ways of explaining Jesus' pontifex role. But where is this? Although the Fourth Gospel does not talk of a heavenly temple, a sacred space is localized when disciples gather to worship as God's household, and when the risen Shepherd gathers them around himself.

3.7 Two Different Worlds, We Live in Two Different Worlds. In his conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus divided the world into two antithetical halves: "that which is born of flesh is flesh and that born of spirit is spirit" (3:6). Since the issue is being "born," we learn that some are born to flesh and others to spirit, who alone may "enter the kingdom of God." We have here an instance of boundary language which separates insiders from outsiders, namely, those born of spirit with relationship to God's household are juxtaposed to those born of flesh who know only this world. Note how this boundary language replicates the "whence" and "whither" categories. "The wind blows where it wills and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know 'whence' it comes and 'whither' it goes" (3:6-7). Those born of flesh know something, but not "whence the wind comes and whither it goes." Others born of water and spirit know quite accurately whence and whither Jesus comes and goes. We have authentic Johannine dualisms here which separates two different worlds, two kinds of people, and insiders from outsiders.

But is "territoriality" involved here? This antithesis of two different worlds truly serves as a classification of groups, i.e., insiders and outsiders. Its very communication to Nicodemus serves to control his access to Jesus.(57) Because Nicodemus knows in a limited, fleshly manner, he is shown not to be a denizen of the real world of spirit, but of the world of flesh. The Johannine elites, who look down upon the Nicodemuses of this world, have access to the world of spirit and true gnosis, that is, the "kingdom of God." Two different worlds, and the insiders live in the better one.

This mechanism of boundary making and separation matures later in the narrative when Jesus is confronted by enemies who seek to arrest him or lie to him or kill him. He says: "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world; I am not of this world" (8:23). The issue has escalated from incomprehension of Jesus' words to open hostility to him. Jesus' remark serves to classify each world, one as worthy and holy, and the other as worthless and profane. The manner in which Jesus communicates this classification creates a legal norm, whose sanction is to "die in your sins" (8:24). Thus Jesus controls entrance into the kingdom of God. Being "from below" and "of this world" now are sins or crimes, which preclude one's access to God and God's world.

What makes Jesus' remark so frightening and definitive is a quick glance at how the "world" is treated in this gospel. We all know the beginning of the story, how "God so loved the world that he sent his only son. . ." (3:16). Classified as the object of God's compassion, this world does not experience control, that is, no attempt is made to keep heaven and earth separate or saints and sinners apart. For, the Son came to save all in the world (3:17; 4:42; 12:47), to give life to the world (6:33, 51), to be the Lamb which takes away its sin (1:29), and to be its light (8:12; 9:5). In this view, while heaven is still separated from earth, the boundary between them is porous and allows the benevolence of God to enter the world.

This changed, of course, as the world proved to be a hostile place. As Brown remarked, "The reaction of those who turned from Jesus was one not simply of rejection but also of opposition."(58) Correspondingly the world came to be seen as controlled by Satan, who enters in to a disciple of Jesus (6:70; 13:2, 27) and whose offspring both lie and murder like their father (8:44). Balancing statements that Jesus did not come into world to judge (3:17) are statements insisting that he does judge (9:39; 12:31). Thus, the classification of this world changes. It is a place of unmitigated hostility and obtuseness; using the Judean purity system as classification, this world is profane, corrupt, polluted, and ruled by the evil one. The communication of this occurs when Jesus unmasks its crimes and stands in judgment of it. In this context, 8:23, with its declaration of two different worlds, both communicates the new labeling of "the world" and establishes control over it in the sense that a radical boundary is drawn between "above" and "below"/"not of this world" and "this world." Later Jesus prays for his own, but not for the world (17:9). Because he gave the disciples God's word, the world hates them because they are not part of it (17:14). He does not pray that God take them out of the world, but only keep them from the evil one (17:15). Thus Jesus' classification creates a boundary radically separating him and his disciples from their enemies. Because it would definitively control access to God's world, it must be taken with utmost seriousness. But it also means that Jesus and his disciples are out of place here. They are aliens in an alien land.(59)

But where is this other world? The world "below" may be some specific place such as Jerusalem, the Capernaum synagogue, and the like. But in fact, "this world" and "below" really refer to wherever Jesus is rejected, such as we saw earlier in the classification of "Judea" and "Jerusalem." Two different worlds, then, are not so much about space as about welcome to and acceptance of Jesus and disciples.

4.0 Summary, Conclusions, and Further Questions

4.1 Summary. The model of "territoriality" allows us to see things in the narrative of John which would otherwise go unnoticed and undigested. Moreover, it enables us to relate and coordinate data that are generally treated discretely. The model, we saw, consisted of three items: 1) classification of space, 2) communication of the same, and 3) control of it. In regard to classifications, the Fourth Gospel uses the following ones: public/private; sacred/profane; honor/shame; pure/polluted and fixed/fluid. Many of these relate directly to Jesus: 1) Jesus' speech is always in "public" and not in "private," thus classifying him as a male with public voice. 2) His homeland (Nazareth and Galilee) is classified by others as "shameful," a classification that would control his ability to function as sage, prophet, or Christ. His true "whence," however, is in the presence of God, hence "honorable," sacred and pure. 3) "Sacred/ profane" refers to what many narrative characters considered the most dedicated and most "pure" place on earth, the Temple. But Jesus de-classifies (i.e., profanes) all temples and mountains as sacred, even as he presents his own body as the new temple, the new sacred space. Hence his body becomes the dwelling of God which is most "sacred" and "pure." But other classifications, such as "public/private," relate both to Jesus and the disciples, namely public speech on Jesus' behalf. But the most useful classification of space in the Fourth Gospel is fixed/fluid sacred space. This shifts our focus to the group which is truly no-where: neither in the temple nor the synagogue. When it meets, it does so around Jesus-the-temple, and here worship of God takes place through prayer, by listening to Scripture, the Words of Jesus, and utterances of prophets. It is likely that this group has entrance rituals as well as sacred meals. Yet this remains fluid space, as the components of sacred space disperse immediately after worship; and the gathering site could be anywhere.

Each of these classifications would exercise control over the place so classified. "In public" is a value statement that urges disciples to imitate Jesus in bold, public speech, even if it results in expulsion from synagogue space. Similarly, knowing "whence" Jesus came and "whither" he goes belongs to elite insiders in the group, a mark of distinction. Inasmuch as this is insider knowledge, control in this case means that it is off limits to all non-members and non-elites. They cannot enter the kingdom of God, nor do they have dwellings in the Father's house. Classified as creatures "of this world" and "of the world below," they are controlled in the sense that they cannot know Jesus' "whence" and "whither" nor find this "way." Knowledge, then, becomes a door, a wall, a gate, a boundary.

Jesus' very group is space that is variously classified as pure ("kingdom of God"), honorable (true children of Abraham) and sacred (vine). Aalen's article argued that these classifications overlap in meaning: kingdom = household; son of Abraham = legitimate member of the household; vine = the people. Access to Jesus and to the household of God is controlled by many "unless. . ." demands: "unless one is born of water and the spirit. . ."; "unless one eats my flesh and drinks my blood. . "; unless you confess that 'I AM'. . ."; unless I wash you. . ." These function as doors, barriers, and checkpoints which prohibit admission unless the criteria are met. And control also functions in Jesus' boundary-making remark: "No one can come to me except the Father draw him" (6:44, 65) - the most radical of all boundaries.

4.2 Conclusions. What do we know if we know this? First, there is relatively little geographical or topological space of concern in the Fourth Gospel.(60) "Galilee" and "Judea" are not real places, but code names for welcome or rejection. "Not of this world. . .not from below" likewise indicate non-geographical but social space. The very classification of these spaces in this manner reinforces the group's sense of dislocation in synagogue and temple, and its positioning of itself totally with Jesus.

Second, we call attention to the classification which distinguishes between fluid and fixed sacred space. Although current anthropology of space does not pay much attention to this, it is a classification of considerable use to New Testament scholars who note that the Jesus group is regularly called "house," "household," and "temple," but not in the sense of fixed sacred space. It provides a scenario for imagining how, when the disciples gathered, they formed a sacred space, albeit a fluid one, which reverted to profane use after their gathering was completed. Thus the Jesus group becomes the prime example of fluid sacred space.

Third, with his de-classification of the temples on Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Zion, Jesus erased the category of fixed sacred space for the Fourth Gospel's audience. We saw, however, that he replaced what the old temple represented by his body, which, because of the nature of bodies, is fluid. This new temple is not something to which disciples make pilgrimage, but which comes into being when the circle of disciples is gathered. In Johannine terms, this group can be called "household," "kingdom"= household, or the place where one "worships in spirit and truth."This is fluid sacred space, for the group can gather anywhere. The alternative space is the synagogue, to which Johannine disciples may not go any more, another instance of fluid sacred space.

4. Many of the spatial categories we examined point to a new temple in which worshipers will worship in spirit and truth. "Dwelling in" and "being in" either God or Jesus refers to their presence with the disciples. Jesus' body, which is now a temple, is "where" God comes and is found. Finding the Risen Jesus, one finds the presence of God. Jesus is understood in the role of mediator (or priest), thus forming a link between God/Patron and Disciples/Clients. Jesus serves as consummate broker between heavenly patron and earthly group.

5. Ultimately "there is no 'there' there." There is no mountain nor building where the Johannine group worships. Even Jesus' remarks about above/below and "not of this world/of this world" do not point to specific geography, but classify and communicate a cosmic dualism. Jesus may return whence he came, but again there is no "there" in the sense of fixed sacred space. When he "goes away" and "comes back," it is to meet disciples in a variety of places, none of which appear to be canonized as pure, sacred space. Hence consideration of where Jesus is by John 20-21 indicates that his presence and so the presence of God is attached to the group of his disciples. Again, there is no "there" there; the classification labels are transferred to the social body of disciples.

Are the disciples any different, then, from the synagogue? In one sense, no. The synagogue which gathers in a regular place, would be accustomed to classify this space as "ours," which is made "sacred" when Torah is read and prayers are made. Yet the synagogue members could likewise make the pilgrimage feasts to Jerusalem and its Temple. In contrast, the Johannine disciples likewise have gathering space, but increasingly less and less in the local synagogue; and one wonders if they continued to attend the pilgrimage feasts in Jerusalem. What is different between disciples and synagogue is the rejection, hatred, and excommunication the disciples experience. This increases their self-understanding as "aliens in an alien world."

4.3 Further Questions. This article only studied what I consider the main spatial references in the Fourth Gospel. A complete study would consider motifs such as are listed in the Appendix, such as congregational places which become off limits to Jesus and his disciples (temple, synagogue) and houses (where the wedding was held in Cana, where Jesus was staying in 3:1; the house of Mary, Martha and Lazarus; and the houses of Annas and Caiaphas). Since the disciples are likened to a flock of sheep, it would matter if they were gathered safely together (10:15-16; 12:32) or scattered (10:12; 16:32). One suspects that Johannine interest in houses and households (4:53; 8:35; 14:2) provides further definition to what we are calling fluid sacred space.

Consideration of the type of social group represented in the Fourth Gospel offers a further sharpening of our analysis of fluid space. Scholars now generally agreed that the Johannine group can profitably be called a sect.(61) "Faith in Jesus, in the Fourth Gospel, means a removal from 'the world,' because it means transfer to a community which has totalistic and exclusive claims."(62) But although they are not of this world, they must remain in it as greater hostility rises against it. Such experiences affect how a group understands itself and locates itself. Moreover, if the cultic hero is an alien here below, this is replicated in the way the disciples likewise experience hostility. They too are aliens, but like Jesus they may not leave the world.

Worship, although not strictly a spatial concern, would mimic a temple system. With the rejection of fixed sacred space, other aspects of the system likewise fall away: there is no need for an order of priests, animal or grain sacrifices, calendar, sacred garments and vessels, and tithes or taxes for support. Important in this context is the role of Jesus as the ideal broker between God-Patron and the disciples-clients.

Jesus' remark to Annas about speaking only in public might well be extended to the circle of disciples to see if any of them speaks boldly and in public about Jesus. We know that Pharisees tried to control confessional behavior in some synagogues by declaring that anyone who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ would be expelled (9:22; 12:42). And this enjoyed considerable success, if we examine who Jews kept their mouths shut for fear of the Jews: both the parents of the man born blind, but also "many even of the authorities believed in him but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it" (12:42). The otherwise noble Joseph of Arimathea, who buried Jesus, was "a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews" (19:38). These characters did not imitate Jesus' bold, public speech, and they did not have courage to violate the control extended by the Pharisees. Yet of course, there are other characters, such as the man born blind, who speak boldly about Jesus and for this is thrown out. Classification and control are most evident here.

Finally, I would suggest a closer look at physical proximity to the body of Jesus. Not just anyone may touch Jesus; this is reserved for special characters, such as Mary (12:1-8), the Beloved Disciple (13:23), Magdalene (20:17) and Thomas (20:27-29). Two of these characters are identified as those whom Jesus loved: Mary and Martha and Lazarus (11:5) and the Beloved Disciple (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20). They also are most intimate with his person: Mary anoints his feet; the Beloved Disciple leans on his chest. We are invited, then, to arrange the status of the disciples in terms of physical proximity to Jesus, thus envisioning a fully articulated map of persons.



N O T E S



1. The slanderous stereotypes are all familiar to us: "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons" (Titus 1:12); "What good can come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:46); "No prophet is to arise from Galilee" (John 7:52).

2. Robert D. Sack, Human Territoriality. Its Theory and History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) 19. Other important definitions have been given by Godelier (Casimir p. 19), Michael J. Casimir, Mobility and Territoriality: Social and Spatial Boundaries among Foragers, Fishers, Pastoralists, and Peripatetics (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1992) 19 ; and Ralph B. Taylor, Human Territorial Functioning: An Empirical Evolutionary Perspective on Individual and Small Group Territorial Cognitions, Behaviors and Consequences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 6).

3. See Nice, "The Role of Territory in Bird Life" (1941), Edward T. Hall, The Hidden Dimension (New York: Doubleday, 1966) 7-22, and John Calhoun, "The Role of Space in Animal Sociology," Journal of Social Issues, 22/4 (1966) 46-58.

4. See C. R. Carpenter, "Territoriality: A Review of Concepts and Problems," Behavior and Evolution; Anne Rose and George Simpson, eds. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958) 224-50.

5. For a broad discussion of "sacred and profane," see Bruce J. Malina, New Testament World. Insights from Cultural Anthropology (2nd ed.; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993) 149-83, esp. 149-52 and 176-78.

6. A full inventory should include internal/external, inside/outside, above/below, up/down, heaven/earth, right/left, center/periphery, close/far, and here/there.

7. In his study of the early Roman empire, Claude Nicolet (Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire [Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1991]) showed how Rome (the center) classified its conquered territories (the periphery) for maximum tax collection. (8)

8. Claude Nicolet, Space, Geography, and Politics in the Early Roman Empire (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991. -

9. Some of the ancients contrasted "natural" land with cultivated and civilized territory. The difference lies in the presence of a human intellect imposing restraint and order on empty land, thus civilizing it. This same classification was replicated in ancient understandings of gender, males being considered "civilized" because they are ruled by reason, whereas females were associated with "nature" because ruled by passion. See Sherry B. Ortner, "Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?" in Michelle Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere, eds., Women, Culture and Society (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974) 67-87; Helene P. Foley, "The Conception of Women in Athenian Drama," Reflections on Women in Antiquity (New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1981) 140-48; see also E. H. Bunbury, A History of Ancient Geography (New York: Dover Publications, 1959) ???

10. I am in the process of collecting and interpreting the variations of the basic "public/private" classification of space in Greco-Roman literature. Some of the more obvious examples are:

(1) / , µ / , / , µ / , ; (2) µ / , / ; (3) / ,

/ ; (4) / ; (5) /, /µ; (6) foris /domi; (7) publice/privatim (8) privatus/communis.

11. Mircea Eliade (The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion: The Significance of Religious Myth, Symbolism, and Ritual within Life and Culture [New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1959] 23) writes: "Revelation of a sacred space makes it possible to obtain a fixed point and hence to acquire orientation in the chaos of homogeneity, to 'found the world' and to live in a real sense."

12. Jonathan Z. Smith, To Take Place. Toward Theory in Ritual (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) esp. pp. 96-116.

13. Smith, To Take Place, 104.

14. For the use by early Christians of the term "common" to indicate profane, see Colin House, "Defilement by Association: Some Insights from the Usage of / in Acts 10 and 11," AUSS 21 (1983) 143-53.

15. Place and Honor: Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian; Progymnasmata, esp. Menander Rhetor.

16. Pausanias, Descriptions of Greece, X.iv.1; cited in Richard L. Rohrbaugh, "The Pre-Industrial City in Luke-Acts," The Social World of Luke-Acts (Jerome H. Neyrey, ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 127. Some cities enjoyed the honor of being called a "metropolis" or "mother city"; see David Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor. 2 Vols. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950) and Jerome H. Neyrey, "Luke's Social Location of Paul: Cultural Anthropology and the Status of Paul in Acts,"History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts (Ben Witherington, III, ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 251-79. For rhetorical instructions on how to praise an honorable city, see Menander Rhetor [trans. D. A. Russell and Nigel Wilson; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981] 33-75). See also Dio Chrysostom's oration on Tarsus (Or. 33.17-18, 21).

17. On Jewish attitudes to Gentiles as unclean, see Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986) II.1, p. 54; on Christian use the same classification system, see Act 10:28. Also helpful here is the article of A. Büchler, " ," JQR 17 (1926) 1-81. On native Judean classification of space, see m. Kelim 1.6-9.

18. On the purity code, see Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World, 149-83. See also Jerome H. Neyrey, "The Idea of Purity in Mark's Gospel," Semeia 35 (1986) 91-128; "A Symbolic Approach to Mark 7," Forum 4,3 (1988) 63-91; "Unclean, Common, Polluted, Taboo," Forum 4,4 (1988) 72-82; and "'They Turn the World Upside Down': The Symbolic Universe of Luke-Acts," The Social World of Luke-Acts (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 271-304.

19. In addition to Bruce J. Malina(Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 31, 38, 50, 58-59), see Stanford M. Lyman and Marvin R. Scott, "Territoriality: A Neglected Sociological Dimension," Social Problems 15 (1968) 240-41. In a series of places Jonathan Z. Smith articulated a theory of "two world views, the "locative" and the "utopian"; see his Map Is Not Territory. Studies in the History of Religions (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978) xi-xv and 67-207. See also David Cohen, Law, Sexuality and Society: The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 74-75.

20. See Jonathan Z. Smith, Map Is Not Territory, xi-xv, 88-103, 130-42, 147-51, 160-71, 185-89, 291-94, 308-9. and Divine Drudgery. On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990) 121-42.

21. Smith, Map Is Not Territory, 101., 186-87. His clearest examples of locative space derive from the Pan-Babylonian school, namely the ancient agrarian empire-cities such as Nineveh and Babylon, and Jerusalem as well.

22. Smith, Map Is Not Territory, 101. Utopian space is really Smith's interest, as he admits: "In a series of articles, I have set forth correlative models of religious persistence and change in the Mediterranean world of Late Antiquity: native/diaspora; locative/utopian; celebration/rebellion" (186).

23. Smith (Map Is Not Territory, 101) offers the following clues to his classification enterprise: "I have toyed with the distinction centrifugal and centripetal, central and peripheral, considering adopting Bergson's classic distinction between the closed/static society and the open/dynamic one, or Eric Voegelin's contrast between a "compact" and "differentiated" experience of the cosmos. With some hesitation I have settled for the present on the dichotomy between a locative vision of the world (which emphasizes place) and a utopian vision of the world (using the term in its strict sense: the value of being in no place)." This same juxtaposition of these categories occurs also on pp 131, 186-87 and 309.

24. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 31.

25. Malina's description of a leading city such as Jerusalem is similar to Smith's attention to "archaic urban cultures." As noted, the latter constantly appeals to the Pan-Babylonian School at the end of the nineteenth century, whose focus was the archaic, agricultural city-empire; see Map Is Not Territory, 132-33, 160-61 and 293.

26. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology, 38.

27. See R. Alan Culpepper, The Johannine School (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975).

28. The parables about the gatekeeper, the sheepfold, its door, the shepherd and the thief (John 10:1-4, 7-10) are exemplify "control" or its failure; Jesus on the one hand is "the door," and so the control of access; but he is also the shepherd whom the gatekeeper knows and so gives access to the sheep within. Similarly, the Beloved Disciple acts as a shepherd by talking to the maid on duty at the door of Annas' palace; he persuades her to let Simon enter. Yet he is profoundly "out of place" here and denies knowing Jesus.

29. Peretz Segal, "The Penalty of the Warning Inscription from the Temple of Jerusalem," IEJ 39 (1989) 79-84.

30. Philo (Embassy to Gaius 212) says: "Still more astounding and peculiar is the zeal of them all for the temple, and the strongest proof of this is that death without appeal is the sentence against those of other races who penetrate into its inner confines. For the outer are open to everyone wherever they come from." See Josephus, Ant. 12.146; 15.417; see also Wars 5.193-94.

31. For example, Kark Kundsin, Topologische Uberlieferungstoffe im Johannes-Evangelium. (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1925); C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 233-47.

32. Judea, not Galilee, is the place of Davidic royal messiah traditions; on this point, see Wayne A. Meeks, "Galilee and Judea in the Fourth Gospel," JBL 85 (1966) 159-63.

33. Labels such as "theological" or "symbolic" are regularly used in regard to Johannine topology; see Meeks, "Galilee and Judea in the Fourth Gospel"; Robert T. Fortna, "Theological Use of Locale in the Fourth Gospel,"Anglican Theological Review Supp 3 (1974) 58-95; Charles H. H. Scobie, "Johannine Geography," Studies in Religion 11 (1982) 77-84; Donatien Mollat, "Remarques sur le vocabulaire spatial du quatrième évangile"; K. Aland, ed., Studia Evangelica 1 Texte und Untersuchungen 73 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1959) 321-28.

34. See Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, 510-12; Rudolf Schnackenburg, "Zu den johannischen Immanezformula," Die Johannesbriefe (Freiburg: Herder, 1963) 105-9.

35. This is, of course, no new idea; in the conclusion of "Galilee and Judea," Meeks stated: ". . .the geographical symbolism of John is not dominated by Jerusalem to the exclusion of Galilee, but it is shaped by the apparently deliberate dialectic between Jerusalem, the place of judgment and rejection, and Galilee and Samaria, the places of acceptance and discipleship" (p 169). Similarly, Jouette Bassler, "The Galileans: A Neglected Factor in Johannine Research," CBQ 43 (1981) 243-57.

36. Yet, although ch 21 finds the disciples in Galilee, we do not know why they went there; In John 21 we have no command either by Jesus (Mark 14:28) or an angel (see Mark 16:7).

37. Yet if a disciple goes to certain places, such the local synagogue, this may result in being expelled from it for one's confession of Jesus (9:22; 12:42; 16:1-2), presumably according to a classification based on notions of purity/pollution. Thus the synagogue would be classifying its gathering as a place where Jesus should not be acclaimed; and it exercises its control by expelling anyone who does so.

38. Does the gospel indicate that Jesus goes to some place more than once? Twice he was at Bethany, the residence of Martha, Mary and Lazarus; Cana is mentioned twice (2:1-11; 4:46-54). The narrator tells us that Judas knew the place of Jesus' arrest, "for Jesus often met there with his disciples" (18:2). And, of course, he was often in the temple. But these afford no help in imagining sacred Christian space on the basis of Jesus' words and deeds there.

39. The citation from Philo cited in 2.1 above deals with "public" and "private" only in terms of a gender division of societal space: males in "public," females in "private." The present classification of "public" and "private" has only males in view.

40. For an excellent study of what it means to have public voice in antiquity, see Richard L. Rohrbaugh, "Legitimating Sonship - A Test of Honour: A Social-Scientific Study of Luke 4:1-30," in Philip F. Esler, ed.,Modelling Early Christianity. Social-Scientific Studies of the New Testament in Its Context (London: Routledge, 1995)192-95.

41. John the Baptizer's authorization to baptize and to speak is challenged from the very beginning: Priests and Levites ask him "Who are you?" to discover by what authority he gives his "testimony" (1:19-23); later John declares Jesus "the Lamb of God," which the author would have us understand as heavenly authorized speech, just like his testimony about the spirit remaining on Jesus. As a result of his heavenly authorization, John enjoys bold public speech.

42. We note that only Jesus' disciples call him "rabbi," never his enemies; Nicodemus, a would-be disciple, addresses him as "teacher."

43. See Jerome H. Neyrey, An Ideology of Revolt. John's Christology in Social-Science Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 9-37; "The Trials (Forensic) and Tribulations (Honor Challenges) of Jesus: John 7 in Social Science Perspective," BTB 26 (1996): 107-24; and "Jesus the Judge: Forensic Process in John 8:21-59," Biblica 68 (1987) 509-42. See also A. E. Harvey, Jesus on Trial. A Study in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1977) and more recently, Andrew T. Lincoln, Truth on Trial. The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000).

44. To this point we cite several studies of Jesus as "agent": Peder Borgen, "God's Agent in the Fourth Gospel," Religions in Antiquity (Jacob Neusner, ed., Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968) 137-48 and George W. Buchanan, "Apostolic Christology," SBLSP 1986 172-82.

45. The fact that Jesus continues to speak in public despite the extreme displeasure of the temple elite is narrated to the audience. In 7:15, they challenge his right to speak; in 7:32 they send soldiers to seize him, which would silence him; but in 7:43-48, thy admit that Jesus' "public" speech was very persuasive, which drew a sharp rebuke from the Pharisees. Later at the feast of the Rededication, the same elites demand that Jesus speak boldly about whether he is the Christ (10:24), only to have Jesus foil their traps.

46. These are labels of another sort, not classifications of space. On the power of such deviant labels, see Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names. The Social Value of Labels in Matthew (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1988) 34-67.

47. Luke records the same phenomenon in Acts 4-5, where the apostles teach and preach in the temple, but are imprisoned, beaten, and threatened harm if they continue speaking. Needless to say, they kept up their public voice, despite the hostility of the temple elite (see Acts 4:18-21; 5:12-13, 18, 25, 27-32, 40-42).

48. Many times we hear Jesus acclaimed as "a prophet" in the gospel (4:19; 6:14; 7:40; and 9:17), which label acknowledges Jesus' right to speak "in public." He is, moreover, treated like all prophets, namely, rejected in his home land (4:44).

49. In Acts 4:13, the elites perceive that "they (Peter and John) were uneducated, common men (µµ )." This is enough to deny them public voice, or at least to disqualify them in the eyes of the assembly of the elders.

50. "Public" is the operative factor: thus the Beloved Disciple's presence at the foot of the cross clearly labels him as courageous and faithful, even though he says no words to or about Jesus. Similarly, the man born blind speaks boldly and courageously on Jesus' behalf, which causes him to be "cast out" (9:34).

51. Scholars have identified the typical Johannine "parabola" in 1:1-18 and 13:1-3, in which Jesus descends from God's presence to earth and ascends back to God; in this light, the description of the "Son of man" in 3:13 implies the same idea. See Brown, The Gospel according to John, 541-42 and 563.

52. For fuller exposition of "origins" and place as indicative of character, see Jerome Heyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox 1998) 79-80 and Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Portraits of Paul. An Archeology of Ancient Personality (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1996) 25-26, 113-24.

53. The classification of someone on the basis of place of origin was a standard part of the way persons were described or announced. See Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Portraits of Paul. An Archeology of Ancient Personality (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1996 ) 25, 113-25. For examples of this from ancient authors, see Aristotle, Rhet 1.5.5; Ps-Aristotle, Rhetoric to Alexander, 35; Cicero, Inv. 1.24.34-35; Quintilian, Inst. Orat. 3.7.10-11; 5.10.24-25. See also Christopher Pelling, Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990) 213-14.

54. Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, 510-12; he cites two important studies: G. Percorara, "De verbo 'manere' apud Joannem," Divus Thomas 40 (1937) 159-71 and Rudolf Schnackenburg, "Zu den joh. Immanenzformula," Die Johannesbriefe (2nd ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1963) 105-9.

55. Two additional references may help clarify the meaning of "dwell." Disciples must "dwell" in Jesus' love (15:9-10), in the sense of loyal adherence to the group; on this social meaning of love, see John J. Pilch and Bruce J. Malina, Biblical Social Values and Their Meanings (rev. ed., Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1993) 110-114). Second, Jesus said "if you dwell in me and my words dwell in you, ask for whatever you will. . ." (15:7). This is a worship context, for "ask" is petitionary prayer; moreover, the "words of Jesus dwelling" suggests a worshipful setting where sacred writings are heard and studied. Thus one senses that "dwell" implies worship within the group, both in petitioning and studying Jesus' words.

56. A complete inventory of this motif includes: 14:10-11; 17:21, 23.

57. Once more issues of secrecy arise: who knows what remains an important marker of who belongs within the circle of disciples. Not all qualify for membership; see Neyrey, "Secrecy In the Fourth Gospel," 96-105.

58. Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, 509.

59. Appropriate here is the article of Wayne A. Meeks ("The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism," JBL 91 [1972] 44-72) in which he first describes how Jesus is an alien in the world and then how his followers find themselves comparably situated: "The depiction of Jesus as the man 'who comes down from heaven' marks him as the alien from all men of the world. Though the Jews are 'his own,' when he comes to them they reject him, thus revealing themselves as not his own after all but his enemies; not from God, but from the devil, from "below," from "this world" (69). And of the disciples he says: 'The book defines and vindicates the existence of the community that evidently sees itself as unique, alien from the world, under attack, misunderstood" (70). The experience of the alien leader-hero, Jesus, is replicated in the comparable alienation of his followers.

60. Not all places identified participate in the author's understanding of "territoriality," not the fact that Jesus speaks near the "treasury" in the Temple (8:20), nor his walks under the "Stoa of Solomon" (10:23), nor the remark that Jesus frequently met his disciples in a certain garden (18:2) .

61. Brown's Gospel According to John resists this, and to a lesser degree his influential Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979) 7, 14-16,61-62, and 89-91. The classical proponent of sectarian identity for the Johannine group is Wayne Meeks, whose "The Man from Heaven" made the case for considering Jesus as an alien and thus his disciples as alien also in this world (esp. 69-70).

62. Meeks, "The Man from Heaven," 70-71.

Return to A Selection of Jerome H. Neyrey's Articles
 

Return to Jerome H. Neyrey's HomePage
 
 

Jerome H. Neyrey