No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Two Angels in John 20.12: An Egyptian Icon of Resurrection
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 December 2012
Abstract
The scene with two angels that Mary Magdalene sees in John 20.12 could have been visualized as an icon of resurrection by the first readers of the Fourth Gospel, especially by those familiar with the iconography of the Isis cult which was spread over the Roman Empire. Using traditional exegetical, hermeneutical, historical, and iconographic methods, this article stresses the importance of the resurrection in John 20, as corroborated by the motif of Isis and Nephthys flanking Osiris while mourning his death and assisting him in his resurrection.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013
References
1 Most manuscripts read 
ν λϵυκοῖϛ καθϵζομ
νουϛ (‘in white sitting’), several read these words in a different order: καθϵζομνουϛ ν λϵυκοῖϛ (א and the Coptic Bohairic traditions); usually the former reading together with the plural of ν λϵυκοῖϛ is taken as a reference to white clothes. The reverse order could be an (additional) argument for interpreting ν λϵυκοῖϛ as a reference to light. Although stronger when interpreted as ‘light’, even the clothes of the angels may witness to life's victory over death when read in the context of Johannine light-darkness symbolism.
2 This paper refers without distinction to ‘the Fourth Gospel’ as well as ‘the Gospel of John’ and ‘John’.
3 Mark speaks about ‘a young man sitting on the right side’, Matthew has an angel of the Lord sitting on the stone, and Luke mentions two men in shining clothes. This disparity is even more significant if John knew the synoptics; cf. Neirynck, F., ‘John and the synoptics’, L'evangile de Jean: Sources, redaction, théologie (ed. de Jonge, M.; BETL 44; Leuven: Leuven University, 1977) 73–106Google Scholar.
4 Contrast Strachan, R. H., The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environment (London: Student Christian Movement, 3rd ed. 1941)Google Scholar: ‘These angels make no reply to Mary's complaint. They do not help her to believe in the resurrection as in Matt. xxviii. 5, 6’ (327).
5 Bieringer, R., ‘“They have taken away my Lord”: Text-Immanent Repetitions and Variations in John 20:1–18’, Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation (ed. Van Belle, G.; BETL 223; Leuven: Peeters, 2009) 609–30, esp. 626Google Scholar.
6 Schnelle, U., Das Evangelium nach Johannes (ThHNT 4; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998) 327–8Google Scholar.
7 Ridderbos, H. N., Het evangelie naar Johannes: Proeve van een theologische exegese. Deel 2: hoofdstuk 11–21 (Kampen: Kok, 1992) 304Google Scholar: ‘om a.h.w. de ledigheid van die plaats te markeren’ (italics his).
8 Witherington III, B., Women in the Earliest Churches (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1988) 178 (italics mine)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 This void could be taken as a starting point for an apophatic reading; cf. Chatelion Counet's deconstructive apophatic approach in Counet, P. J. E. Chatelion, De sarcofaag van het Woord: Postmoderniteit, deconstructie en het Johannesevangelie (Kampen: Kok, 1995)Google Scholar.
10 Recently, e.g., von Wahlde, U. C., The Gospel and Letters of John, vol. 2 (Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010) 846Google Scholar.
11 Neirynck states: ‘The christophany is not merely an alternative version which is added to the angelophany, but the vision of the angels is toned down and ‘truncated’ in favor of the christophany' (‘John and the Synoptics’, 106).
12 Frey, J., ‘“Ich habe den Herrn gesehen” (Joh 20,18). Entstehung, Inhalt und Vermittlung des Osterglaubens nach Johannes 20’, Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes: Festschrift für Jean Zumstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag = Études sur Matthieu et Jean (ed. Dettwiler, A. and Poplutz, U.; AThANT 97; Zürich: TVZ, 2009) 267–84Google Scholar, esp. 276.
13 Beasley-Murray, G., John (WBC 36; Nashville: Nelson, 2nd ed. 1999) 374Google Scholar; Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John (xiii–xxi): Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 29A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1970) 989Google Scholar; Carson, D. A., The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Leicester: IVP, 1991) 640Google Scholar; Lindars, B., The Gospel of John (The Century Bible; London: Oliphants, 1972) 604Google Scholar; Michaels, J. R., The Gospel of John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010) 996Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium II: 13–21 (HThKNT 4; Freiburg: Herder, 1976) 373Google Scholar.
14 Dietzfelbinger, C., Das Evangelium nach Johannes: Teilband 2: Johannes 13–21 (Zürcher Bibelkommentare 4/2; Zürich: TVZ, 2nd ed. 2004) 331Google Scholar: ‘Kommt ihnen noch eine weitere Funktion zu?’.
15 See I. J. de Hulster, ‘Relegere: Rereading as a Hermeneutical Tool’ (forthcoming).
16 Cf. Monshouwer, D., The Gospels and Jewish Worship: Bible and Synagogal Liturgy in the First Century C.E. (ed. Boendermaker, J. P. and Deurloo, K.; Vught: Skandalon, 2010)Google Scholar.
17 See de Hulster, I. J., ‘Extending the Borders of Cultural Memory Research’, Cultural Memory in Biblical Exegesis (ed. Lemche, N. P., Carstens, P., and Hasselbalch, T. Bjørnung; Piscataway: Gorgias, 2012) 95–135Google Scholar, esp. 113–14 and I. J. de Hulster, ‘The Two Angels in John 20.12: The Old Testament Background’ (forthcoming) which links these two angels with the cherubs on the Ark of the Covenant, sustaining this argument by showing that it is possible to view ἄγγɛλοι in John 20.12 as winged beings like the cherubs. Interestingly, the Egyptian motif discussed below has also been applied to the cherubs on the Ark; R. Eichler, ‘תפקיד כרובי הארון’, Tarbiz 79/2 (2011) 165–85.
18 Even though Hellenized, the Isis cult never lost its Egyptian atmosphere, see: Ferguson, E., Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd ed. 1993) 252Google Scholar.
19 References to Jesus' resurrection are not meant as a statement regarding the different traditions of resurrection, related to the NT use of either active forms of ἀνίστημι or passive forms of ἐγɛίρω (rising or raising; Auferstehung or Auferweckung).
20 The Hebrew Bible has the eschatological notion of resurrection as overcoming death, as J. Levenson expresses in the subtitle of his book: Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory over Death (New Haven: Yale University, 2006)Google Scholar.
21 According to Assmann, J. (‘Resurrection in Ancient Egypt’, Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments [ed. Peters, T., Russel, R. J., and Welker, M.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002] 124–35)Google Scholar Egypt is the original source of ideas about resurrection, later found in Early Judaism, Hellenized mystery cults, and Christianity.
22 Assmann, ‘Resurrection’.
23 Assmann, ‘Resurrection’, 135.
24 The main sceptics are Theissen and Theissen, Wedderburn. G., Die Religion der ersten Christen: Eine Theorie des Urchristentums (Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 4th ed. 2008)Google Scholar, summarizing ‘Es sind sterbende Gottheiten, die dem Tod durch Kompromisse etwas “Leben” abringen’ (96). Wedderburn, A. J. M., Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against its Graeco-Roman background (WUNT 44; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987)Google Scholar, focuses on the relation between baptism and resurrection; in comparison with the Graeco-Roman religion (and its reception of Egyptian material), he underlines that Paul's language and ideas are unique (expressed in the phrase ‘union with Christ’). In Pauline studies, some do argue for influence from ‘the Osiris cult’, whereas others deny such influence, for example Perrin, N., ‘On Raising Osiris in 1 Corinthians 15’, TynBul 58 (2007) 117–28Google Scholar. Despite the debate on influence, a comparison is possible. Various comparisons have been made between the ‘myths’ of Christ and Osiris, e.g., Bonnel, R. G. and Tobin, V. A., ‘Christ and Osiris: A Comparative Study’, Pharaonic Egypt: The Bible and Christianity (ed. Israelit-Groll, S.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985) 1–29Google Scholar, concluding that the Osiris myth as part of the first-century religious atmosphere generally may have influenced Christianity; and e.g., Groger, R., ‘Osíris e Hórus: Protótipos do Jesus da Fé?’, Kerygm@ 5 (2009) 20–45Google Scholar mainly attacking the designation ‘myth’ for the Christ event. Wedderburn denies Jesus' resurrection as an historical event, but underlines the ‘once-for-all’ character as the crucial distinction between Christ and Osiris.
25 Assmann, ‘Resurrection’, 129–31. Cf. Balch, D., Roman Domestic Art and the Early House Churches (WUNT 228; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 78Google Scholar with references to the scholarly debate and, for instance, to Diodorus Siculus I.25.6 which uses the word ἀναστῆσαι in the sense of ‘she [Isis] caused him [Horus] to rise from death’.
26 From now on and in the remainder of this article the term ‘resurrection’ is used to mean both the Judaeo-Christian and the Egyptian concepts of return from/triumph over death.
27 Attridge, H. W., ‘From Discord Rises Meaning: Resurrection Motifs in the Fourth Gospel’ and U. Schnelle, ‘Cross and Resurrection in the Gospel of John’, The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John (ed. Koester, C. R.Bieringer, R.; WUNT 222; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 1–19 and 128–51Google Scholar respectively. Cf. nn. 52–3 (below).
28 Spread of the ‘Isis cult’ led to local adaptations and its Egyptian character was sometimes adduced as exotic. Cf. Malaise, M., Pour une terminologie et une analyse des cultes isiaques (Mémoire de la Classe des Lettres, Académie Royale de Belgique: Collection in 8°; Série 3: 35. Bruxelles: Classe des Lettres, Académie Royale de Belgique, 2005)Google Scholar; Malaise, M., ‘La diffusion des cultes isianiques: un problem de terminologie et de critique’, Nile into Tiber: Egypt in the Roman World; Proceedings of the IIIrd International Conference of Isis Studies, Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University, May 11–14 2005 (ed. Bricault, L. and Versluys, M. J.; RGRW 159; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 19–39Google Scholar; Cadotte, A., La romanisation des dieux: l'interpretatio romana en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire (RGRW 158; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 50–1CrossRefGoogle Scholaret passim; Versluys, M. J., ‘Aegyptiaca Romana: The Widening Debate’, Nile into Tiber (ed. Bricault, L., Versluys, M. J., and Meyboom, P.) 1–14Google Scholar; Dunand, F., ‘Culte d'Isis ou religion isiaque?’, Isis on the Nile: Egyptian Gods in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: Proceedings of the IVth International Conference of Isis Studies, Liège, November 27–29 2008 (ed. Bricault, L. and Versluys, M. J.; RGRW 171; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 39–54Google Scholar.
Other elements from Egyptian religion and culture have been linked with the Fourth Gospel; for example, the Memphite theology of creation has been linked with the prologue of the Fourth Gospel; cf. Dieleman, J., De wereld in evenwicht: Goden en mensen in het Oude Egypte (De Oudheid; Amsterdam: Amsterdam University, 2006) 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar (focusing on the idea that the cosmos came into existence because Ptah pronounced his picture of creation; he unfortunately leaves this without further references). See also Schlögl, H. A., Das Alte Ägypten: Geschichte und Kultur von der Frühzeit bis zu Kleopatra (Munich: Beck, 2006) 43Google Scholar; Bultmann, R. K., ‘Der religionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund des Prologs zum Johannes-Evangelium’, Exegetica: Aufsätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments (ed. Bultmann, R. K. and Dinkler, E.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1967) 10–35Google Scholar, esp. 21–2; Kügler, J., ‘Der Sohn im Schoß des Vaters: Eine Motivgeschichte zu Joh 1,18’, BN 89 (1997) 76–87Google Scholar, esp. 79–81; Schneider, T., ‘Die Geburt des Horuskindes: Eine ägyptische Vorlage der neutestamentlichen Weihnachtsgeschichte’, ThZ 60/3 (2004) 254–71Google Scholar.
29 One could argue that there were ‘meeting points’ where there might have been influence. The clearest case seems to be the influence from Isis lactans on the portrayal of Maria lactans; see Langener, L., Isis lactans—Maria lactans: Untersuchungen zur koptischen Ikonographie (Arbeiten zum spätantiken und koptischen Ägypten 9; Altenberge: Oros, 1996)Google Scholar.
30 See e.g., Merkelbach, R., Isis regina, Zeus Sarapis: Die griechisch-ägyptische Religion nach den Quellen dargestellt (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1995)Google Scholar; Bricault, L., Atlas de la diffusion des cultes Isiaques (IVe s. av. J.-C.— IVe s. apr. J.-C.) (Mémoires de l'académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres NS 23; Paris: De Boccard, 2001) esp. 54–9Google Scholar; Bommas, M., Heiligtum und Mysterium: Griechenland und seine ägyptischen Gottheiten (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2005)Google Scholar; Omerzu, H., ‘Die Himmelsfrau in Apk 12: ein polemischer Reflex des römischen Kaiserkults’, Apokalyptik als Herausforderung neutestamentlicher Theologie (ed. Becker, M. and Öhler, M.; WUNT 2/174; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 167–94Google Scholar, esp. 179–87; cf. Walters, E. J., Attic Grave Reliefs that Represent Women in the Dress of Isis (Hesperia Supplements 22; Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1988)Google Scholar. The Isis cult existed at least till the third century in the Roman Empire (e.g., Eingartner, J., Isis und ihre Dienerinnen in der Kunst der römischen Kaiserzeit [Mnemosyne Supplement 115; Leiden: Brill, 1991]Google Scholar); according to some much longer (Langener, Isis lactans, 115–16 claims till the seventh century). In Philae the cult gradually adopted more Christian elements during the fifth century, but it was still being honoured as an Isis cult location in the second half of the sixth century (see n. 50).
31 Related to this aspect is, for example, the type Isis Pharia or Isis Pelagia, also named ‘Isis des flots’, representing Isis holding a sail; see: Bricault, L., Isis, Dame des flots (Ægyptiaca Leodiensia 7; Liège: C.I.P.L., 2006)Google Scholar. Isis Pharia was also a motif on coins, e.g., Goddard, J., Roman Provincial Coins: Egypt—Cyprus (Sylloge nummorum Graecorum 12: The Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow: Part 2. Oxford: Oxford University, 2007)Google Scholar numbers 3990, 4046, 4078, 4093, 4101, 4158, 4179, 4198, 4209, 4210.
32 Hölbl, G., Zeugnisse ägyptischer Religionsvorstellungen für Ephesus (Études preliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'empire romain 73; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 59–66, 79–86 (esp. 84–6)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Merkelbach, Isis regina, 347–63; cf. Strelan, R., Paul, Artemis, and the Jews in Ephesus (BZAW und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 80; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996) 116CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Witt, R. E., Isis in the Ancient World (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1997)Google Scholar states: ‘well before the beginnings of the Christian era the assimilation between Isis and Artemis had been achieved’ (145, cf. 141–51). Tate, K. and Olson, B., Sacred places of goddess (San Francisco: CCC, 2005) 104Google Scholar, refer to statues in Ephesus which bore the names of both Artemis and Isis. They probably had in mind the statue of Isis found in the Artemision, an Isis statue with the name of Artemis, or the inscription fragment 2912 probably mentioning both Artemis and Isis; see Die Inschriften von Ephesos (ed. Merkelbach, R. et al.; 10 vols.; published by Kommission für die Archäologische Erforschung Kleinasiens bei der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften; Bonn: Habelt, 1979–84)Google Scholar, numbers 1231, 1503, and 2912. As further evidence, theophoric names referencing Isis may be mentioned, e.g., Inschriften von Ephesos, number 4352 with one of the first century CE occurrences of Isidor. Horsley, G. H. R., ‘The Inscriptions of Ephesos and the New Testament’, NT 34/2 (1992) 105–68Google Scholar underlines the importance of this material.
33 Cf. Avalos, H., Health Care and the Rise of Christianity (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999) 51–3Google Scholar.
34 In the book of Acts, Artemis is an important element of the Ephesian context in which the gospel is preached (19.21–41). Cf. Beile, R., Zwischenruf aus Patmos: Der zeitgeschichtliche Rahmen der Johannes-Apokalypse und seine Folgen; eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, rev. ed. 2005) 36, 103–10Google Scholar. For the later Christian tradition it is striking that it was in Ephesus (431) that the Church accepted Mary as θɛοτόκοϛ; cf. the reception of ‘Isis lactans’ in ‘Maria lactans’ (n. 29 above).
35 See e.g., Schnelle, U., Einleitung in das Neue Testament (UTB 1830; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 3rd ed. 1998) 486Google Scholar; Brown, R. E., An Introduction to the Gospel of John (ed. Moloney, F. J.; ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 2003) 206Google Scholar; Siegert, F., Das Evangelium des Johannes in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt: Wiederherstellung und Kommentar (Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008) 46–62Google Scholar. Cf. van Tilborg, S., Reading John in Ephesus (NTSup 83; Leiden: Brill, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
The coin motif ‘Isis Pharia’ is also documented for the coastal city of Ephesus: Goddard, J., Roman Provincial Coins: Spain—Kingdoms of Asia Minor (Sylloge nummorum Graecorum 12: The Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow: Part 1. Oxford: Oxford University, 2004) number 1731Google Scholar.
36 E.g., Balch, D. L., ‘Suffering of Isis/Io and Paul's Portrait of Christ Crucified (Gal. 3:1): Frescoes in Pompeian and Roman Houses and in the Temple of Isis in Pompeii’, Journal of Religion 83 (2003) 24–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and (though less convincing): McCabe, E. A., An Examination of the Isis Cult with Preliminary Exploration into New Testament Studies (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2008)Google Scholar.
37 For instance with regard to the ἐγώ ɛἰμι (metaphoric) statements, see Petersen, S., Brot, Licht und Weinstock: Intertextuelle Analysen johanneischer Ich-bin-Worte (NTSup 127; Leiden: Brill, 2008) esp. 181–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for 18.5 e.g., Merkelbach, Isis regina, 113–19 (esp. 114 n. 2). As 20.11–18, in its OT context, would have a link with Song 3 (see: Van Den Eynde, S., ‘Love, Strong as Death? An Inter- and Intratextual Perspective on John 20,1–18’, The Death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel [ed. van Belle, G.; BETL 200; Leuven: Leuven University, 2007] 901–12Google Scholar and Zumstein, J., Kreative Erinnerung: Relecture und Auslegung im Johannesevangelium [AThANT 84; Zürich: TVZ, 2nd ed. 2004] 286Google Scholar; cf. for the theme of love: Reinhartz, A., ‘To Love the Lord: An Intertextual Reading of John 20’, The Labour of Reading: Desire, Alienation, and Biblical Interpretation [ed. Black, F., Boer, R., and Runions, E.; Semeia Studies 36; Atlanta: SBL, 1999] 53–69)Google Scholar, a similar motif might echo in the context of the Isis cult (cf. e.g., Merkelbach, Isis regina, 71–130, 199–224, 266–304, 340–6, also with other possible connections between the Isis cult and the Fourth Gospel).
38 Http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/specialcollections/collections/stjohnfragment/ (accessed 1 April 2009). Cf. Metzger, B. M., ‘Recently Published Greek Papyri of the New Testament’, Biblical Archaeologist 10/2 (1947) 25–44, esp. 38–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39 Brown, Introduction, 202. Cf. also Michaels, John, 37.
40 E.g., Perry, A. M., ‘Is John an Alexandrian Gospel?’, JBL 63 (1944) 99–106Google Scholar.
41 Cf. Lee, D., ‘The Gospel of John and the Five Senses’, JBL 129 (2010) 115–27, esp. 117–20Google Scholar.
42 Morris, L., Reflections on the Gospel of John (Peabody: Hendrickson, 5th ed. 2000) 698Google Scholar.
43 Their names indicate their iconographic attributes: Isis, lady of the throne; Nephthys, lady of the house.
44 The angels in John 20.12 might have been pictured as winged, although this feature is not explicitly described (nor necessarily implied in the word ἄγγɛλοι) and therefore open to interpretation.
45 Iconology is understood (as by Warburg) as the history of images/motifs/constellations. Cf. Warburg, A., Der Bilderatlas Mnemosyne (ed. Warnke, M. and Brink, C.; Gesammelte Schriften / Aby Warburg. Studienausgabe 2. Abt. Bd. 2/1; Berlin: Akademie, 3rd ed. 2000)Google Scholar.
46 Assmann, ‘Resurrection’, 126. Or as Bleeker, C. J., ‘Isis and Nephthys as Wailing Women’, Numen 5/1 (1958) 1–17 (esp. 17)Google Scholar puts it, they resuscitate his creative power.
47 So Ramses III; Reeves, C. N. and Wilkinson, R. H., The Complete Valley of the Kings: Tombs and Treasures of Egypt's Greatest Pharaohs (London: Thames & Hudson, 1996), 8Google Scholar. For the images, it should be noted that the sources often do not provide information on the size of the images/objects; the present article does not mention the sizes of images, deeming medium and date of more importance for the iconographic approach taken here.
49 On the scarab (dung beetle) as symbol of resurrection: Keel, O. and Staubli, T., ‘Im Schatten Deiner Flügel’: Tiere in der Bibel und im alten Orient (Freiburg im Üchtland: Bibel + Orient Museum, 2001) 58–9Google Scholar.
50 Cf. Hahn, J., ‘Die Zerstörung der Kulte von Philae. Geschichte und Legende am ersten Nilkatarakt’, From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity (ed. Hahn, J., Himmel, S. E., and Gotter, U.; RGWR 171; Leiden: Brill, 2008) 204–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Dijkstra provides a more nuanced image of the history, discussing the transition to ‘Christian Philae’. He shows that the Egyptian cults at Philae came to an end about 456/457 or shortly after (Dijkstra, J. H. F., Philae and the End of Ancient Egyptian Religion: A Regional Study of Religious Transformation [298–642 CE] [OLA 173; Leuven: Peeters, 2008] 343Google Scholar). Afterwards, some groups, such as the Blemmyes nomads, might still have been attracted to the site for its Egyptian religion (evidence is given for 567; Philae, 347). The visible ‘pagan remains’ demanded a solution; a church was built in the temple complex. The temple of Philae is, remarkably, still visible today.
51 See Herrmann, J. J., ‘Demeter-Isis or the Egyptian Demeter? A Graeco-Roman Sculpture from an Egyptian Workshop in Boston’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 114 (1999) 65–123, esp. 82–4Google Scholar, showing such a lamp (British Museum, inventory number GR 1987.4–2.21) in his Fig. 14. A similar lamp is mentioned in LIMC V,1, p. 775. These lamps were made in the second/third and in the first century CE, respectively.
52 We have shown ourselves aware of the problems involved in using the term ‘resurrection’ (see end of §1). It needs to be emphasized that it is first and foremost the similarity in pictorial expression that has been underlined. Despite discussion of the term's application to the Egyptian context, this pictorial constellation is best described as an ‘icon of resurrection’. Beyond that we agree on the differences between usage of this term in the Egyptian and Christian contexts.
53 Cf. Koester, C. R., The Word of Life: A Theology of John's Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008)Google Scholar 132—this parallel is beyond the scope of this article. Meanwhile, it should be stressed that Lazarus' death: (a) ‘foreshadows’ the reality of Jesus' death (cf. Esler, P. F. and Piper, R., Lazarus, Mary and Martha: Social-scientific Approaches to the Gospel of John [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006] esp. 146–9Google Scholar); (b) is nevertheless linked with future resurrection (cf. 11.24), and (c) underlines the importance of Jesus' resurrection and the believer's personal faith for overcoming death in the present (Zimmerman, R., ‘The Narrative Hermeneutics of John 11: Learning with Lazarus How to Understand Death, Life, and Resurrection’, The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John [ed. Koester, C. R. and Bieringer, R.; WUNT 222; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008] 75–101Google Scholar).
54 Cf. Setzer, C., ‘Excellent Women: Female Witness of the Resurrection’, JBL 116 (1997) 259–72Google Scholar. Gospel of Thomas' logion 114 might reflect this as well.
55 We are aware of the problems with this term (cf. e.g., Brakke, D., The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2010]Google Scholar; Pearson, B. A., Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007]Google Scholar; and Weiss, H.-F., Frühes Christentum und Gnosis: Eine rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studie [WUNT 225; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008]Google Scholar), but setting aside for a moment these attempts to split hairs, the author, perhaps unfashionably, assumes the term to be sufficiently understandable for the present purpose.
56 Pagels, E. H., The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random, 1979) e.g., 48–69Google Scholar. However, Fiorenza, E. Schüssler, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (London: SCM, 1983) 323–33Google Scholar, shows how the Gospel of John presents a balanced view of male and female. Likewise, Boendermaker, J. P. and Monshouwer, D. (Johannes: De evangelist van de feesten [Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1993] 56)Google Scholar describe Mary Magdalene as ‘de vrouwelijke discipel, toonbeeld van de gemeente’ (‘the female disciple [who is] a role model for the congregation’).
57 The ritual of ‘rebirth’ was practised in the Isis cult. Again, despite Wedderburn's scepticism about possible influence from mystery cults on Christianity (n. 24 above), examples of comparison between the two should be considered here; cf. for the issue of baptism addressed by Wedderburn the case argued by Pearson, B. (‘Baptism and Initiation in the Cult of Isis and Sarapis’, Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R. E. O. White [ed. Porter, S. E. and Cross, A. R.; JSNTS 171; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999] 42–62)Google Scholar for the importance of baptism in the Isis cult.
58 Venit, M. S., ‘Referencing Isis in Tombs of Graeco-Roman Egypt: Tradition and Innovation’, Isis on the Nile: Egyptian Gods in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt; Proceedings of the IVthInternational Conference of Isis Studies, Liège, November 27–29, 2008; Michel Malaise in Honorem (ed. Bricault, L. and Versluys, M. J.; RGWR 171; Leiden: Brill, 2010) 89–119, esp. 107–13Google Scholar. Interestingly, the two goddesses (or their priestess avatars) in the central niche are replaced by male figures in the left niche.
59 According to Mastrocinque these would be Gnostic, as he categorizes forms of syncretism, especially with Egyptian religion, as Gnostic in contrast to Christian (Mastrocinque, A., From Jewish Magic to Gnosticism [Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 24; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005] 216Google Scholar).
60 An example could be the amulet from the British Museum (dated to possibly around 300–25), which Barb, A. A. (‘Three Elusive Amulets’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 27 [1964] 1–22)CrossRefGoogle Scholar describes as a ‘Judeo-Christian amulet’, calling ‘one side Christian and the other Gnostic’ (10, in line with the categorization of Mastrocinque in the previous footnote). The ‘Christian’ side probably shows in four rows: Jesus' Ascension, his birth with shepherds and magi, healing scenes, and a depiction of the miracle at Cana referring either to the Eucharist or to the possible wedding context of the amulet. It also has Septuagint-style inscriptions. The ‘Gnostic’ side shows Horus, combined with Jewish and Christian symbols and inscriptions (10–17 and Plate 2a-b).
61 Cf. Bonner, C., Studies in Magical Amulets Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian (University of Michigan Studies: Humanistic Series 49; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1950)Google Scholar—and Fig. 19.
62 Every effort has been made to secure necessary permissions to reproduce copyright material in this work, though in some cases it has proved impossible to trace copyright holders. If any omissions are brought to our notice, we will be happy to include appropriate acknowledgments.