School of Divinity Essay Title & Mark Sheet

Please insert this page at the beginning of each assignment, before uploading via MMS Student ID Number: Due Date for Essay: Module Code: Essay Title: Essay Length: (word count) Declaration: I hereby certify that this work has been written by me, and that it is not the result of plagiarism or any other form of academic fraud. Submission of an assignment via the MMS platform under your username will constitute your personal declaration. No signature is required. 060001705 13 December 2010 DI4605 Essay No. e.g. 1, 2, 3 or 4 1

The Friendship of Jesus in the Gospel of John 4915

Feedback from marker(s)

If not covered above, how could this essay be improved?

Mark Penalty for Presentation

(Max 20):

Final Mark

Initials of Marker

Level of Criteria Employed:

Please begin your essay below:

The Friendship of Jesus in the Gospel of John: A Social Scientific Analysis

Jesus is my friend. Almost without fail, this declaration would be looked down upon in today's society as a sentimental, childlike thing to say. In an age where a gritty, suffering, manly Jesus is the vogue (witness the success of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ), the fluffy, cuddly image that tends to come to mind following the above statement is usually the subject of condescension. This essay will sympathise slightly with the idea of a tougher Jesus, but will be tempered by the acknowledgement that friendship ultimately is a matter of emotion, of trust and of faithfulness.

This essay will examine the portrayal of Jesus as a friend in the Gospel of John. In order to do this from a new perspective, the findings of the social sciences specifically anthropology will be utilised in order to build up a model of what friendship is like in the Mediterranean and other areas today, which can then be applied to the text of the New Testament in order to glean information from a perspective that may not have been considered before.

Unfortunately, as soon as one sets out on this endeavour (a social-scientific investigation of friendship, rather than a social scientific analysis in general) one encounters a problem. Keith Ridler elucidates: For complex reasons, friendship has been a systematically if surprisingly neglected field in social and cultural anthropology.1 While a simple search of any database of anthropological literature will reveal this to indeed be the case, that is not to say that absolutely nothing has been written on friendship from an anthropological point of view. Thus we will proceed in good faith, utilising those sources that are available to us.

Firstly, this essay will engage in a brief discussion of what friendship is. Before setting out to discuss any topic, it is necessary to have a considered definition of what one means when using certain terms.

1 Keith Ridler, Fieldworkers' Friendships, review of Bridges to Humanity: Narratives on Anthropology and Friendship, by Bruce Grindal and Frank Salamone, eds., Anthropology and Humanism 21:2 (1996), 209.

In this case, the issue is friendship what precisely do we mean when we talk about friendship? Also, it will be necessary to consider the meanings of related words and subjects, such as kinship.

Having established the meaning of the terms and ideas that will be used throughout the essay, the argument will then turn to the social scientific material. Comprising mostly of pieces related to friendship, other social-scientific principles such as honour-shame relationships and fictive kinship will be discussed.

Lastly, having completed the groundwork and constructing models from the social-scientific material, the findings will be applied to the text of John, not as a whole, but concentrating on the passages that are specifically related to friendship. Independent conclusions will be drawn, and these will then be compared to the existing interpretations found in commentaries.

What do we mean when we say friendship? In many ways the definition is simple: James Carrier says Friendship is not just a relationship between people, it is a kind of relationship, one based on spontaneous and unconstrained sentiment or affection.2 He highlights several aspects within this, namely that the sentiment must be voluntary rather than forced, and also that friendship must be viewed as distinct from other forms of relationships. Returning to Carrier: To speak of friendship between two co-workers, then, is to speak of something construed as distinct from the relationship defined by their respective locations in the organization that employs them.3 A friend is more than someone with whom you get along or have a common interest with. Robert Paine presents a fuller description of friendship, focussing on its affective content.4 He says, I would say that what is 'special' about the affective aspect of friendship is that the friend is someone who understands one, who can explain one to oneself; alternatively, a person is able to see himself in his friend.5 As a

2 James G. Carrier, People Who Can Be Friends: Selves and Social Relationships, in The Anthropology of Friendship, eds. Sandra Bell and Simon Coleman (Oxford; New York: Berg, 1999), 21. 3 Ibid. 4 Robert Paine, In Search of Friendship: An Exploratory Analysis in 'Middle-Class' Culture, Man 4:4 (1969), 507. 5 Ibid.

foreshadowing of some of the discussion that will take place below, it is interesting to think about how these features might function when one has Jesus as a friend.

Having given a contemporary definition of friendship, it is important to note that friendship may not mean the same thing in all cultures. As we shall see, different societies have different modes of friendship. Glenn Adams and Victoria Plaut are emphatic: Results suggest that friendship is not a universal norm; instead, it takes different forms in different cultural worlds.6 One caveat regarding this essay is warranted: a very common interpretation of friendship in the New Testament is that of patronclient relationships. For example, Gail O'Day says, a new sphere of friendship, patron-client relationships, entered the public area.7 However, patron-client relationships, and their use in the interpretation of friendship, have been covered widely. Although mention of them will occur throughout this paper, they are not the focus of it; rather, this essay will look at other forms of friendship which would not fit into the patron-client mould.

Given this paper's interest in anthropology, it is also necessary to explore the difference between kinship and friendship. Anthropologically speaking, kinship norms symbolize human biological interactions and the ongoing results of such actions.8 Essentially, it is how one relates with one's family. As opposed to Ridler's claim regarding the paucity of scholarship on friendship, kinship has been widely studied. Paine says of anthropologists, in our professional writings we dwell at length upon kinship and have much less to say about friendship.9 This is expanded upon by Sandra Bell and Simon Coleman: ethnographers ... academic preoccupations [tend] to dwell far more on the significance of blood ties for the construction and maintenance of social relations. 10 Terms such as blood-brothers, still in use today, hark back to the blurred boundary between kinship and friendship.
6 Glenn Adams and Victoria C. Plaut, The cultural groundings of personal relationship: Friendship in North American and West African worlds, Personal Relationships 10 (2003), 333. 7 Gail R. O'Day, Jesus as Friend in the Gospel of John, Interpretation 58:2 (2004), 146. 8 Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology Rev. ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 117. 9 Ibid., 505. 10 Sandra Bell and Simon Coleman, The Anthropology of Friendship: Enduring Themes and Future Possibilities, in The Anthropology of Friendship, eds. Sandra Bell and Simon Coleman (Oxford; New York: Berg, 1999), 1.

Furthermore, the common New Testament phrase brothers and sisters is another reference to this bridge between kinship and friendship.11 In this case, however, note that friendship is not implied merely a shared faith in Jesus.

Kinship was important in the ancient near east. Kenneth Hanson and Douglas Oakman state, In ancient Mediterranean societies during the first century, kinship was still the primary social *domain. 12 Given this fact, there is often an assumption that this kinship-centric society existed in opposition to one in which friendship might play a major factor. Paine, however, disagrees: This view is too simplistic It is precisely on account of the constraints placed between kinsmen where the kin roles are strong and unambiguous that one may have to move outside the sphere of kinship proper, to find 'brotherly love' - and friendship.13 Unfortunately for Paine, he is going against the weight of established scholarship in this case. Bell and Coleman cite Pitt-Rivers, Gulliver and Fortes in arguing that friendship has little chance to flourish where kinship structures remain strong.14 It is not the aim of this essay to discuss the relationship between kinship and friendship, however we will conclude by saying that in the course of this essay, we will examine the evidence in order to discover whether it is correct that in a society in which kinship plays such an important factor, friendship is rare.

Having considered friendship and of kinship, and the relationship between them, we may now move on to looking at some of the anthropological source material. Antonio Sorge writes on a village in central Sardinia. Immediately we see links to the culture of the ancient Mediterranean: beneath a surface appearance of often gregarious cordiality, social relations are antagonistic in Orgosolo. 15 This antagonism is a well known facet of life in ancient times, reflected in the way that honour-shame exchanges play such a prominent role. The very title of Richard Rohrbaugh's article gives evidence:

11 Acts 1:16, 6:3 et passim. 12 Kenneth C. Hanson and Douglas A. Oakman, Palestine in the time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1998), 20. 13 Paine, In Search of Friendship, 508. 14 Bell and Coleman, Anthropology of Friendship, 6. 15 Antonio Sorge, Hospitality, Friendship and the Outsider in Highland Sardinia, Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Europe 9:1 (2009), 4.

Honor: Core Value in the Biblical World.16 Sorge goes on to say that this results in unconstrained friendship being almost non-existent; a feature which he suggests may be endemic in societies where cohesion revolves around the extended family. This is informative given the discussion above regarding the differences between kinship and friendship.

Much of Sorges article revolves around the way in which friendship and hospitality relate to each other. While hospitality is displayed in spirit throughout the New Testament, it is not a particularly prevalent theme in Johns gospel. However, he also discusses extensively the degree to which the individual community of Orgolese is isolated and insular. As a resident said, This village is like a fortress ... You can live here all your life, but will only ever know about us what you can glimpse through a little window in the fortress that we might open for you.17 If communities in the New Testament era displayed anything that even approached a similar degree of insularity, then the unequivocal friendship of Jesus to people from other villages and communities would have been unheard of.

Ruben Reina has produced a study of different types of friendship in a small Guatemalan village called Santa Cruz Chinautla.18 The community in this area consists mainly of two groups, the Indians and the Ladinos, the former being the indigenous people and the latter being newcomers. These two communities (the Indian community is grouped with the tiny Mengala community) have very different friendship relationships. Reina terms those of the Ladinos cuello and those of the Indians camaraderia.19 Of the Ladinos, he says, friendship has practical utility in the realm of economic and political influence; this friendship is looked upon as a mechanism beneficial from the personal viewpoint.20 Already, this description looks familiar to any scholar of the anthropology of the New Testament. The description with which Reina continues his analyses merely serves to confirm ones suspicions. Compare Reina on cuello, a legal matter may be accelerated ... through the personal
16 Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Honor: Core Value in the Biblical World, in Understanding the Social World of the New Testament, eds. Dietmar Neufeld and Richard E. DeMaris (London; New York: Routledge, 2010), 109. 17 Sorge, Hospitality, 9-10. 18 Ruben E. Reina, Two Patterns of Friendship in a Guatemalan City, American Anthropologist 61:1 (1959), 44-50. 19 Ibid., 44. 20 Ibid.

influence of an acquaintance who is in power21 with Hanson and Oakman on patron client relationships, Patrons can provide benefits to others on a personal basis, due to a combination of superior power, influence, reputation, position and wealth.22 There are clear similarities here, and yet nowhere in Reina's article does he mention either patrons or clients. He does, however, point out problems with this mode of friendship: when a Ladino was elected mayor, his obligations were such that he could not honour the friendships which the society valued higher than the law. Enmity and revenge ensued.23

The Indian mode of friendship is very different. Reina describes the friendship through the use of a case study which will not be related here.24 In summation, camaraderia is based on intense emotional attachment and intimacy. It is particularly prevalent during the years after childhood but before marriage. After this time, while camaradas are still sought, the intensity is diminished. The intensity of camaraderia is in itself fraught with danger; [an Indian] would prefer to lose everything rather than share a friendship with someone else.25 This can, and indeed usually does, result in friendships coming to an acrimonious and traumatic end. Given that this is the case, Reina suggests that despite the emotional intimacy which camaraderia instils, certain matters are still withheld, such as family secrets, in the knowledge that your one-time friend may in the future be an adversary.

Obviously, the two types of friendship described in this article are very different. For the Ladinos, a friendship is a functional matter, and one chooses ones friends accordingly. To the way of thinking propounded in our definition of friendship, this falls short in many ways. The alternative, the camaraderia of the Indians, is based on emotional fulfillment; particularly in those years where it can come from neither parent nor spouse. In its intimacy and love, it feels much more familiar to us. However, it is important to note that the very closeness which distinguishes it is also the factor than

21 22 23 24 25

Ibid. Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the time of Jesus, 70-71. Reina, Two Patterns of Friendship, 45. Ibid., 45ff. Ibid., 48.

brings the friendship to an end.

J. K. Campbell presents a classic work on the Sarakatsani people of Greece, who live in the mountainous region north of Corinth.26 In many respects, such as the description of honour in the community, [honour] is conferred as a sign of the recognition of the excellence or worth of a person,27 or that of kinship The family is, indeed, the centre of the shepherd's world,28 the Sarakatsani society and way of life compares interestingly to that of the ancient Mediterranean. For example, Malina on honour says Honor is a claim to worth along with the social acknowledgement of worth,29 and Hanson and Oakman say of kinship, all ancient Mediterranean institutions and relationships were in one way or another related to kinship arrangements.30 These deep similarities suggest that it would make a useful comparison in order to aid our understanding of friendship in John.

As the quotes above suggests, much of life for the Sarakatsani revolves around kinship. This focus extends in many ways to the manner in which they practice friendship. Functionally, this expresses itself in one way: only between kinsmen can true friendship exist.31 In Campbell's study, this happens most frequently between cousins, particularly amongst those who have no obligations to come in the way. On the other hand, any relationship, let alone friendship, with an unrelated person would be regarded by other members of the family as a form of betrayal.32

Patronage also plays a part in interpersonal relationships among the Sarakatsani, as the title of Campbell's book would suggest. However, Campbell is clear that although there are many similarities, this is not friendship in the sense that we are discussing.

26 J.K. Campbell, Honour, Family and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Community (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), 1. 27 Ibid., 268. 28 Ibid., 38. 29 Malina, New Testament World, 31. 30 Hanson, Palestine in the time of Jesus, 60. 31 Campbell, Honour, Family and Patronage, 101ff. 32 Ibid., 205.

Villagers who are able to do each other reciprocal favours sometimes discover from this experience confidence in one another. From these beginnings there may grow a relationship of intimacy and warmth. But in essence friendship of this kind remains a contractual relation, a form of co-operation in which services of various kinds are exchanged and accounted.33 This is useful for us, as it suggests that merely equating the well known phenomenon of patron-client relationships in the New Testament to the word friendship may not in all cases be entirely accurate.

Lastly, we shall look at the work of Allen Johnson and George Bond on friendship in Zambia and Brazil.34 Although friendship in the two societies works very differently, it is interesting to note that both of them revolve around exchange. They also discuss the place of kin in friendship, ultimately concluding that although coming from very different perspectives, the actual importance of kinship is roughly similar:

In Muyombe [Zambia] individuals must conform to the rules governing their kin groups, but they seek friendships as buffers against the sometimes oppressive nature of those roles. On Boa Ventura [Brazil], the local ideology supports individualism, but actual exchanges reveal the binding power of family ties and the moral training that takes place in the individual's growing years.35 We have discussed at length the importance of kinship and thus we will not dwell on its significance here, merely pausing to note that it plays an important role. It is tempered, however, by saying that a fundamental purpose of the friendship mode is to limit social obligations to a manageable number of individuals from whom a person can expect at least as much as he gives. 36 Although straining the bounds of our assertion above that friendship plays less of a part in strongly kinship-centric societies, we still see that kinship is the deciding factor in most friendship.

33 Ibid., 230. 34 Allen Johnson and George C. Bond, Kinship, Friendship and Exchange in Two Communities: A Comparative Study of Norms and Behaviour, Journal of Anthropological Research 30:1 (1974), 55-68. 35 Ibid., 63. 36 Ibid.

A new feature discussed by Johnson and Bond is the nature of exchange, and the way in which dyadic friendships function.37 Starting with the latter, they affirm that it is most useful to see friendships as dyadic and intransitive. When one becomes friends with someone, one does not automatically become the friend of all the friend's friend. Friendship exists between two people. They note also that this is the reason why friendships are not bindingly permanent; if a relationship is based upon equal exchange, permanence runs the risk of imbalance occurring.

On the nature of the exchanges themselves, in their study of both the Zambians and Brazilians the exchanges tend to be of food.38 Similarly, although harder to quantify, friendships are built upon exchanges of trust, time, information and other intangibles. This also drives the relationship if a gift is given, there is an obligation to return it. Exchanges also bring to mind patron-client relationships, but if the exchanges are not necessitated by other motives and are between equals then this does not apply.

It is worthwhile concluding the various threads and issues that have been discussed in this analysis of the anthropology of friendship. In the four articles we have seen themes of kinship, honour, purpose and insularity. These are themes which we shall be looking to utilise in our analysis of the text. Kinship, we have seen, has a role to play in many of the societies we have looked at save the Sardinians (although even here it is alluded to) and the Guatemalans. The degree to which it is important varies from the vital part it plays in the communities of the Sarakatsani to the less central but still influential part in Brazil. Having consulted sources from social scientific criticism of the New Testament, we are also aware that kinship was a central feature of life in the ancient Mediterranean. Thus, voluntary, dyadic, equal friendship would have occurred virtually exclusively between kin.

Similarly with honour, it is clear that in societies such as those in Sardinia or Guatemala, honour is an

37 Ibid., 63ff. 38 Ibid., 59.

10

integral social norm; and again this is reflected in the New Testament world. The honour associated with kinship, and the priority of accruing and defending ones familys honour, would have made making friends with people who were not kin very difficult, as they would be seen as competitors.

The purpose of friendship is another variable; for some, friendship is purely emotional, while for others, it serves a more functional purpose. Throughout, we have been careful not to refer to patronclient relationships as friendships; while they bear many similarities, there is enough of a difference to render them as different subjects of investigation.

Lastly, and related particularly to kinship, is the insularity of many systems of friendships. Whether friendships are formed only between kin, or whether friendships between two people are highly possessive, as in Guatemala, making friends is not easy.

Thus far, the majority of the work that has been carried out on friendship in the New Testament, and in John in particular, has been based on descriptions found in the texts of Greek and Roman antiquity. These studies have much to commend them, yet they have been avoided up to this point as the aim of this essay is to use the social sciences rather than historical documents. Moreover, it becomes obvious when considering these documents that they emerge almost exclusively from the writings of Hellenism, rather than those of Judaism. Furthermore, some of the authors whose views on friendship are quoted pre-date the Johannine period by centuries. Nonetheless these works on friendship will be useful as terms of comparison for judging whether social-scientific criticism has any contribution to make.

In terms of the texts, there is a specific pericope around which our attention will focus. John 15:9-17 is the passage in question, as in it Jesus speaks explicitly regarding the status of the disciples as his friends. Verse 15 is the most explicative: I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. We will also consider the implications of Peter's denial of Jesus in chapter 18, 11

and Jesus' following reinstatement in chapter 21.

What do we know about the cultural context of Jesus that might affect his and John's conception of friendship? As we have mentioned above, ancient Mediterranean society was heavily bound by kinship. Returning to the Sarakatsani of Greece, who are the closest at least geographically to Jesus situation, we remember the fact that friendship relationships indeed any relationships occurred only within the kinship group. Departing from John momentarily, this highlights the importance of statements such as that of Jesus in Luke 8:21 My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice. This does not only draw those who are followers of Jesus into his kinship group; perhaps more importantly it allows them into a position where they can become friends. Conversely, in John 15, by calling the disciples his friends he is inducting them into his kinship group, and granting them all the privileges which that implies. Although not used in John, the use of brothers in reference to believers throughout the New Testament is further evidence. In the ancient Mediterranean world, as in many societies today, kinship was the most important factor in becoming friends, and thus in almost all circumstances greatly limited the people with whom one could be friends. Jesus' action in befriending his disciples in the way he did would have been unusual. In the cultural context of the ancient Mediterranean, friendship outside of kinship was unusual. By calling his disciples friends, Jesus was being deeply counter-cultural, and making a claim about the way in which relationships between people should take place.

Schnackenberg says of John 15:15 The statement that the disciples are Jesus' 'friends' now leads beyond the exhortation to a reflection about the nature of this friendship. It is a gift. 39 This sense of the disciples being given a gift chimes with the exchange culture in both Zambia and Brazil. By giving a gift in a friendship situation, a response is invited; even necessitated. In an action that may be considered slightly unusual, Jesus instructs his disciples as to what gifts he expects in return; that they

39 Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St John, Vol. 3, trans. David Smith and G. A. Kon, (Tunbridge Wells: Burns and Oates, 1982), 110

12

obey his commands. At first this seems surprising, until one remembers what the command is that they love one another. It immediately becomes clear that Jesus is acting in his disciples' best interest the mark of a true friend.

The emphasis on the place of love in friendship relationships is similar in many ways to the expression of friendship in the Indian community of Santa Cruz Chinautla in Guatemala. Here, intense emotions are the binding force of friendship. In many ways, this creates the closest types of friendship, but as we saw when discussing the community, it can also lead to friendships coming to an end. In the case of Jesus in John 15, however, this possibility of the end of a friendship is tempered by Jesus comment Greater love has no one than this: to lay down ones life for ones friends.40 This again recalls the act of exchange. When viewed through the lens of the fact that Jesus did indeed lay down his life for his friends, it must be taken as Jesus giving the ultimate gift. While normally death marks the end of a friendship, in the case of Jesus his gift obligates the disciples and humankind into repaying his gift with one of our own; our lives. As Gail ODay says, What distinguishes John 15:13 from other teachings on friendship and death is that Jesus does not merely talk about laying down his life for his friends. His life is an incarnation of this teaching.41 She also goes on to affirm that Jesus life and death was a gift; given our insights, we can respond with an understanding of the obligation that imposes on every individuals dyadic relationship with Jesus. Furthermore, as John Fitzgerald points out:

Because of what Jesus had said and done, the Johannine Christians were a community of friends and could address each other as such. Precisely because friendship was understood to be grounded in the love of Jesus for his disciples, it was contingent on the Johannine community being and doing all that discipleship entails.42

The gift of Jesus is not a single, historical incident. In his death and resurrection, he continues to give us the gift, and thereby we are obliged to continue to offer our lives as repayment and thanks; actions

40 John 15:13 41 ODay. Jesus as Friend, 150. 42 John Fitzgerald, Christian Friendship: John, Paul and the Philippians, Interpretation 61:3 (2007), 286.

13

that carry through and affect our relationships with each other.

There are aspects of Johns portrayal of friendship which are inaccessible to social scientific criticism. For example, many discussions hinge upon, or at the very least include, the importance of vocabulary such as the Greek word parresia as opposed to kolax, meaning frank speech and flatterer respectively.43 In such cases, the combination of various forms of analysis is invaluable. For example, here we have the text saying one thing, which is confirmed by the anthropological and sociological data. Take Paines description of friendship, for example: the friend is someone who understands one, who can explain one to oneself.44 For this to be true, flattery cannot be an option, and frankness and honesty is the only viable means.

The denial of Jesus by Simon Peter in John 18 raises some interesting points. Jesus knows it is coming; in chapter 13 he predicts it. We have already noted the similarity of Jesus friendship to that of the Indians in Guatemala; both are emotional and governed by love. However, among the Indians this emotion is subject to a fierce jealousy. To betray a friend results in the irrevocable end of the relationship, as typified in the case study presented by Reina.45 Looked at objectively, knowing nothing of Jesus character, and taking into account the importance of honour in first century Palestine, it would seem reasonable likely even that the reaction of Jesus to being rejected by a friend would be similar. How surprising, then, to read John chapter 21, where Jesus reinstates Peter. Again, Jesus is acting against the cultural expectations, showing that the way things are is not necessarily the way things are intended to be. Although some of the nuances of language, such as the difference between agapan and philein, are inaccessible to social scientific criticism, it has still proved useful in reinforcing the impact of Jesus actions.46

43 44 45 46

Ibid., 149. Paine, In Search of Friendship, 507. Reina, Two Patterns of Friendship, 45-47. For a discussion of agapan and philein, see Luke Timothy Johnson, Making Connections: The Material Expression of Friendship in the New Testament, Interpretation 58:2 (2004), 168-169.

14

We have seen many examples of different types of friendship, and have discussed the implications that they have on our understanding of Jesus friendship. We began with discussing the idea of a tough Jesus, and in the man willing to risk the anger of kin to make friends of strangers, to go against the prevalent expectations of his society, and to lay down his life for his friends, we have seen evidence of that. However, simultaneously we must take into account the steadfast love of his friendship, his refusal to let his friends go, and the deeply personal effects of a relationship with him. Although for a reader today there seems nothing out of the ordinary in Jesus friendships, through the use of the social sciences, the otherness of Jesus actions have become apparent and the significance of his friendship, which went against many social norms, has been revealed.

15

Bibliography: Adams, Glenn, and Victoria C. Plaut. The cultural groundings of personal relationship: Friendship in North American and West African worlds. Personal Relationships 10 (2003): 333-347. Bell, Sandra, and Simon Coleman. The Anthropology of Friendship: Enduring Themes and Future Possibilities. In The Anthropology of Friendship, edited by Sandra Bell and Simon Coleman. Oxford; New York: Berg, 1999: 1-19. Campbell, J.K. Honour, Family and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Community. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964. Carrier, James G. People Who Can Be Friends: Selves and Social Relationships. In The Anthropology of Friendship, edited by Sandra Bell and Simon Coleman. Oxford; New York: Berg, 1999: 21-38. Davis, J. People of the Mediterranean: An Essay in Comparative Social Anthropology. London; Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977. Fitzgerald, John. Christian Friendship: John, Paul and the Philippians. Interpretation 61:3 (2007): 284296. Hanson, Kenneth C., and Douglas A. Oakman. Palestine in the time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1998. Hawkin, David J. The Johannine World: Reflections on the Theology of the Fourth Gospel and Contemporary Society. New York, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996. Johnson, Allen, and George C. Bond. Kinship, Friendship and Exchange in Two Communities: A Comparative Study of Norms and Behaviour. Journal of Anthropological Research 30:1 (1974): 5568. Malina, Bruce J. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Revised Edition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993. O'Day, Gail R. Jesus as Friend in the Gospel of John. Interpretation 58:2 (2004): 144-157. Paine, Robert. In Search of Friendship: An Exploratory Analysis in 'Middle-Class' Culture. Man 4:4 (1969): 505-524. Reina, Ruben E. Two Patterns of Friendship in a Guatemalan City. American Anthropologist 61:1 (1959): 44-50. Ridler, Keith. Fieldworkers' Friendships. Review of Bridges to Humanity: Narratives on Anthropology and Friendship, by Bruce Grindal and Frank Salamone, eds. Anthropology and Humanism 21:2 (1996): 208-210.

16

Rohrbaugh, Richard L. Honor: Core Value in the Biblical World. In Understanding the Social World of the New Testament, edited by Dietmar Neufeld and Richard E. DeMaris. London; New York: Routledge, 2010: 109. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to St John. Volume 3. Translated by David Smith and G. A. Kon. Tunbridge Wells: Burns and Oates, 1982. Sorge, Antonio. Hospitality, Friendship and the Outsider in Highland Sardinia. Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Europe 9:1 (2009): 4-12.

17