INTRODUCTION

Amy-Jill Levine

The Gospel of Luke celebrates women's discipleship, self-determination,

and leadership even as it heralds a reversal of systemic inequities. The
Magnificat announces the triumph of the poor and the humble, and the
Annunciation reveals heaven's dependence on female strength and
fidelity; Mary's visit to Elizabeth bespeaks women's solidarity as well as
testifies to a gynocentric alternative to the patriarchal systems of Rome
and Jerusalem. The woman who anoints Jesus controls her own finances,
as do the women who provide for him out of their means. Jesus releases
Martha from gender-determined domestic responsibilities and emotional
anxiety that accompanies them, and he affirms her sister Mary's choice
of intellectual and spiritual development. Women are prominent among
those commanded to remember and enjoined to recount the story of
Jesus life and resurrection. Not only does the Gospel of Luke, compared
to the other canonical gospels, have the most references to women, .
scholars have also argued that its author was a woman.

The Gospel of Luke threatens any attempt made by women, the poor, or
the disenfranchised to find a voice in either society or church. The narra-
tive consistently depicts women in ancillary capacities: they may serve as
patrons, but the direction of ecclesial policies and theologies is restricted
to men. The Virgin Mary is no self-actualized breaker of gender roles but
rather a reassertion that a woman's value lies only in her procreative
ability, and even that is negated by the gospel's preference for celibacy.
The anointing woman is so scandalously physical that this 'sinner'— like
all women —is less celebrated disciple than dangerous threat. Luke
undercuts the authority of the women who support Jesus by describing
them as erstwhile demoniacs; they receive no special commission as do
the (healthy) male disciples, and they engage in no discussions with
Jesus. Martha's S t axov i a ('service') is dismissed in favor of Mary's better
portion: submissiveness, servility, and silence. Luke's gospel is a menac-
ing text that retains and reinforces kyriarchal structures.
2 A Feminist Companion to Luke LEVINE Introduction 3

Although' extreme, each of these statements maintains exegetical gospel are summarized in new articles. Several authors who have
advocacy. Some readers have found and will continue to find in the Third published extensively on Luke's narrative have contributed expansions
Gospel the summons to liberation; others will find numerous barriers to and reconsiderations of their earlier conclusions. The Carpenter Program
that same goal. As the burgeoning number of articles on Luke's infancy in Religion, Gender, and Sexuality at Vanderbilt University provided
stories and depiction of Martha and Mary evidence, a liberating account funds for translating articles unavailable in English. Authors compara-
for one reader can function in quite the opposite way for another. tively less well known in the academy — recent PhDs and graduate
Interpretations of the gospel necessarily vary depending upon both the students, scholars whose publications are primarily outside-the West or
methods by which the narrative is analyzed and the presuppositions and the English-speaking venues—were located through recommendations of
experiences readers bring to the text. Therefore, rather than restrict others invited to contribute (the first set of invitations included the request
explications of Luke's narrative to the artificial and reified dichotomies of for the names of potential contributors); conference proceedings and
good or bad news concerning gender roles, sexuality, emancipation, or bibliographic listings provided additional names. Should this broadening
any of the other categories that concern feminist analysis, commentators of contributors and perspectives create a broadening of the audiences for
are increasingly recognizing the multiple messages as well as the the series and thus expose more readers to issues of feminist interest, this
partiality —in the dual sense of being both biased and incomplete —of is all to the good.
each reading. The stunning proliferation of feminist studies of the Third Originally, the series editors planned for a single volume on both the
Gospel within the past quarter-century offers the encouragement of Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles: the wealth of material on
expanded knowledge as well as a strong warning against claims for fully each proved this strategy impossible. A separate collection focused on
objective and fully comprehensive conclusions. Luke's second volume, with contributions by such scholars as Musimbi
This interest in presenting diverse interpretations extends to the choice Kanyoro, Kathy Williams, Robert Price, Janice Capel Anderson, James
of articles solicited by the Feminist Companion series. Not all of the Arlandson, Jacob Jervell, Dennis R. MacDonald, Karen Torjesen, Virginia
contributors to this collection identify themselves as 'feminist', and even Burrus, Barbara Reid, and Scott Spencer is currently in production.
among those who do, the connotations of the term differ. Although open Opening this volume on the Gospel of Luke is one of the classical
to various connotations, the term 'feminist' as used in this series is not an essays: Robert Karris's 1993 presidential address to the Catholic Biblical
indicator of a single economic, ethnic, racial, sexual, or ideological Association of America, subsequently printed in the Catholic Biblical
stance; it is intended as an umbrella term encompassing a diversity of Quarterly. Would that all major addresses to biblical societies could
perspectives: Asian, Evangelical, Jewish, Latina, Lesbian, Post-Christian, include the line, 'As I read the scholarly literature on what Luke has to
Womanist, and so on. To limit these volumes to essays conforming to a say about women...'
particular party line would be a betrayal of the feminist task of listening Karris's summary of the literature from the 1970s through the early
to a multitude of views, and it would be a disservice to anyone inter- 1990s indicates clearly why the gospel has been such a storm center
ested in a variety of perspectives on the salient texts. concerning the question of women's roles. Many of the earlier studies
The articles in this volume range from explicitly feminist approaches to were, as Karris shows, optimistic in their conclusions: their numerous
studies on the role of women in the gospel that, while not 'feminist' as reconstructions of women's lives offered for both Jesus' own social setting
many might define the term, offer materials readers interested in feminist and for Luke's Greek-speaking, post-70 context highly sanguine con-
analysis have and should continue to consider. These contributions, from clusions. The assertion that in 'Judaism women could not be 'disciples of
historians and literary critics, from those who write explicitly from their 'rabbis' and that therefore Jesus' allowing Mary to sit at his feet is a sign
own social location and those whose backgrounds and concerns can only of liberation offers a synopsis of this approach. This view, Karris notes,
be gleaned if at all from their methods and conclusions, from those who failed not only seriously to consider women's varied roles in Jewish and
find in Luke's text Jubilee and justice, to those who find gynophobia, pagan settings, it also failed to recognize the roles of women as leaders in
reveal both the history of feminist analysis/studies of women in the Third the Pauline churches. The next wave of studies did make these recogni-
Gospel and offer new issues for the next generation of scholars to pursue. tions, and consequently the view of Luke's text, although often equally
A few of the essays presented here are classical works frequently cited by historically positivistic, was much less positive: when the context within
later studies; other such classics pivotal to feminist understandings of the which Luke's gospel is set is seen as one in which women hold positions
 4 A Feminist Companion to Luke LEVINE Introduction 5

such as apostle and deacon (so Paul's Epistle to the Romans, for exam- negative feminist critique find a recuperation of Luke's text, but to offer
ple), the gospel becomes seen as restrictive rather than progressive. another critical lens by which Luke's corpus can be understood.
Registering the importance of both literary and historical approaches 'The AN HP Question begins by asking about the propriety of induding
to developing an understanding of Lk. 8.1-3 and the meaning of an essay on masculinity in a feminist companion to the New Testament.
women's biaxovia, Lk. 22.14-38 and the questions of women's presence The matter is timely; as the attention to gender substantially prompted by
at the Last Supper, and Lk. 22.49-24.53 and women's roles as witnesses feminist studies expands to reflect upon the construction of masculinity,
to Jesus' death and recipients of his Easter commission, Karris offers representations of women threaten in some academic circles to be of
several means of moving the conversation beyond the dichotomous interest only for what they indicate about men's position in society. Real
options. First, he notes that there are (at least) two strata of material that women are, in this setting, of little or no interest at all. D'Angelo's
could be prioritized: Luke's redaction and the material Luke received response precludes such a post-feminist erasure of women: understand-
(both of these are themselves constructed by scholars). This is an issue of ing the performance of either masculinity or femininity and so the
enduring concern: while some readers seek authority in a reconstruction position of men and women in text or society requires scrutiny of both
of what Jesus and those who participated in his mission said or did, categories. Not only does the cultural delineation of women's roles help
others choose to grant precedence to the adaptation of this material by determine normative masculinity, the construction of the male returns
the evangelists, and still others privilege the interpretations of later reflection on the position of women. For ancient texts and the society that
church tradition or even readings developed as a challenge to the text. produced them, descriptions of what is 'masculine' (and therefore
Second, he observes that the interpretation of a single pericope becomes normative) provide information about women's textual representations
modified when that pericope is analyzed in light of the entire gospel; and social possibilities, and these constructions, as positive models or
context influences meaning. For example, Jesus' rebuke of Martha, negative foils or a combination of both, would have impacted women.
occupied by much serving, can be regarded as a negation of women's This dual focus is especially acute in Luke's gospel, where more than in
ecclesial leadership if seen only in the context of Lk. 10.38-42, but given Mark and Q references to men and women are paired and where, unlike
that Luke elsewhere depicts Jesus' rebuking of hosts and others who the other canonical gospels, the narrative persona offers an explicitly
share table fellowship, Martha can also be placed as in the same role as male self-reference (the masculine participle rraprixoAouCtritaiTt, 'having
Pharisees or even male disciples. This recontextualization may then followed closely', in 1.3).
move the interpretation of the pericope away from a focus on gender In her early work, D'Angelo proposed that Luke-Acts reasserts
and toward a concern for appropriate leadership. Augustan family values in an early second-century setting by depicting
Since the context within which any pericope can be interpreted is support for traditional gender arrangements. Building upon this study,
open —the passages in immediate juxtaposition, passages depicting D'Angelo indicates how the gospel as well as Acts' precise use of
similar themes, other stories concerning women, the whole of the gospel, masculine identifiers such as the term wijp and the narrator's aspect
the gospel and Acts, the rest of the New Testament; the time of Jesus, the demarcate the public presentation of the kergyma: only men are suitable
time of Luke, the past, the present — conclusions drawn from the pericope ambassadors of the new movement. The address to the 'most excellent
will necessarily shift. Nevertheless, some studies firmly grounded in Theophilus' — be he fictive, composite, or an actual individual —places
historical contextualization retain major influence in the understanding of Luke's readers and hearers into the category of elite males of public
the Third Gospel. One such study, cited by Karris as having had repute. Regardless of actual hearers and readers, who surely included
'considerable influence', is Mary Rose D'Angelo's 1990 publication in the women, slaves, and others outside elite status, the narrative's device is
Journal of Biblical Literature, 'Women in Luke-Acts: A Redactional View'. that of a discourse for, by, and about elite men, men who possess self-
This article proposes that Luke's editing served to restrict women's public mastery (syKpa-ret a), men whose status is not and cannot be threatened.
roles in conformity with Hellenistic moral views and so limit their pro- Epitomizing this public masculinity is Jesus himself, an &vijp who, as
phetic ministry. D'Angelo's contribution in this volume, 'The ANHP D'Angelo puts it, 'excelled in all the steps toward public manhood in his
Question in Luke-Acts: Imperial Masculinity and the Deployment of own nation, but in terms that are comprehensible to an imperial public'.
Women in the Early Second Century', extends this earlier work to Within this economy of Roman family values, women have their
challenge not only the theories of Karris and others that in the light of assigned role. D'Angelo proposes that Luke's interest in asceticism, from
 6 A Feminist Companion to Luke LEVINE Introduction 7

the Virgin Mary to the widow Anna (2.36-38) in the gospel and, in biological/individual; religious/cultic; and messianic. As one fades into
Acts,
the virgin daughters of Philip (21.8), comports with Trajan's interest in
the next, alternative eras surface: female time marked by the chronology
restoring ancestral mores regarding marriage and sexuality, including
of pregnancy intrudes upon and interrupts the prevailing, patriarchal
carnal restraint. Also in conformity to imperial values, women function times defining politics and history, religion and cult; concurrently, the
for Luke's texts in the role of patron: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, gynocentric focus offers an alternative to the biological and individual
and their companions who support Jesus (Lk. 8.1-3), Martha (10.38-42), times aligned with paternity and progeny. The irruption created by two
John Mark's mother (Acts 12), Lydia (Acts 16), and Priscilla (Acts 18). pregnant women then leads to the promise of messianic time, when
Rather than see these figures as 'real women' or as reflecting the actions systemic injustice is undone (1.52-53).
of 'real women', D'Angelo concludes that it is more probable, and more In Kahl's rendering, Luke's first chapter moves from the thesis of the
important, to see these women as conforming to noble mores: it is their patriarchal legacies of empire and priesthood to the antitheses of the
duty to provide benefactions and hospitality. home and motherhood and culminates in the new synthesis of thefamilia
Like D'Angelo, Brigitte Kahl advances a socio-rhetorical interrogation dei, the family of God wherein no one — mother, father, or child — is
of the Third Gospel, although her focus extends from the ideal second- placed at the margins. This new structure is encapsulated by the
century elite reader proposed by D'Angelo to multiple readers from characterization of Zechariah: the priest who originally conforms to
multiple contexts whose encounters with Luke's narrative inevitably cultic and individual/biological time undergoes a gestation of his own
produce multiple interpretations. The juxtaposition of the two
articles as he is silenced within gynocentrically determined time, comes to
presses the issue of interpretive authority: does it reside in the text, the believe what he had earlier doubted, and affirms his wife's authority to
reader, the community, or a combination? The response might depend give their son a non-paternal name.
upon the focus of the article. Circumventing the frequent impasse
that But even Zechariah's regeneration can be read as negative as well as
pits 'feminist reading' against 'Luke's gospel', Kahl proposes positive. On the one hand, his naming of John and the Benedictus can be
that the
feminist-critical counter-reading is itself inscribed into the patriarchal heard as the harmonic countertenor to the Magnificat. On the other, the
text; if this is the case, then the authority of the text undergirds
rather naming and the hymn, placed as they are at the condusion of the
than undermines feminist critique. narrative section, could be heard as drowning out women's voices. Each
Evoking such disparate phenomena as psychoanalytic dream reading finds textual support: the Third Gospel can be seen as
theory
and the mechanisms of survival practised by political dissidents accommodating to the time of Caesar or, more benevolently, as engaging
in pre-
1989 Eastern Europe, Kahl projects an almost visceral picture of how
texts in survival techniques that often require compromises of ideal programs.
speak with different voices to different readers. She locates a Alternatively, the gynocentric time of Mary and Elizabeth which runs
'herraenen-
tics of conspiracy' that develops when a text produced
under either concurrently with the less liberatory chronologies can be seen as
internal or external censorship reveals a self-contradictory narrative: interrupting and so subverting the dominant agendas.
what
the words manifestly say masks coded propositions and hidden
agendas. For Kahl, semiotic analysis insists upon this liberative counter-
If, as Kahl notes, early gospels were produced in a setting in
which reading: in Lk. 1.24-57, the time of the women, she finds the key that
particular social codes governed both text and behavior — a setting determines how the rest of the narrative is to be heard. Luke's text, like a
such
as the one proposed by D'Angelo — then the basic tools of the
hermeneu- tapped phone conversation in which both parties are aware of that third
tics of conspiracy are appropriately applied to them. Since,
as Karris and less-than-benevolent listener, has in Kahl's deciphering a message of
demonstrates, Luke-Acts has been and can be interpreted as either an alternative society.
positive or as negative toward women, so the hermeneutics of Most readers of Luke's first chapters, and especially those who focus
conspiracy
provides one lens by which to understand how the two volumes
give rise on Mary's Magnificat, see the gospel's interest in reconfiguring social
to such divergent perspectives.
values. Different, however, are the values addressed: political, economic,
To illustrate the function of Luke's 'compromise formation' that
consists familial, and so on, as well as the relation of those values to women's role
of both normative and countercultural concerns, Kahl Kahl
focuses on Lk. 1 in church and state. D'Angelo emphasizes a return to family values,
and, in particular, the references to time. From Luke's single and childbirth,
chapter, she offers a gynocentric alternative signalled by pregnancy
discerns four distinct yet overlapping chronologies: earlier
political/historical, and Turid Karlsen Seim's study, informed particularly by Kahl's
 8 A Feminist Companion to Luke Introduction 9
LEvINE

work, takes yet a third different approach to Luke's treatment of domestic

the opposite phenomenon occurs in interpretations of Lk. 7.36-70, the
ideals, Mary, and motherhood. For Seim, Mary's virginity and the account of the woman who anoints Jesus. This unnamed 'woman who
gospel's understanding of discipleship are inextricable and, consequently, was a sinner', who is present at a banquet, in possession of expensive
the definition of motherhood is transferred from biological procreation to balm, and who lavishes physical attention upon Jesus' body, almost
ascetic and communitarian relationship. Although the argument that inevitably stimulates commentary on the relationship of sexuality and
Luke displays an ascetic idealism comports with D'Angelo's evocation of faith. Almost inevitably as well, the two categories are seen as anti-
Trajan's renewed interest in Augustan mores, Seim insists that Luke has thetical. Confronting this popular appropriation, both Barbara Reid and
no program for restoring Roman family values. To the contrary, she Teresa Hornsby offer analyses that fracture conventions accenting the
judges Luke's presentations of self-control and celibacy to be determined woman's sin as sexual and her touching Jesus as a further manifestation
by eschatology: ascetic practice is a rehearsal of the life to come. of aberrant and abhorrent physicality.
Seim discerns Luke's gospel of asceticism in 21.23, the woe over the Reid extends Jesus' question to Simon, 'Do you see this woman?' (Lk.
pregnant and the nursing; 23.27-30, the words to the daughters of 7.44) to all readers. Seeking new perspective on this text, she insists upon
Jerusalem; and 11.27, Jesus response to the woman from the crowd who insights no longer blurred by gender bias or myopic presuppositions,
blessed 'the womb that bore you and the breasts that you sucked'. It is
even if what emerges brings pain. Just as Simon is invited to change his
this third example that leads into her re-evaluation of Mary's figuration
initial erroneous perceptions that the woman is (still) a miscreant and
from biological parent to prototypical disciple. De-emphasis of Mary's
that Jesus is not a prophet —so too readers ever eager to condemn
physical pregnancy and motherhood is revealed as well in Seim's
Simon's mistaken Christology might take another look at the woman
comparison of the conditions of the two cousins. Although Mary and
they insist on continuing to classify as a 'sinner. As Reid observes, Lk.
Elizabeth experience miraculous pregnancies —one mother is a
virgin; 7.47 makes it 'utterly dear' that the woman's sins had already been
the other is menopausal both the circumstances of the women and
the forgiven (6ctlicavra I) prior to her encounter with Jesus. Hindering Simon's
expected social repercussions of the pregnancies differ. For
Elizabeth, new vision are his friends, who in the presence of Jesus ask, 'Who is this
introduced with highly respectable familial connections and
religious who even forgives sins?' (7.49). Whether Simon will re-evaluate his
fidelity (1.5-7), pregnancy removes her reproach and grants her
honor. opinion of Jesus, let alone of the woman, remains unanswered.
Mary is accorded no such formal introduction, and her
pregnancy Hampering today's readers from re-evaluating their negative judg-
should have led not to honor but to shame, as the Gospel of
Matthew ments of the woman are other 'friends', traditional interpretations encap-
suggests with its notice that Joseph planned to divorce his
pregnant sulated by those familiar titles and annotations given the passage. As
betrothed. In Luke's narrative, Mary should have experienced
the Reid documents, scholarly articles and biblical editions customarily label
humiliation from which Elizabeth is released. But the Third
Gospel the pericope 'The sinful woman or even 'La mujer pecadora de Magdala'.
attaches no shame to Mary's circumstances. Her virginal status is
not an None offers Reid's preferred designation, and Jesus as well: 'A woman
obstacle to discipleship but a special expression of it.
Supporting this who shows great love'. Worse, as Reid catalogues, are the numerous
conclusion is Seim's observation that, with the exception of
Elizabeth mistranslations of Lk. 7.47 that make the woman's forgiveness the
(who fulfills the conventional pattern of the 'barren wife'),
all female consequence, rather than the catalyst, of her actions, and of Lk. 7.37 that
prophets in both the gospel and Acts are either virgins or
widows. depict the woman as a present 'sinner' rather than one who was a sinner
This reconceptualization of Mary's presentation
facilitates our but as Reid translates the imperfect verb —as one who is a sinner no
recognizing her as model disciple. Once her biological pregnancy
is de- longer.
emphasized, Mary is no longer the impossible paragon of the virgin
bears a child nor the pathetic victim of rape or
who Most detrimental of all to new insight is the scholarly and popular
seduction. Once her insistence that the sins of the woman were sexual or, specifically, that she
discipleship is detached from sexual reproduction, the role of
the was a prostitute. Yet as both Reid and Hornsby observe, no one remarks
'mother' in the community Mary does actualize becomes
available to that Peter's self-identification of 'sinner' (Lk. 5.7) indicates activity in the
anyone who through ascetic practice bears spiritual fruit.
sexual marketplace. For Reid, the argument that the woman's presence at
Whereas both the long-standing traditions of the Church and the
newer a banquet makes her sexually suspect is flawed, as is the claim that her
feminist appropriations of Mary tend to de-emphasize her
sexual nature, loose hair and her alabaster flask signal her profession to be that of
 10 A Feminist Companion to Luke LEVINE Introduction 11

prostitute. The counters to such conventional readings are several: the find efforts to prevent two men or two women from obtaining the legal
woman does not function as a courtesan at a symposium, for rather than protections available to heterosexual couples to be sinful. The Greek term
engage in witty conversation, she is silent; loose hair was not necessarily for 'sin, cituccpTcaAcis, had in antiquity two primary connotations: a posi-
seen in antiquity as a sign of loose morals, especially for unmarried tion in opposition to the 'good' or the 'normal', with these categories
women; and no one at the Pharisee's banquet appears to take offense at socially determined and therefore unstable; and a situation of being 'off
her appearance or actions. Finally, Reid finds it misguided at best to center' or imperfect through either excess or defect. In this second defi-
conclude that only through prostitution could a woman obtain the nition, the 'center' is a cultural construct perceived as an essential state
finances needed for an alabaster flask (as a simple notice of such Lukan and, as Aristotle notably argued, premised according to a masculine
self-employed women as Lydia and Prisca indicates). Under Reid's norm. To label a man a 'sinner' could, consequently, suggest not only his
clearer vision, the woman of ch. 7 appears not as a sexual sinner but as ontological or theological status, but also his gendered one. Since women,
potential disciple and even christological prefiguration. Thus, to see Jesus at least in the Aristotelian sense, are imperfect men, then they may also be
properly requires also that one look again at the woman who loved seen as sinners; they are by nature 'off the mark'. Put differently, the
much. categories of woman and sinner have cultural affinities.
Reid acknowledges that her interpretation is shaped by her feminist According to Hornsby, interpreters amplify their view that Luke's
prescription, that her positive evaluation of the anointing woman does anointing woman is a sinner by highlighting her out-of-placeness, and
not conform to whatshe sees as the evangelist's shortsighted presentation they ascertain this position by filling in gaps: they interpret her being 'in
of gender roles. She does not employ, as Kahl does, a hermeneutics of the city' as a substitutionary phrase indicating 'public woman or prosti-
conspiracy; she finds upon peeling away many of the traditional scales tute, although the connection to known euphemisms is tentative at best;
through which the gospel has been seen, a text with both a manifest and a they see her as intruding into Simon's house, when Luke locates her
subtle sexism that needs to be scrutinized through new lenses. there prior to the start of the narrative and when no one at the banquet
Strengthening these feminist glasses are new questions: what has been actually finds her out of place; they see her actions as excessive or
seen before? What is wrong with this received picture? How does the inappropriate because of Simon's thought that were Jesus a prophet, he
picture relate to what my own experience tells me is the case? Where does would know who and what sort of woman is touching him, although
this vision lead? Simon objects to nothing the woman does and although Jesus deems her
In Teresa Hornsby's initial viewing of Luke's seventh chapter, she saw actions both necessary and expected. However, to call these interpreta-
neither scandal nor condemnation; rather, she found the anointing tions incorrect would also be problematic: Luke's narrative leaves the
woman's actions to be both erotic and captivating and the woman herself gaps open to a variety of freight.
positively powerful and memorable in her lavish physicality and lack of Like D'Angelo, Hornsby deduces the gospel's concern to portray Jesus
shame. Turning to the scholarly literature, however, she found another as an ideal male; therefore, the anointing scene, by depicting Jesus as the
story, one in which the woman was negatively sexualized and de-physi- passive recipient of a physically pleasurable, potentially erotic act, has the
calized. And this discovery led her to explore both presupposed gender potential to disrupt gender roles. The Third Gospel does not conform to
biases imported into the text by readers, and the possible participation of the other canonical versions of the anointing and so defuse its potential
the text itself in the sexualization of the woman. Although Hornsby finds feminizing of Jesus; in Luke's presentation, the scene is one neither of
narrative prompts that can support an erotophobic and misogynistic royal investiture nor funerary anticipation. Therefore, to avoid the
interpretation, she also indicates that such readings are choices made by problems of inappropriate gender roles (which may include the place-
readers rather than dicta forced upon them. ment of a woman in the position of anointing a king), Luke's readers,
Beginning with Luke's identification of the woman as 'sinner', Hornsby following narratives cues, code the story in terms of the woman's
makes what should be but is not an obvious observation: the connota- sinfulness and repentance. The sexuali7ation of the woman allows a de-
tions we readers today bring to the label are not necessarily shared by the emphasis upon or even an ignoring of her economic independence, social
narrator or the earliest audiences of the gospel. 'Sinner' is a culturally freedom, self-direction, and unabashed physicality — in other words, her
defined term, and its connotations necessarily vary. To take an example 'masculine traits'. As the sexual one, the anointing woman retains the
from recent US debate: some find homosexuality to be a sin while others feminine role; Jesus' masculinity is thereby unmolested. As the woman is
ff

12 A Feminist Companion to Luke LEVINE Introduction 13

continually coded 'sinner', her feminine role is re-emphasized, and Jesus, subject, since this material remains a staple, and for many women an
who attests to her forgiveness and whose attestation is highlighted with inspiring one, in various Evangelical settings.
respect to the woman's voicelessness, again reasserts his masculine role. This article, like Karris's, can be classified as a positive reading. Despite
The more the woman's nature as 'sinner' is stressed and the more atten- the often-cited lament that scholarship ignored women — save for either
tion is paid to the issues of sin and forgiveness, the less emphasis is occasional statements designed to keep women in their (secondary,
placed on Jesus' receiving of what could be construed as a highly erotic service-based) place or, on the extreme, for condemning them for the sin
massage. Further, as those who approach this text with erotophobic pre- of Eve — Witherington's footnotes indicate several interpretations in
suppositions believe, the Christ would not be in favor of such attention, earlier mainstream scholarship that today have substantial implications
and surely not from a 'sinner'. for feminist readers. These include the reading of Lk. 8.1-3 in relation to
Thus, conventional readings, developed by following certain narrative the parable of the sower's description of received and nurtured seed (the
gaps and intimations, sexualize the woman while de-sexualizing Jesus' gendered implications of the metaphoric association of women and field
reception of her services. Were the openings in the story filled by other are unobserved), the pericope's insistence on the family of Christ in
readings, observes Hornsby, the labeling of male and female behaviors distinction to the biological family, and the gospel's concern to dismantle
as normative or off-the-mark and so the definition of 'sinner' would class and economic divisions. Like some early feminists, Witherington
need reconsidering as would the view of gender adopted both by the offers the now generally discredited pitting of 'rabbinic Judaism against
Third Gospel and by its readers. To take one example: the Lukan Jesus, Jesus presumedly more accepting attitude toward women shown by his
seen as praising a woman who is profusely physical and emotional allowing women to follow him. Yet, unlike some of those earlier feminist
without shame or hindrance and depicted as enjoying her touch, writers, he at least positively acknowledges the freedoms granted to
emerges as quite a different Jesus than the one who sponsors a program Jewish women (his examples are not necessarily 'rabbinic') to attend
of asceticism. Yet with this rereading, gaps in the narrative open upon synagogue, to serve as patrons, and to learn from rabbis.
less positive conclusions, for the praise and the depiction just noted can Witherington's conclusion that Luke reaffirms the maintenance of a
also be regarded as reinforcing women's ideal submissiveness and gender-bifurcated system in which men have public authority is today
servitude. repeated by a number of feminist writers. Whereas this conservatism
Women's service, presented through descriptions such as the anointing may be decried in some circles, Witherington submits a possible
woman's attention to Jesus' body or specifically indicated by the term alternative: in his reading, Jesus and so Luke offer women a means of
StaKovia, is, like sexuality, a highly conflicted issue in Lukan studies. reconceiving their traditional roles: they continue to prepare food and to
Notice of the anointing woman's service to Jesus in Lk. 7 as well as of her serve, but now they do so with a new significance, for they too are also
economic independence leads to the next pericope as well as to the next called to be disciples and witnesses. Women's position in. society is not
contribution in this volume, Ben Witherington III's 1979 article, 'On the redrawn as much as it is extended. For some feminists, this benevolent
Road with Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna,. and Other Disciples — dualistic structure is not enough and, as Reid makes explicit, Luke must
Luke 8.1-3'. Although Witherington does not carry the reputation of be 'read against the grain. For others — especially those non-professional
'feminist', and although his numerous books and articles on women in readers who identify with Martha in their valuation of her domestic
the gospels have ranged from drawing feminist fire to, in some circles, a service — Witherington may locate an acceptable balance that both
deliberate neglect, he is to no small extent responsible for reintroducing acknowledges women's witness and values their traditional roles.
gospel women to the academic mainstream. The study reprinted here Since Witherington's initial publication, there has been a spate of
was, according to his own investigation, the first treatment of Lk 8.1-3 in articles on Lk. 8.1-3. Esther A. de Boer, whose Mary Magdalene: Beyond the
any scholarly journal in a century. Perhaps as the next generation encoun- Myth explores in depth the various treatments this figure receives in
ters Luke and Lukan scholarship, they will recover Witherington's earlier both canonical and non-canonical contexts, for this volume brings her
work, just as he recovered for the academy and to a great extent for expertise to bear on Luke's particular contribution. Her reading offers an
conservative congregations influenced by his work, the women in Luke's alternative to Witherington's argument that Luke divides the followers
gospel. At the very least, those interested in Luke's depiction of women of Jesus according to gender with women retaining their typical role of
would do well to (re-)visit Witherington's books and articles on the providing material care. Meticulously dissecting Lk. 8.1-3, de Boer first
14 A Feminist Companion to Luke LEVINE Introduction 15

observes that the three verses do not discuss 'men and women' but have banished those spirits and ailments that were part of their
describe specific men and specific women, some named and some not. 'womanly weakness' and so made them 'manly'. However, Luke does
Second, she reminds us that the account recollects what the people who not describe what these manly, named women 'do and does not present
attended Jesus did; it does not prescribe behavior for anyone, male or them in active roles comparable to those given the male disciples. Thus,
female. These points concerning the specific and the general, the when Mary Magdalene and the women with her proclaim the resur-
descriptive and the prescriptive, are among the hallmarks of feminist rection, the disbelief that greets their announcement is not unanticipated.
exegesis. Also addressing both the relationship among women and authority and
Developing her argument against gender bifurcation, de Boer situates Luke's conception of S(cowl) i a is Veronica Koperski, whose article is the
Luke's redactional concerns both through a comparison of the Third first of four in this volume on the sisters Martha and Mary. No consensus
Gospel's presentation of women with those of Matthew and Mark and has been, or likely will be, reached on this pericope. The four essays differ
by an investigation of the nuances Luke gives particular terms. For in their assessment of Mary and Martha's narrative function (paradig-
example, she observes that the women of Mt. 27.55-56 and Mk 15.40-41 matic of all women or describing unique individuals), relationship (com-
who minister to Jesus become, in Luke's rendition, more visible: they do plementary or in conflict), discipleship (ecclesial authority or domestic
appear prior to the passion narrative and so, as Lk. 23-24 indicates, can support), connection to imperial mores (reinforcing or exploding), impli-
be presumed to have been with Jesus consistently during his mission. cations for women's roles (encouragement to enhance contemplative or
Whether this earlier notice enhances their role or delimits it is a separate intellectual desires or the demeaning of necessary, gender-determined
matter. At the end of the gospel, when Mary Magdalene and the other functions), and reception (liberation or constraint; good news or bad).
women proclaim the resurrection, they are not believed. They are, Intepretations vary according to the methods, experiences, and textual
according to Luke's narrative, both trustworthy and faithful, but they priorities each author brings to the study.
lack what the male followers have: authority. In this respect, gender Koperski's piece opens by delineating the strong and often negative
differentiation remains. responses to the pericope she found among lay men and women at an
According to de Boer we cannot, as is often done, presume that the Education for Parish Service (EPS) program; these respondents, most of
women who accompanied Jesus and provided him with support were retirement age, commented on how angry their mothers had been when
rich. Rather, she views the women as models of discipleship who use the passage appeared as part of a homily. As an academic and a woman
what they have for the benefit of all (cf. Acts 4.32-35). Nor does de Boer religious, Koperski admits that she did not have either such strong or
accept the common view that the women of Lk. 8.1-3 supported only such negative reactions to the pericope. Thus begins an article that
Jesus or even Jesus and his male followers. Through detailed argumenta- reflects varying responses to Lk. 10.28-32 based on generation, gender,
tion, de Boer proposes that the many unnamed women also provided for relation to the church (celibate religious and lay; Catholic and
Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna; consequently, any claim that Lk Protestant), and connection to the Bible (professional exegete and naive
8.1-3 maintains strict gender bifurcation must be reconsidered. Her pre- reader). Through an informed recital of work on the narrative, beginning
sentation takes specific issue with Karris, whose article in this collection with Origen and granting special attention to the studies of Stevan
proposes that the women in Lk. 8.1-3 used their resources to engage in a Davies, Elisabeth Schtissler Fiorenza, Adele Reinhartz, Turid Karlsen
mission for Jesus. Seim, Barbara E. Reid, and Robert M. Price, Koperski demonstrates the
By distinguishing the named from the unnamed women, de Boer is diverse emphases and comparative texts (including Lk. 15, Jn11-12; Gal.
also able to argue against another common view, namely, that all the 4;1 Cor. 7.32-35; 10.21; Acts 2, and Koperski's own focus on Acts 6.1-7)
women mentioned in the pericope had been healed. This reading through which these scant five verses have been understood.
counters the still-heard argument that according to Luke women follow Having explored in detail both positive and negative interpretations of
Jesus out of gratitude, and it interrupts claims that Luke negates the the story of Martha and Mary, Koperski relates how she recently returned
importance of Jesus' women followers by depicting them as unsound or to the same EPS group. At this second visit, her students expressed their
weak. De Boer's interpretation corresponds in this case with the points concerns now not for their mothers, but for their daughters: women who
made by D'Angelo and Hornsby concerning the constructions of male perceive themselves to be increasingly alienated from the church. For
and female: by healing the three named women, Jesus may be seen to these parents and daughters, Koperski finds in the story of Martha and
 16 A Feminist Companion to Luke LEVINE Introduction 17

Mary itself a locus of comfort. While not denying the complications and medieval tales of Robin Hood and continues into children's literature
potentially negative implications of the text, she finds messages worth today: Maid Marian (the name is not without significance) can play with
proclaiming: the concern that anxiety be alleviated; the notice that being the boys, but only in a subordinate role: the girl is not to be a real boy,
'the leader' may not fulfill all one's desires; the benefits of both active and but rather a torn-, or should we say, Thomas-boy. Even in Luke's
contemplative behavior. It is with both wariness and hope that the next account, Mary is the 'good one' because, as popular exegesis reveals, she
three articles, using yet three more new critical approaches, add to the is doing what 'the men do even as she remains silent and submissive to
understanding of Mary, Martha, and Jesus. her male teacher; she is not concerned with distaff issues, but neither is
Loveday Alexander, like Koperski, begins her study of 'sisters in she vocal or independent.
adversity' with a reflection from a mature student: 'I've been a Martha The allegorical reading in which Mary and Martha are seen to
all my life — now it's my turn to be a Mary'. Rather than turn to the represent particular lifestyles, and to which, in varying degrees, modem
corpus of biblical scholarship on the passage, however, Alexander women subscribe is endemic to interpretations ranging from the
explores the 'popular exegesis of the story to inquire about the effects of medieval even to present-day feminist readings. In my own experiences
biblical stereotypes on both male and female readers. Although the with Christian women of various denominations in adult education
academy often prioritizes the historical-critical approach to analysis and programs, I have often read to them Luke's account of Martha and Mary
so grants authorial intent and original reception greater value than and then asked, 'Do you identify with any of these characters?' Half the
contemporary effect, Alexander shows this decision to be arbitrary room claims to be Martha; the rest are Marys. 'So none of you identifies
rather than an essential. Exegesis that begins with real readers has just as with Jesus?' I inquire. This identification, so common among (male)
much claim to scholarly attention as that beginning with historical- pastors, almost never surfaces among their options.
critical issues; in feminist analysis, it may have an even greater claim. For In a reading similar to that offered by de Boer, Alexander offers
example, Alexander notes that in popular readings, Mary's 'portion' has another means of escaping the allegorical trap. She suggests that the
been extended from indicating her entitlement to a discipleship role to a narrative may be seen as concerning two first-century women named
woman's rights to pursue a professional career and seek self-fulfillment. Martha and Mary —whose proper names are emphasized in the story —
Luke the evangelist may be surprised by such a reading, but authorial not about all women, everywhere, at all times. In fact, proposes
intent— especially since it is itself a constructed category — cannot be the Alexander, Luke might be more interested in reversing existing value
sole determinant of interpretation. systems, rather than setting up new ones; there may be an element of
Not only popular readings from the laity, but also interpretations by paradox rather than prescription in Jesus' response to Martha. If the
the clergy (who, for better or worse, do not always heed what their pericope is seen as overturning audience expectations about 'good' and
Scripture professors -if they had Divinity training at all —say about a 'bad' behavior, then to use the pericope as a behavioral guide and to
particular passage) enter Alexander's purview. She sharply observes reinforce stereotypical descriptions for Martha and Mary is, to use
how in her own experience male preachers consistently fall into the Hornsby's phrase, to 'miss the mark'.
patriarchal trap of first using their dominant social position to assign Also seeking to complicate stereotypical interpretations, Warren
unpopular tasks to the subordinate group and then denigrating those Carter rejects those readings that generalize the story of Martha and
tasks. As she effectively captures the scene: 'Martha was "fussing", they Mary into the banal rubric that Christians should be hospitable.
say, looking down from the pulpit on to their predominantly female Incomplete at best and likely unhelpful are those interpretations that
audience, about unnecessary female concerns: "and we all know", they lead to a clerical preference for liturgical as against diaconal ministry,
add, before going home to their well-cooked Sunday dinners, "how blithely enfranchise women for positions in higher education (too bad on
women do fuss": this), or argue for erasing women's leadership. Like Alexander, Carter
Detailing other interpretations of the two sisters, Alexander turns to proposes to look at Mary and Martha as individual women rather than
the Gospel of Thomas's famous last logion. To Peter's insistence that Mary gender paradigms, and only then to draw a general conclusion about
leave the group 'for women are not worthy of life', Jesus responds, women in the early church and Luke's attitude toward them.
'every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of Through detailed philological investigation, principally of the connota-
Heaven. As Alexander observes, this scene already appears in the tions of bloomy i a-terms, Carter demonstrates how the term is too often
 18 A Feminist Companion to Luke LEVINE Introduction 19

misread as having a primary designation of menial service, such as public meal, Thimmes notices that much is wrong with this ostensibly
waiting on tables. Instead, Carter argues that St (=via reflects a mediating conventional, proper picture: the setting is private, not public; Mary is a
role: the one who engages in 5i cmov ia is a go-between, a spokesperson, friend, not a wife; and an unmarried man is being hosted in the home of
one who acts on behalf of another, one commissioned to a special task. two (single?) women. What is in the popular readings seen as an
Complementing these observations is his application of the patron-client otherwise mundane setting is, from a first-century perspective, potentially
model to understand the relationships among God, the church-leader, and quite scandalous. Conversely, drawing upon anthropological studies of
the members of the community. For Luke's readers, Martha's Si amyl a meals and of space, Thimmes also reveals how Luke's story communicates
preaching/
will have been associated not with kitchen duties (that Martha's house a hierarchy of relationships: table service is subordinate to
even had a 'kitchen is another problematic stereotype) but with participa- proclamation; women are subordinate to men; and a gender and sexual
tion in ministerial activities. If this connotation is followed, then we need politics converge into the oppositions of serving and sitting, speech and
not conclude that Martha is preoccupied by culinary concerns. Her silence. Jesus, functioning in this readirig much as he does in interpreta-
preoccupation with Stomovi a relates to her ministerial roles: preaching, tions of that other meal scene, the story of the anointing in Lk. 7.36-50, not
teaching, caring, supporting (Carter observes that the same connotations only emerges as the arbiter of appropriate behavior, he also, according to
of the term can be applied to the women of Lk. 8.1-3). Thimmes, establishes the positions women may hold in community
If Martha is a missionary leader, then so too is her 'sister' (CaSEAV) ministry.
Mary. Building on D'AngeIo's earlier work, Carter locates Mary and According to Thimmes, one reason Lk. 10.38-42 has created such an
Martha among the 'missionary women partners' in the early church, and exegetical quandary is that it appears to employ opposing metaphors of
in this context he finds the source of Martha's problem: her distraction speech and silence: the reader, she concludes, is left to wrestle with the
relates to difficulties with her ministerial partner. Jesus' response to her opposing models —Mary and Martha, silence and speech — and, at the
then becomes not a rebuke, as it is traditionally understood, but an same time, recognize that in favoring one, there is the risk of abandoning
answer to her prayer. He encourages her to overcome the distractions the other. The observation holds as well for the reception of other
that face all faithful followers (and perhaps clergy especially), and to women 'partners' in the scriptural tradition: Sarah and Hagar, Leah and
regain her single-heartedness. That religious leaders become so involved Rachel, Ruth and Naomi. Perhaps the observation might be extended:
in the 'business' of church that they sometimes forget the focus of their one cannot understand men in the biblical tradition without a recogni-
worship is by no means a problem unique to the twenty-first century. tion of the role of women: Abraham requires Sarah and Hagar; Jacob
Finally, since Mary and Martha are, in this configuration, partners, what requires Leah and Rachel (as well as Bilhah and Zilpah); Boaz gains his
is positive about Martha's ministry can also be applied to Mary's role. full characterization in relation to both Naomi and Ruth. And, as Luke
Mary is commended for listening to Jesus, but Luke does not restrict her makes clear, Jesus is dependent upon the 5 a KOV la women provide him.
role, or anyone's role, to that merely of listener. Like her sister-in- The concern expressed by several of the articles for hearing the voices
ministry, Mary must not only hear the word, but also keep it (so Lk. of real readers returns in Carol Schersten LaHurd's essay. This original
11.27-28). and highly insightful piece on Lk. 15 combines two interests that have
In order to serve as an effective minister, deacon, or 'go-between, become increasingly popular over the past few decades: readings from
communicative skills are essential. Unfortunately, communication is not particular social locations and the honor/shame mechanism.
always an easy task, as Martha and Mary — sisters whom Luke never LaHurd recounts how her own immersion into Yemeni culture
shows as talking with each other — indicate. The form of communication prompted her to consider how her observations of gender roles in Arab
the silent Mary adopts only exacerbates the problem, for both Martha Muslim society could serve as a resource for gospel analysis. Familiar
and all who encounter her subsequently must determine what her with the work of Kenneth E. Bailey, whose experiences teaching in Beirut
silence indicates. Pamela Thimmes's contribution, centering on the and conversations with Arab Christian men in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and
formalities of communication, offers one way of deciphering Luke's Iraq inform his studies of Luke's gospel, LaHurd correctly recognized
apparent silences. that women's voices would likely have their own distinct contributions.
Observing that Martha 'serves', a role often delegated to women at Conjoining her own observations in Yemen with interviews with Arab
public meals, and that Mary sits at a male's feet, the place of the wife at a Christian women in the US, LaHurd turned to re-examine studies of
 20 A Feminist Companion to Luke LEVINE Introduction 21

Luke's gospel by both self-identified feminist scholars and by interpreters in practice (LaHurd's essay cautions against the insistence that the system
who employ the tools of cultural anthropology. Not only does she has no positive value). One means by which this threatening dichotomy
uncover new interpretations of the woman with the lost coin, she offers a can be negotiated in that of memory. The actualization of a changed
very helpful corrective to the common presuppositions Western readers, future requires recollection of the past, and the politics of this actualiza-
feminist or not, bring to Luke's narrative. tion may prompt memories to be presented in a special, usable way.
As several of the essays in this volume demonstrate, there is often a As the women at the tomb are commanded to 'remember' Jesus'
disconnection between what feminists in the academy and what lay, message (Lk. 24.7), so Rigato recollects how throughout Luke's gospel
naive, or non-professional readers conclude about a text. LaHurd shows and Acts words of memory appear, and how they relate both to women
how these disjunction, prompted by a combination of social location as subjects (who remember) and to women as objects (who are remem-
and historical-cultural assumptions, also impact readings of Lk 15. bered). Tracing the appearances of the central terms in Lk. 24.6-8
While the academic feminist may emphasize how gender bifurcation throughout the gospel, she finds connections to occasions when women
substantially hinders women in terms of social mobility and influence, received Jesus' teaching; these women include those who accompanied
both LaHurd's own experiences and the testimony of the women she him (8.1-3) as well as his hosts, Mary and Martha (10.38-42). She also
interviewed revealed the comparative accessibility women have to male observes how women are with the 'Eleven upon the return of the two
gatherings, as opposed to the almost complete lack of freedom men, who meet Jesus on the road to Emmaus, and how they are present at
even in their own homes, have in entering rooms where women are Pentecost. Extending these observations, Rigato proposes that women
gathered. For readers who retain stereotypes of how 'all women' in first- were also present at the Last Supper. And, to return to the egalitarian
century Hellenized contexts lived, LaHurd's descriptions of life in vision with which she began, she echoes the prophecy of Joel which
different Yemeni settings (rural and urban, rich and poor, north and Luke includes in Acts 2.17-18, the prophecy concerning the time when
south, public and private) shatter any reified view. To those who insist 'all flesh...both men and women... shall prophesy. Throughout this
that Luke presents women characters as having little status and power exercise, she calls to mind terms and stories that are too often forgotten,
compared to men, LaHurd's interviews with both Christian and Arab or not remembered in context, or not brought together.
women demonstrate the degree to which Western feminist interpreters The articles in this volume, by both men and women, remember
are reading from a particularly Western cultural bias, and that 'women women's absence in biblical studies, both as participants in the practice
and men socialized and educated in the industrialized West may not be and as subjects for analysis, and they see or at least hope for futures
the best judges of what constitutes oppression. These correctives then wherein the diverse roles of women in church, academy, and society in
underline LaHurd's unanticipated interpretations of the third parable in general will be accorded the dignity they deserve. Studies of women's
Lk. 15, that of the father and his two sons: not only many academic presentations in the texts of the New Testament and early Christianity as
assessments of women's roles, but also scholarly conceptions of well as recoveries of either the roles of real women or at least of the
appropriate parental, filial, and fraternal behavior reveal themselves to gender constructions that impacted the course of their lives have become
be clothed in Western garb. such a major part of the academic enterprise today that to ignore this
The concluding essay in this volume, Maria-Luisa Rigato's 'remember- material is 'off the mark' (Ccpap-rc.A65). What is remembered, whom, and
ing' of Lk. 24.6-8 opens with a citation from Pope John Paul ll's 1988 how, will vary according to the interests, experiences, and presupposi-
Mulieris dignitatem, which both acknowledges 'the manifestations of the tions each reader imports, but such variation is neither unexpected nor
feminine "genius" which have appeared in the course of history' and undesirable. Without the sharing of diverse perspectives, and without the
offers the hopeful anticipation of Gal. 3.28, the time when there is `no vigilant attempt to recall that all memories are partial and subjective, our
longer "male or female" in the church, but we are "all one in Christ studies risk ossification, the silencing of certain voices, co-optation by
Jesus"'. The two points can be seen as mutually exclusive: if gender those who insist they can speak for everyone. Heidi Geib, commenting on
distinctions are erased, then the special role of women in the church risks Luke's injunction to 'remember Lot's wife' (Lk 17.32), remarked in a
erasure as well. Conversely, if gender distinctions are maintained, then seminar at Vanderbilt last year that Luke does not tell us what to remem-
unwanted, heirarchical valuations may come in their wake; the separate- ber about this silent figure. Feminist readers clearly have much more
but-equal system may be theoretically nice, but it does not always work work to do, but at least now we can do it with the recollection of the
22 A Feminist Companion to Luke

scholars who have preceded us, with the prophetic anticipation that our
concerns will be heeded, and with the combined freedom and warning
that Mrs Lot's example provides: what we recall when we look back may
be an evil that requires rejection, a repository of values that can no longer
be proclaimed, a tale of condemnation that masks another story — of
home, security, women's community —lost to recorded history. If we fail
to remember, we too will turn to stone; if we remain mired in the past
rather than use what we remember to shape the future, we shall have
failed the next generation.