170 © WOMEN. JESUS, AND GOSPELS ments image or its retention i Luke does concern women’s ordination, On including the parable in Q see Kloppenborg, "Jews and the Parables” 511-17; Jacobson, Fis Gad “co. Thea again, the juxtaposition ofthe two parables may have suggested ro Q hearers that che man and woman were married or members of the same (temporarily il-for- tuned) howsehold (61, See Corley, “Women and Gender” ms. 20-16, esp. note 59. See also William Amals “Reconstruction of Q 7:29-50." paper presented to the International Q Projet. Claremont. CA, May 1994, which Corley follows. Th reconstruction, including “prosti= tts,” Was eeeced by the majority of members (2, Batten, "More Queries” 48: Corley, "Women and Gendes” ms. 4. The point is also made by those supporting Maean priority (Farmer, Guo xs 76). 163, Schottof, "Sayings Source Q” 523. G4 Seen. 18 above (65. Ato, “Gendered Couples” 2, who offers several amples from contemporaine fous literature of forenialy based pairs “66. Thad 12 167. On relating the saying to dining rather than to “two men on a bed,” ste John ‘loppenborg,“SymbaicEechatology andthe Apoclypicism of Q" HTR 80 (1987) 287~ 306, csp. 402 n. 57. I thank Kathleen Coley for this reference. See also Corey's Pre Wont, Puc Mek Sil Conic i be Sep Tate (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993) 117-18; In GThom, 6, the reference wo the dining couch is explce “6 See the sage comments of Alison, The Jus Taion 4-46. {65 For comparative models using diferent dsibass from within the anon, a well 2 from Greek, Roman, an Jewish outside sources, ee inter aia, Schotof yi Stes: SchasslerFlonenzs, ou, Batten, "More Queries"; and Amal, "Gendered Couples 70. CL Levine, "Yess of Eden” 13 70 Ibid. 32 272. With thanks to Dale C Allison, Jr, Mary Rose D'Angelo, William E Aral, Kath loon Corey, ny Gell, Detdee Good, Ross Kraemer, and Adele Reinhart for critical comments on eater drafis ofthis chapter 8 (RE) PRESENTATIONS OF WOMEN IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW AND LUKE-ACTS Mary Rose D'Angelo e-presentations isa particularly apt description of the Gospels of Mathew and Luke; these works in some sense present Jesus again by rethinking ‘Mark's narrative so as to integrate the sayings of Q Both provide (independent) stories about the birth and childhood of jesus that supply Jesus with the fither doe lacks in Mark (6:3~4) and bring the narratives closer to ancient biographies. Both aim at cleaner narraive and more elegant diction. Both texts use language: and forms that associate them with the Bible. offering themselves as an extension fr completion of the sacred writings. For both, interpretation of the Bible is central, but they use very different exegetical techniques to identify and explain Jesus and the early Christian community Both carefully supply resurrection ap Pearances and commands to the disciples that provide for the continuance, trans- formation, and growth of the community In the case of Luke, this effort pro- duced a second volume, the Acts of the Apostles. And each has been read bath 438 the most inclusive and as the most repressive of the gospels for women, Since both authors reuse material on women and gender from Mark and Q. fone entrée into their representations of women is to examine the ways these authors revise the stortes about women from Mark and the gendered sayings from Q But this approach must be used with eaution and attention to context their revisions respond to a wide variety of factors that include, but are not limited to, the gender prescriptions and assumptions that characterized the com: ‘unity. For instance, both Matthew 12:41-42 and Luke 11:31-32 use a saying from Q that contrasts the wickedness of “this generation” to the Ninevites, who repented atthe preaching of Jonah, and the queen of the South, who came from the ends of the earth to hear Solomon. They use the examples in reverse order, m‘but this reversal probably corresponds not to the espective genders ofthe queen of the South and Jonah, but to the authors’ preferences in chrstology. In Mat- ‘thew, the comparison with the queen is climactic because Matthew prefers Wis dom christology: Matthew's genealogy identifies Jesus as a descendent of David {rough Solomon (1:7). In Lake, the climactic comparison is with Jonah be- cause Lake prefers a prophet christology; Luke's genealogy identifies Jesus as a descendent of David through Nathan (3:31) Similar problems arise with the attempt to interpret the omission of stores, ‘or sayings that refer to women, Mark's generous widow (Mark 12:41~44) does ‘not appear in Mathew. But any conclusions about gender implications have to take into account Matthew's interest in joining the tirade against the Pharisees from Q (Matthew 23) to a revised version of Mark 13 that predicts the Jewish ‘war, the fill of the temple, and the coming judgment (Matt 24:1~26:1). The Gospel of Lake does not reuse Mark's story of the Greek (Sjro-Phoenician) ‘woman, But is the story omitted beeause the author is hostile 0 uppity women fr wishes to restrict the gentile mission to the male apostles Peter and Paul? Ia fact, the story of the Greek woman falls into the so-called “great omission,” the lengthy section of Mark (6:45-8:26) entirely absent from Luke, Ifthe author ‘knew and omitted the whole section, the omission ofthis story need not resul from Luke's views on gender, but fom other concerns." Further, itis possible there was no deliberate omission; Luke may have used an edition of Mark that did not include this section at all? Matthew Matthew is widely believed to have been written atthe end of the first century in Syria Much antention has been devoted to its “Jewish background,” and Kathleen Corley’ elaim that Matthew is “most Jewlsh” and “mast egalitarian was made a8 a salutary antidote to the tendency among feminists and other scholars to explain away reflections of patriarchy, misogyny, oF both in ealy Chistian texs as an inheritance from Judaism, Indeed, Judaism is so widely taken to be the context of Matthew that one scholar refers to "Matthew's Chis tian Jewish community” Such characterzations are based on the centrality of| legal and exegetical traditions to the gospel. The phrase "a scribe discipled to God's reign” in Matthew 13:52 appears to be an apt description of Mathew and, in fact, of the communal life reflected in the gospel. The forms of scriptural interpretation the gospel uses and the legal and pious observances it commends resemble traditions from either ofthe two forms of ancient Judaism tnost fail iar to Christian interpreters, that is, either the texts of Qumran (the Dead Sea Serolls) or rabbinic Tudaism, whose emergence appears to have been roughly contemporancous with the writing of Mathew’ The only evidence that some rabbinic practices and opinions were extant in the nineties ofthe common era Is the appearance of similar traditions in Matthew, for the surviving major sources of rabbinic Judaism began to be compiled only in the third century ck While analogies between Mathews community and Jewish communities hike (Qumran and the rabbinic groups are real and important, claiming that Mathew is “most Jewish” underesumates the possiblity thatthe other gospels refect ot reat w forms of Judaism that dd not survive beyond the fst oF second century. Ik also obscures other problematic indicators of the gospel’ context and con- Matthew indulges in an antewish polemic that has contributed heavily to the history of Christian ant-judaim. A particularly virulent and lengthy revision of Qs urade against the Pharisees prefaces and jusifes the predictions of the fll ofthe temple (25:1-26:1). This gospel’ version ofthe Roman wal depicts Pilate as washing his hands of the blood of Jesus (and absolving the Roman government ofthe responsiblity for Jesus’ death), while use Jews accept blo guilt for Jesus’ death on themselves and their children (27:24~25). Te final Commission tothe eleven commanding them to make disciples ofall the Gen- tiles may imply the mission to Jews is over (28:19); it certainly assumes a significant and growing gentle clement in the commanity’ ‘athe Gospel of Matthew, the material from Mark and Q (as well 3s other unknown sources) was reorganized and integrated into Highly constructed nits composing a “messianic biography” that gives a naraive explanation of Jesus 4s s00 of David and son of God (11, 15)” Particularly noteworthy are five sermons or blocks of teaching, which have sometimes been interpreted a8 aa attempt to medel the book on the Penateuch (he fs ve books ofthe Bible): the Sertnon on Mount (5:1~7:28), a missionary instruction (95411), par ables discourse (13:1=53) “church order” (17:24-19:1), anda trade aginst, the Pharisees that leads into an apocalyptic speech (23:1-26:1). These ser mons, which bear some resemblance (othe type of ancient collecuons called “words of the wise” by no means exhaust the teaching of Jesus in Mathew. ‘Aud in Mathew disciples are primaly learners oF students; the invitation (0 discipleship is “learn of me (41:29) The importance of teaching in Mathew raises the question of whether women are tested a disciples im Mathew. Mathew’ frequent references tothe “ele (o eleven) disciples" have been read by some interpreters 38 excluding ‘women fiom discipleship" The best starting point for considering this question appears to be the women at he cose ‘There were there many women watching ffom afar who had fllowed Jesus from Galilee ministering to him; among whom were Mary Magdalene, ancl Mary the smother of James and Joseph andthe mother ofthe sons of Zebedee (27°45-86)"" ‘As in Mark, three women are named as witnesses to the death of Jesus, In ‘Matthew, not only the three named women, but also the great crowd of women, are explicitly said to have ‘followed Jesus from Galilee” With the later phrase, the author elides Mark's note that the women had been followers of Jesus in Galile, and it is possible to see this revision as changing their role from long. term disciples to. mere companions on the journey But the use of the word owed” makes any demotion unlikely “ministering” in conjunction with * Two ofthe named women, Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of ames and Joses, provide the two witnesses Matthew deems necessary (18:16; Deut 19:15)174 @ WOMEN, JESUS. AND GOSPELS to connect the death of Jesus, the place where he was buried, and the empty tomb (27:55-6, 61; 28:1-8). At the tomb, the two women prove absolutely faithful, comprehending, and abedient; they withstand the spectacular descent of the angel and delight in his message, while the guards Matthew has sntro: duced into the seene are comatose with fear The (wo women also become the first to see the risen Jesus in a new very brief narrative (Matt 28°9-10) in which they are given a message forthe disciples ‘The woman who anoints Jesus (Mat 26:2-16//Mark 141-11) remains a prophet who both designates Jesus as Messiah and predicts his death by prepar- ‘ng him for burial. Kathleen Corley notes that in Matthew the woman seems to ‘be among the diners.” She is contrasted not only with the pusilanimous high priests (Matt 26:2-5) and the mercenary Judas (26:14-16), but also with the disciples, who are the ones who object to her “waste” of the ointment, The ‘women at the tomb do not go to anoint Jesus, so Marks ironic co Dbeeween the witnesses and this woman, who has already accomplished this task, fs lost in Matthew. The wife of Pilate is also given a bit part in the passion narrative; she is the medium through whom a dream warns Pilate of Jesus" Innocence (27:19). On the whole, the role ofthe women in these scenes seems to have been enhanced rather than diminished: if anything, Matthew is more conscious of the role of women as witnesses than Matk is, (Other issues in the treatment of women in Matthew surround the ‘of the Zebedees” who replaces Salome at the cross. This figure was introduced fnto the narrative to put forward the request Mark assigns to her two sons, the request for places on his right and left band in his reign (Matt 0:20-25; com- pare Mark 10:35-40). By responding that those places are for the ones for whom they have been prepared by God (20:23), Jesus points forward to the two brigands who would be crucified on his right and left (27:38). Thus the author creates a new dramatic irony by making the mother of the sons of Zeb- edee a witness to this fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy. She disappears after the Scene atthe cross; itis hard not to conclude that, like Judas, she has learned her lesson. And the characterization of the mother has misogynist overtones. In ‘making the request, she performs the legitimate maternal role of brokering the status and future of her sons” But the author uses her to remove the «aint of ‘misunderstanding and ambition from her two sons and at the same time evokes 2 stereotype of women as liable fo cause competition and dissension among men that was a widespread feature of philosophical and literary debates about marriage” Wheres the fist “eching™ of fess” ministry in Mark: urns out 0 be an exorcism in the synagogue (Mark 1:21-28), Matthew's author supplanted this, narrative with three chapters of practical wisdom, the Sermon on the Mount (5-7). Miracles come second in Matthew's narrative, organized into a suite of ten miracles interspersed with calls and teaching on discipleship (8:1~9:34) mother ‘With the missionary sermon (9:35-11:1), these miracles provide the “deeds of the Messiah” (11:2-6) that identify Jesus as the “one to come” The cure of Peter's mother-in-law (8:14-15//Mark 1:29-51) is presented with two other morales that lutte Matthew's claim that Jesus” cures fll ish 53:4 (Mate WOMEN IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW AND LUKE-ACTS @ 175 8:17). Asim Mark, she demonsvates and responds to her cure by “srving/ ministering” In Mathew, her cue, withthe many cures summarized in 8:16, leads tothe emergence of new disciples and teaching om the cost of discipleship (at 8318-22) The double miracle of Jars’ daughter and the woman wih the How of ood (Matt 9:18-26/ /Mark 5:21-43) are also se into the context of discple- ship; they immediately fllow the cll of the disciple named Mathew and the controversy stories that defend the practices of Jesus disciples (Matt 9:9-17/7 Mark 2113-22). Both miracle accounts are drastically shortened: the author gen erally tends to shorten and streamline the narratives of Mark. Miracles in particu Tar are likely to be shorn of any detail that might astociate them with magic and are focused more strongly round Jesus. In Mauew's narrauve, the woman (Gescribed as Heeding) no longer curs herself, ap sbe docs in Mark; Jesus ‘commendation of her faith sno longer an acknowledgment of what has slready happened, but the word that effets the healing So, too, the emphasis on the ‘crowd as an obstacle and the exchange of power and knowledge between Jesus and the woman disappear Faith i no longer a prerequisite of Jesus" spiritual power asin Mark 6, bu rather Jesus exeries that power to reward faith (Mate 13:58). The rasing of Jairus’ daughter 4 also modified. The gis age i= phetic message of forgiveness of debts and release from bondage (7:39; ef 4 18-19; Acs 10:38)." ‘While there 1s no doubt that this deployment of gender is intentional, itis less clear what the author's intentions are. Closer examination of 8:1~3 under- lines the problesns After that he was journeying from city to wlage preaching and proclaiming the righ of God and the twee were with him, and some women sho had been cured fiom el sprit and diseases: Mary, clled Magdalene, from whom seven dois ad gone out, and johanna wile of Chuza the steward of Herod, and Su- sana, and many other women, who used to minister to them fom their re- ‘These verses revise Mark 15:40-41, the list of women disciples atthe cross. [As T suggested above, the list has been brought forward to parallel the list of male disciples in Luke 6:12~16. This highlights the notable contrast between the treatment of these women and both Marks view of them and the treatment (of the male disciples. In Luke 6:12-16, the twelve were explicly called, given the title “apostles,” and associated with Jesus’ ministry In 8:1~3 the women are sill to be with Jesus not as result ofa special call, bu out of gratitude for cures; they are not described as following (disciples), a5 the women in Mark 1540-41 fare, and chey share in Jesus’ ministry not by preaching and healing as the ewelve ddo in 9:16, but by ministering to them (Jesus and the twelve) “out of their resources,” that is, by supporting them, acting as benefictors to the preachers and healers" The same distinction between women and men appears in Acts #:12-26 [After alist ofthe remaining cleven (1:13~14), the author mentions the presence of women. The only named woman is Mary. the mother of Jesus; the women, disciples named in 8:1~3 and 24:10 are not mentioned, though their presence ‘must be assumed, These verses provide the introduction to the selection of Bar inabas to replace Judas Icatiot in hie “ministry and apostleship” (1:17, 25). The requirements for this role ate defined here as including maleness (Acts 1:21 see above chapter 5). Only after this distinction is made isthe spirit poured out fon “all your sons and daughters,” all God's men slaves and! women slives (2: 17-18), Similarly, widows In Luke-Acts are distanced from a ministerial role Acts speaks of widows as a group in 6:1=7 and 9:36~42: in both cases, widows are the recipients of charity In Acts 6:1~7, the author narrates the creation of a separate ministry of the able distinc from the apostet’ ministry of the word and the appointment of seven men to fil it. It is occasioned by dissension over the portions given to the widows ofthe Hellensts (probably the Greek-speaking ‘community in jerusalem), but the widows do not participate in the ministry; they are its objects. So, too, in 9°36-39. the widows, who might be considered to be the companions and associates of the disciple Dorcas, are actually described as the recipients of her als in the form of garments she made (9:36-39)"* Im the gospel alo, widows appear as emblems of vulnerability and in one ‘ase, a contentious. Only one context in Mark mentions widows; in Mark 12: 38-44, the accusation that scribes eat up houses of widows is contrasted with the widow who gives her whole living to the temple treasury. This contrast is adopted by Luke (20:46-21:4) and supplemented with a number of other ex- amples: the widow of Saepta (4:25~26); the widow of Nain (7:12); the trou- blesome widow and unjust judge (18:3-5); and Anna, the widow and prophet- ess in the temple (2:36-38). Luke's plotute must be considered in light of 1 “Tim :5-16, which explcily restricts widows to forms of service that do not include preaching, teaching, oF going about ftom house to house and also re‘WOMEN, JESUS, AND GOSPELS ‘ose who may be assisted as widows by requiring that they be once beyond the age of childbearing, celibate, and destitute.” For 1 Timothy, sw’s main task isto spend her days and nights in prayer (1 Tim 5:5) Luke's deal widow, offers both commonalities and points of contrast Timothy, A virgin uatil her marriage, Anna was married properly briefly) and once only and spends her time in the temple, worshipping ‘ugh fasting and praying. Luke does not share + Timothy's demand that ‘dows remarry, but approves Anna's early asceic commitment. Though veen stable rather than going fom place to place, Anna's sphere is the »imain of the temple, and she is a prophet from Luke's era of the law vrophets* Thus, while Luke seems to treat widows as a distinct group, Jot allowed to take on the contours ofa Christian ministry and Function as ascetics and exemplars of vulnerability and endurance. In antiquity, with elther property or family might well have a relauve degree of Fs this social realy may have instigated Luke, as well as 1 Timothy and ‘ch orders, to restrictor deny their ministerial role inthe community” uestion of prophecy ralses fanher issues; the quotation of Joel that the ourpouring of the spirit leads one to expect women prophets vughters, God's maidservants”) to figure prominently in Luke's narra calarly within the era of the church: nd it wil be i those dys, says Go, 1 wil pour out my spirit upon al sh and your sons and your daughters wil propesy, tnd your youths will se visions and your ders dream dreams ¥en upon my men saves and women saves in those das 1 wall pour ou ny spies and they will prophesy (her 517-18, Jol 3:29-56) (05 not prove to be the case. Mary and Elizabeth both are given long. rfal prophetic utterances, but they are not explicitly «aid to prophesy istanced from the reader by the formal and archate character of their 4 also by Luke’ historical scheme: chey belong to the period of the hae prophets. So does Anna, who seems to have been modeled on en 50, although the reader is told that she spoke about the child Jesus ne entering and lesving the temple, Luke gives Anna no. prophetic JIn Acs, the only Christan example of prophetic women is the four ughters of Philip (Acts 24:8-9), but they are not permited to speak recy of Paul's artes in the succeeding verses is awatded t0 Agabus, the Jbet who is paired with them (21:16~14).”" When the mantic servant {s 16:16-18 proclaims Paul's and Sils’ mission, her words are not holy spirit, but from the demon ftom whom Paul frees her (Acts 16: Jesus’ ministry, women are no longer presented as prophets, but es ahout women serve the portrait of Jesus as prophet. The woman who pronounces a blessing on Jess’ mother in Luke 11:27-28 could be seen Je speaking prophetically, but her prophecy is corrected by Jess’ response." Martha likewise speaks only to be corrected by Jesus; Mary the sister of Martha (10:38-40). and the repentant woman (7:36-50), who are both approved and defended by Jesus, ae themselves silent. Most notably, the woman prophet who anoint Jesus in Mark, Matthew, and Joha disappears from the nartatve, The only anointing in Lake is done bythe repentant woman, who is idenufed not as'4 prophet, but asa sinner (7:37). ‘She weeps and washes and Kises his fet as well as anointing and wiping them wth herbals (7:58). Jesus interprets her gesture as expressing love and pent tence; she nether announces Jess’ messlaship nor predis his death, but gives Jesus the opportunity to display his own propheue Knowledge of her heart and his hosts (7-49-47) and to procam his message of rlease forgiveness (phos 8-50; 418-19). In par this distancing of women from prophecy is due to Take’ chrsiology and salvation history references to the spint and to prophecy so fequent in Like 1=g and in Acts, dsappear almost eae after the sermon tn the symagogue at Nazareth, Since Fess anointed with the sprit (4:18-19; ‘hes 10:57"38), his deeds are is manifestation, and itis wholly identified with his activity But the twelve and the seventy (Qwo) are able to share in is pro pPhetc minisy of preaching and healing (o:1~2), and when a man responds ro Jesus with a beatitde, hs words ae supplemented rather than comreced (14: tsa)” Thus Luke's multiplication of representations of women Is accompanied by a corresponding limitation of ther roles. Luke is concemed not with changing the satus of women, but withthe appropriate deployment of gender. The sate- es tha Luke uses 0 define the right roles of women also contnbute t0 a onstruction of manliness, One indication ofthis Luke's use ofthe word a, nies (man) as specially male, 38 hero or as husband. Most ofthe other wses {nthe New Testament cone husband, ofa least sexual pariner. The speeches in Acts omtinally open with the adress “men, Israel,” (oe “men, brethren,” fr "men, Athenians). The adress doesnot so much exclude women from its ftdiences as consruct these audiences (the audiences within the narrative, but dso the readers and hearers) a solemn civic assembles" The public aspect of the community corresponds to Lake’ eroicchristology Luke is virtually alone in he New Testament in defining Jesus as wer (Luke 24:19: Acts 2:22), spe cially as"a man, 2 prophet” (et poph), a compilation that probably reflects the language and the heroic props ofthe Deuteronomie history. The word dois used throughout Luke-Aets for heavenly figures” and the heroic martyrs Paul and Stephen ” The gospel, oo, depicts Jesus asthe herokc example of mar- tyrdom by the courage and magnaninty with which he face his death (Luke 23-33-48). In ancient mary iterature, women can also exemplify “manliness” (codva, courage)" But no women are praised for manly virtue in Luke-Acts. ‘Three interrelated concerns are among those that guide Luke's deployment ‘of gender; the public character of the work, the desire to tame and limit proph- cy and the character of Luke's snterest in asceticism. The first then, isthe public character of the two-volume work, Its conception as history set in real time on.188 @ WOMEN, JESUS, AND cosPELs 4 world stage. Sem contentualzes Luke's intrest in gender in terms ofthe Ate conviction tat “the world of meni on, the world of women another” While this apotbegm captures Luke’ careful division and presentation of male and female roles in the community, the cultural and polisel contest of Luke-Act is ‘Roman rater than Ate. The dual nature of Lake's treatment of women corre sponds to the increasing Roman interest in signaling public meanings through appropriations of the domestic world, that is, to the politeal use of “muly values" begun by Augustus" fa the late fist and early second century, pubic fanetions of the women of the imperial family appear to have increased the Jmperial women accompanied Taj, Hadrian, and the Antonines on can palgns." as Drusilla and Bemike do Felix and Agrippa in Aes (Res 24°24, 25. 15, 2). The increasing appearance of mein and couples in Acts (excep for Agrippa and Bernike, marital pairs) probably relates to the heightened prestige and public function of marriage inthe late ist century and ery second cen tury ‘A second concern i the desire tame and limit prophecy. Like appears to have chosen propery a the central explanation for ess (ad, in fit forthe spose and minster) ees is a Bal role at vases with rae case into the god-nspred man of Greek and Roman religion and philosophy Bu lve Jes and the ently Chriss pen tothe care aid agains Pal and Sia in the Roman colony, Philippi: "They are Jews, and protlaim customs Which we are not permited to receive or do, being Romans” (Acts +6:20~21) The autor of Lake-Acts transforms glossolaa from unineligible to universally invligible language in Acs 2:5-12." More importantly, the author restricts the apostolic role by cutting off the revelatory appearances of Jesus with the ascen sion story (1:1-26) and awarding a quasi appearance to Paul (g:1~10). Peter and Pal ae carefully distinguished from a number of Jewish and Samaritan ‘magicians over whom they conspicuously triumph Simon Magus (8:92). the Jeo (5 rasan th sren sin he ew gh See (9 11-20). Luke is clearly addressing the antique prejudice that equates Jews and other “orienals” with magic Anuque prejudice also associated women with ‘magic and with firations with oriental religions: atleast one Roman author saw a woman prophet asthe prototypical purveyor of Judaism to women: No sooner has he pushed off than a pabied Jewess Parking her haybox outside, comes round soliciting alms Ina bresthy whisper She knows and ean interpret “The Laws of Jerusalem: high priestess under the tees A fathfl mediator of heaven on earth. She too Fil er palm, but mote springy. Jews wil sell you Whatever dreams you like fr Few small coppers” 1F this conjunction of Judaism, women, and prophecy in Joven’ mind was shared by others of-the imperial ruling clas (or by the popular mind), it not surprising thatthe author of Luke-Aets sought 0 minimize the undouted participation of women in early Chrisian prophecy as well as to dissociate Christianity from Jude" WOMEN IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW AND LUKE-ACTS 9 189 ‘Ahir factor in tis deployment of gender isthe character of Lake's interest 4m asceticism, Sexual asceticism was by no means always hostle to women, as the story of Theda shows (ee chapers 11, 13, and 1). In fact renunciation of Sexuality could allow for a more egabtarian leadership, Luke Acts provides Anna fs an exemplar of female asceticism, and presumably the virgin daughters of Philip are also to be seen as pratictoners of asceticism.” Luke's revisions of the question about the woman married successively to seven brothers have fee- (Guendy been interpreted as an endorsement of celibacy (20:20~23)” Further, {Tuke retains the prohibition of remarriage while ciminating prohibition of di- vorce (16:18). The wording of the saying assumes that only the behavior of the {ap is at issue, and even this saying functions primarily on the metaphorical evel in Luke” While a husband may leave a wife for God's reign, the reverse is not sated, despite alternatives of leaving both parents and children, sisters and brothers (Luke 14:26, 18:29). As T suggested above, the prospect of a wife leaving a husband was scen a6 an assault on good order and particularly danger cous to 2 comumunity under suspicion of un-Roman activites.” Of particular in terest isthe relation between two sayings in Luke and Gogel of Thoms, Saying 79 [A woman from the crowd sid to im, “Blessed are the womb tht bore you and the breasts tat nourished you" He ald to (her), “Blested are thore who have heard the word of the fer and have erly hept i For there will be diye when you wall ay, ‘Blessed are che ‘wom which have not conceived and the breast which have nt given rik" tm Luke, the exchange of beatinudes appears separately (11:27-28), and the prediction that quotes a third bealtude is a prophecy of the revolt and fall of Jerusalem made to the women who weep for Jesus on the way to the cross (23 29). The conjunction of the sayings in Tiamas constitutes an endorsement of celibacy for women, Seim suggests that i is addressed to the women of Jerusa- Jem who weep ewer Jesus specifically 0 contrast them with the women followers ff Jesus who are without children,” But it may be that Luke was inspired t0 rest the beatiude on the childless as a woe on Jerusalem by the need t0 aid fn explicit endorsement for celibacy for women. While sexual asceticism among ‘omen could enable their paricipation in prophecy and communal leadership, When asceticisin was encouraged for men and discouraged for women, the anti marriage tradition’s misogynist arguments could emerge in the rationale for rnale celibacy. This never quite happens in Luke. But Luke’ version of the ban. ‘quct parable suggests that marrying a wife may hold a man back from the reign (Of God (14:20). When Ananias and Sapphira "Ve tothe holy spirit” by holding ‘back part of the price of a field they sold, they do it jointly as a couple (Acts toto). The story may reflect Luke's concurrence in the view that marrage in- volves a man with material distractions from the world ofthe sprit. “The common factor in al of this that che author includes women to display the good order in the private sphere that the Christians foster, and that makes them the best possible contributors to the public matter (rs pubes), potential céuizens of Rome like Paul—even if, ike Pal, they are so desperately misunder~ Stood. This is not to say that the gospel reflects the reluctant concession of a190 @ WOMEN, JESUS, AND GosPELs persecuted minority to the demands of a more rigid culture, Luke invites the Cristian readers to exactly what he believes to be genuine good order—to what fs safe not only because itis acceptable to Roman order, but also because it constitutes a kind of moral high ground. The Christians’ women are omnipres- ent, but properly behaved. Male and female roles are clearly and appropriately delineated. Women exhibit the excellence of the community by recelving the gift of prophecy, but they do nothing obtrusive with it, They are chaste, and even celibate but their chastity does not threaten marriage (as Theca’s does) or remove them from the proper role of women within the well-ordered family ‘And all of this good order is due to the ordered dispensation of the spirit of God in the laying on ofthe apostles" hands, Conclusion “The double message in Luke becomes conspicuous precisely because Luke has found it necessary to address gender direc, But a double message inheres in all of the gospel Iterature. In all four of the canonical gospels (as in Mary and In Thoma), women have some access to the spirit of prophecy. In all of the ‘gospels, anxiety about sexuality and sexual propriety emerges as an obstacle to ‘women’s ability (o exercise the authority that attends it. Femaleness in antiquity fs defined by sexual contact. In John, Mark, and Matthew, the participation of ‘women in communal prophecy is assumed, where issues of sexuality or gender ae addressed at all, they are articulated im terms of infringements of propriety fr holiness. The exception may be the final chapters of John, which seem to reflect struggles over communal leadership. But if Mary's gender is part of the struggle, this issue is never made explicit. In Luke-Acts, Mery, and Thoms, the Issue is addressed direcly, and with strikingly different results For Luke-Acts, ‘women remain women: their roe in the community deserves careful attention for the proper participation of women attests the good order and restraint of the Christians. For May, women’s leadership, however problematic, rests directly fn the revelations of the savor; no other consideration can intervene, For Thames, femaleness remains an inhibition, but one that can, and must, be overcome Mary becomes male. These varying positions by no means disappeared; they were espoused, rejected, combined, modified, and recombined in the long his tory of Christian attempts to accommodate its necessary and internal “others” and the concomitant history of women’s attempts to accommodate or resistin In retrospect, I want fo return to a question I raised briefly above, the ques tion of whether any of the four canonical gospels could have been the work of 4 woman. This is ultimately an unanswerable question; even the assumption of 1 male persona by Luke does not exclude the possibilty that this Anonymous ‘was a woman. Like Kraemer, I do not believe that 2 woman's authorship would necessarily be detectable by traces in the text, oF that androcentric perspectives tn a text exclude the possibilty that a woman authored it” Obvious), to be able to show that woman wrote one ofthese works would offer the reassurance that women did, indeed, write early Christian books and, even, the central srip- ture of early Christianity. But would it make any difference 10 the interpretation of the texts? On the whole, I have been inclined to argue that it would make ‘very litle difference: the worldview they enshrine is that of the early Christian communities, Allowing the texts to have women authors would only show what must already be assumed: that women, if they welcomed the participation that was permitted them, also in large part accepted the propriety of limitations that gender placed upon them—and taught ito their daughters. This would be most striking in the case of Luke's double message. But recently, my imagination has been stirred by Crossan’s suggestion that the woman author of Mark may have enshrined her signature in the promise thatthe prophet who anointed Jesus will be remembered wherever the gospel is preached. 1 do not, of course, wish to argue that the gospel was written by this woman prophet-—or by any eyewitness f0 Jesus. But it has caused me 10 rethink the ‘question, especially in the case of Mark and John. Mark ends with the silent ‘women running from the empty tomb, and anonymous women figures, espe- ally the Greek woman, offer themselves as ways for the audience place themselves within the narrative, It is possible to postulate an early version of John ending with the figure of Mary Magdalene, charged with the mesage of Jesus? ascension, in which the volces of the Samaritan woman, of Martha and Mary, and of the mother of Jesus were even more prominent, To imagine a ‘woman author of these works does not change the gendered arrangements they reflect But it does east the stories about women as signatures, as ways in which the writer declares herself within the narrative, placing 2 particular emphasis ‘upon women of the final scenes. And this isa speculation that points the cwenti- ceth-century reader to what these gospels certainly had: women readers and women hearers for whom the gender of Mary Magdalene could be good news. NOTES 1 Hlth hse lorem, Bat Se Si: oP ial pti (Bo ton: exon) 97-98. Pane Nery, “Stic Pee” a ow a el ommend brown, bueph A Fuzmper and Rand E Murphy (Englewood CM, N: Pence ual 1988) sb7-95. ep. st. clon Keer se Chin Gol (Pdi: Tiny Prt ineoaonl 1990) abet ° ses the dacs by John Met, "Mato, Gop of" ABD 4604-2; ck Des Kngsory "Mahe Gospel Acowing tin aa i Dine Pa aehemme Gan Paco. Hupeanfanesn, 1996) 661 fy kxeen E Corey. Whom al kid Cat ne Se Tein (Pedy, MA Henao, 1993) tB5-186 se chapter 5 1 hatbony Sarin, stew’ sh Christan Cnty (Chiao: University of Ci cago gga) ao Sal, "The Copel of Mathew td Jovi Chistian Conf tr try fe Mathes Cnty Cn Dey Apts Evi Bah Min meael MD ares 998) 38-6192 @ WOMEN, JRSUS, AND GosFELs 7, See Alan Segal bac Chie: si end Chrseny the Ramin Wl (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pes, 1986); se also Seg, "Matthews jewith Voice.” in Balch Sec Her 3-37 8. Suldarini (noe 6 above) and Segal (note 7 above) adres these ensons in their scusions; Coley (note above) ls les atenuie to the problem, For summary of ‘elaively recent opinions on the sue see Jn Meter, “Mathew” 624-27, 9. The phase that of Wayoe Meeks, The Mol Wha of he Fint Chriss (brary of asly Christianity 6; Pladelpiar Westminster 1986) 136 "0, WD, Doves, The Sing fhe Same nth Meet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966) +4715. The exact beginnings and endings of some sermons are my own revisions ofthe standard ews 1 Aimee Wire, “Gender Roles in Serial Community” in Rach, Sac Hisary ne 12, This uanslaon and all wandlaions in the essay are my own unless otherwise note 13 Corley Print Wen 174 14. See Staanne Dixon The fons Mather (Normn, OK: University af Oktshoma Press, 1988) 168-70 15, Suan Teggar: Ronan Maria Tus Conluges fm the Tine of Cle to he Tne of ‘hin (Oxford: Clarendon, #991) 185-210, 16, John Hull, Relic Maj ent Son Ton (Sues in Biblical Theology, Second Series, 28 London: SCM, 1974) 75-86; Mary Rose D'Angelo, “Theology in Mark snd Q: Abb and “ater sm Context” HER Be (1992) 156-62 17. Amys Levin, "Discharging Responsibly: Matthean Jesus, Bbc Law and Hemorthaging Women” in Teas Nov en Ot: Now Eoin Mate Ss, ed. Mark Allan Powell and David Baur (Alt, GA Scholars Press, 1996) 579-97, See also chaper 6 and D'Angelo, “Gender and Power inthe Gospel of Mark: The Daughter of uirus and ‘Aas of the Mines in Ae Jas Chin ty ed. John C.Cavadin (Note Dame, IN: University of Nore Dame Pes, forthcoming) 18 Arm Til Levine, “Discharging Responsbiiy” 48485 19. Bid. 196-97. 20 Corky, Pine Wi 160-64. 21. Teans Marvin Meyer Q-Thens Fae, John S. Klopenbong, M. Meyer. S. Pater. son, and MG. Seinhuse, edb (Gonom, Ch: Pleride, 1990) #50. 22, Fora discussion of Wisdom chritology in Matthew, sce Celis Deutsch, “Wisdom {in Mathew. Transformation of Symbol” NT 52 (1990) 1547 also Deutch, in Wid od te fy he Wis, chen Dsipaip in Maho 11-26-20 (Sef, UK. SOT, 1987); Desh, Lay Wide, Jous be Sap: ep ad Sc Cate i Mathews Gud (ley Forge, PA: Ty Pres nleraiona, 1996). "25. Simla. Coley, Pn Wier 147-51 24, Wite, “Gender Roles” 105 25 tid 26. Mary Rose D'Angelo, “Remarsage and the Dvorce Sayings Atributed 10 Jesus, in Dione and Remariag: Rg ad Pca Ropes, ed. Willy P Roberts (Kansas iy, MO: Sheed and Ward, 190) 85-84 27, See Kraemer chapters 2 and 3 28. DiAnglo "Remarriage and the Droce Soins” 96-97 29. Shp Heme, Mane 4:6 D'Angelo, "Remarriage and the Divorce Sayings” 3 30. Tega, aan Mariage 288 [WOMEN 188 THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ANDLUKE-ACTS © 193, 51, Se aleo Coney, Prise Wana 158. 432, D'Angelo, "Remarriage and the Divorce Siyings” 96 5, Corley, Pome Wome 152-158 TRUM. Grant, “Marcion, Gospel of" ABD 4:516-20. 33 Richard Pervo and Mikel Parson, Hain be Unty of ak and Acts (Minneapolis, MN: Forres, 1993) 136 This isa modified version ofthe schema described by Hans Conzelmann in The ‘Magy of. Le, trans: Geoffrey Bawell (Nev York: Harper and Row, 1961) 1¢0 ‘37, Constance F. Pavey, “The Theology and Leadership of Women in the New Testa ment in Reign ab Sam, ed. Rosemary Radford Ructher (New York: Simon and Schus- fer, 1974) 139-46: Bagene H, Maly, "Women and the Gospel of Luke” Bal Tlogy fuleia vo (6986) 99-104 and the Merature cited therein: also Celeste J. Rosse, "Prophets and Disciples in Luke's Infancy Narrative,” Bible Thay 22/6 (1984) 361-65, Ronaie Ryan, “The Women from Galilee and Discipleship in Luke.” Bila Talgy Ballin 5 (1985) $659; Quentin Quesnel, “The Women at Luke's Supper” in Pia sus ia Takes, eR} Css and J Scharper (Mayol, NY. Orbis. 1.983) 69-79: Jane Via, "Women, the Dicipleship of Service and the Early Chistian Ritual Meal inthe Gospel of Luke,” St. ake rel Thao 29 (198s) 37-60: Via. “Women in the Gospel of Luke" in Wome the Wis Rigas Ps ad Peete, Ursula King (New York Paragon Howe, 1987) 38-5 38. For catler real views of Luks, sce Baabeth Tedow, Wem and Missy nthe New ‘tsument (Neve Yor: Paul, 1980) ror; Esabeth Schsler Forenza, "Word, Spirit and Power Women in Ealy Christan Communes," in Woon ef Sit fel Lit in he Jensh and Chien Tait, Rosemary Radford Ruether and Eleanor McLaughlin (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979) §2, a. 1r4; Schisser Forenza, In Mamay of He A Frnt Thelgil Rens ef Chto Origins (New York: Crosroad, 1983) 161; and Sehisser Fiorenza, "A Feminist Critical Interpretation for Liberation: Martha and Mary: uke v0:38-42.” Regn ad Iti ile $ (1986) 21-35, 49. From the eof Turid Kalen Seim’s book, The Dowble Masog: Rats of Genki Lakes (Nase, TM: Abingdon, 1994); see also Seis commentary in Elsabeth Schos ler Forenza Shing the Spurs lune 2, A Finis Carmtry (New York Crossroad, 1994). Avery similar ance akea by my abel, “Women in Lake-Acs: A Redacional View" JBL 109 (1990) 443-61, “des This technique was fit dscused by Parvey ("Theology and teadership of women” 139-40) She pits out that the paring technique was noted by Jeremis In “The Panbles of fesus (note 59. "et On the technique, see Charles Talbert, Weary Pers, Thea Thane othe Gat of tke-Ats (Misoula, MT: Socety of Bible! Ltertue; dsributed by Schobs Press, Tora). CE Act 538-9, wath 2:25, 1596, 20.27. “pt Jane © Schaberg, “Lake.” in Te Wont: Be Cormatay, ed. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H, Ringe (Louse, KY; Westminser/John Knox, 1992) 276-92 “43, For a more extensive dicision ofthe pairs and their function. see D'Angelo, ‘Women im Luke-Acts” 443-48. “ta, On benefiction in Lk. sce D'Angelo, “Women in Lake Acs” 49. 485. See tilly, Sem, Dale Mesa 111-12 416. Seim, Deal Mes 229-48; ee also Clarice Martin, “The Acs ofthe Apotes in Schassler lorenzs, Seri th Srpsrs 780-82. “47 See caper 1, ao ehaper 13 Below {28 Sei, Deal Mesoe 221-48, 4. See chapter 15194 © WOMEN, JESUS, AND GOSPELS ‘60, See also Martin, "Aes of the Aposls” 7865-87; Int Richter Reimer, Wine i the dct othe Ape: Rein Uberti Psp (Minneapolis, MN: Fores, 1995) 248 49, argues agains “competion” berween Agabus and de four woman. S11 Mary Rove D’Angeo, "Bessed the One Who Reads and Those Who Hear: The Beatitudes in Their Biblical Contexts," New Recs othe Bites, ed. Francis A Ego (Proceedings of the Theology insite of Vilanova University; Villanova, PA, 1995) 56 61, 7678. ‘ga, D'Angelo, “Blessed the One Who Reads” 77 SSB. AG 1106, compare 1514, 2:14, 22,29, 475 525 $55: 722, 6 14:45: EST. 7:22, 19:08. 355 24:28, 2201 A5Nt, 6 26-24; B70, BE 25, 26: 28:17, ‘54. D'Angelo, "Women in Luke-Acts" 4497450. [Fe Ande appeats in John 1330 (he Bap prophecy), also Eph 4:13 16 lake 9:30, 525 24:4; 110; Aes 10:50: 169; F019 17 Ress 6255 U1 ABE 2GEAT. 305 254, 17 [SH See the apostrophe 10 the mother in 4 Mace 15:30: "O more noble than males for restraint and more manly thn men for endurance!” See Bizabeth Castel, “Virginity an is Meaning for Women's Sexuality im Ealy Christan” JR 2 (1986) 74-78; Mary Rose D'Angelo, “Beyond Father and Son,” ese Mision: An Anda rte Church ed. Brown and Lind (Burbngton, Ontario, Canada: Trinity 198s) tog. 116, mn. 10-11 "53. Sem, Doe Meg 24 {o. Ie might be even beter to say thats 8 both Roman and atticizing: as Tu eins (The Salley SA un eo Naraine Recon inthe Fay Chrisie Bn [New York Routledge, 1995] 47-50, 66-68) points out, the second century saw 2 reveal of interest in atleast the forme of ctaenship inthe Greek ces: bus, inthe case of Luke, interest in patois for Athens (Act 17) and Ephesvs (Act 19:25-40) 1 expleily subord- fated fo the atactions of Roma citizenship (Act 16-19-40, 22:22-29) 150, fn. Treglar, Ran Maa 294-98; Kel Calishy, Ages Cau Aa nepcti ino= Auciee (Princeton, Ne Pinceton University Pes, 1996) 128-40, (2. JY BD. Balsdom (amen Women, Thar Hstey ad Habis [New York: Barnes and Noble, 198; fit published New York: John C. Day, 1962] 63) regards this asa sigaifi- cant change over earlier imperial price He diseusses it under “female emancipation ~ but iacrully manifests the new Importance of marriage escrbed by Peter Bowe ("Tate Antiquity The "Welborn? Fea” in A Hlaey of Pa ie, Whne 1, Fm Pn Rae: ‘yuan, ed, Foul Veyne [Cambrdge, MA: Bellnap, 1987] 247-48), but atribured to the age ofthe Antonine 65 The mention of women of socal prestige oF rlauvely high stars (se also Acts 17eq and ¢ 112 and Johanna in Lake 8:2) may seve pedagogical purposes by adding 2 touch of worldly glamour (asthe Romane af up and Ach, che ts of [Pou and) The, and the ory of Cypreseal stin do for ater Cristiani) ‘oq See Peter Brown, “Late Annguity (65. See Krister tena, Plame for and Ge (Philadelphia: Foress, 1976) 116 18; Hans Conzelmann, Ads af he Apes Commentary an the Aas ofthe Asis. on Jay Epp with Christopher R. Mathews, ans James Limburg, A. Thomas Krabel, and Donald H. jel, Hermeneia (Phladephis: Forres, 1987) 16-16. (6, B.A. Masti, "Scata the High Pres.” JTS 27 (1976) 405-12 67, Sa 6541-548; tans. Peter Green, The Sate Sts: (Haemondsword, UK: Pen in, 1969) 147-98 (68, DiAngel, "Women in Luke-Acs” 451-53, 457-60. 69, Sem, Dale Meg 229-48 72. tid. 2089, ee WOMEN IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW AND LUKE-ACTS 0 195 71. DiAngelo, “Remarriage and the Divorce Sayings” 97-98. 72. See chapter 6 yx. Trans, Thomas ©. Lamba, Neg Hanmali Lary i Baglib, gr rer ediions ed James M. Robinson (San Francisco: HarperSunFransico, 1988) 135 74, Sen, Due Mesa 204° JS. Ross S. Kraemer,“ Wornen’s Authorship of Jewish and Christian Literature in the ‘Greco-Roman Period,” ka “Whe te Ti" Nav especies on ish Wines nth Ge-Raran Pleo ArmyJil Levine, Ey din ns Lite | (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991) 235 "76. John Dominic Crossan, The Hisar: The feof « Matera evs Pant (San ‘rancico: HarperSanFranciac, 1991) 416.