Women in the Gospel of Luke within the Context of Early Judaism

7 March 2022

       In the context of early Judaism, one assumption concerning the role and status of women is that when they were ascribed titles of authority, the titles must have been purely honorific – either by virtue of their being a woman or because they simply received the title from their husbands. In “Women as Heads of Synagogues,” Brooten provides three examples of inscriptions where the names of women are accompanied by the title archisynagogos/archisynagogissa without any mention of a husband. Brooten then reconstructs the role of synagogue head using inscriptional and literary evidence to suggest that “[w]omen synagogue heads, like their male counterparts, were active in administration and exhortation” (32). In the beginning of the Gospel of Luke, there is a woman who similarly is attributed a title of authority and acts in the power vested in the title: 

There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem (Luke 2:36-38). 

Here, the author of the Gospel not only calls Anna a prophet, but also shows that she acts like a prophet in her lifestyle and her speech. As a widow, she finds her sense of agency separate from her husband. 

    A common misconception about the relationship between women and the Pharisees of early Judaism is that Pharisaism was irrelevant or even ill-disposed to women. As Tal Ilan describes, it seems that aristocratic women were actually attracted to Pharisaism – not because the Pharisees’ legislation concerning women was positive, but because they were an opposition group that simply accepted the support of women with a neutral attitude. In contrast to the Pharisees, Jesus is often viewed as more welcoming and positive toward women. In Luke 8, the author mentions that there were women (namely Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna) who were traveling with Jesus and His disciples and “were helping to support them out of their own means” (v. 3). Much like the aristocratic women who supported Pharisaism, these women possess independent wealth and exercise the autonomy to use it how they please. Perhaps the involvement of women in Jesus’ ministry relied not on Jesus’ personal halakhah for women, but on the fact that Christianity, like Pharisaism, was an opposition movement that needed financial support wherever it could find it. 

    When considering the interaction of women with the Torah in early Judaism, the typical assumption is that women were simply not allowed to study the Torah. Despite the prescriptive laws about women in early Jewish texts, descriptive elements of the same writings suggest that, at least according to some rabbis, women were able to actively read the Torah. For example, the Tosefta reads, “Zavim, Zavot, Niddot, and women who gave birth are permitted to read the Torah and to learn Mishna, Midrash, laws, and Aggadot'' (Tosefta Berakhot 2:12). Given the preconceived notion that the exclusion of women from Torah study was absolute, Jesus’ inclusion of women as recipients of His teachings is often seen as both surprising and praiseworthy. When Jesus visits Mary and Martha’s home in Luke 8, Mary is described as the one “who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said” (v. 39), and Jesus even affirms her actions by telling Martha that “‘Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her’” (v. 42). Considering the reality that some rabbis did permit women to study the Torah, Jesus’ inclusion of Mary may have not been as unique and unexpected as it seems. However, Jesus’ implication that religious study is “better” for a woman than housework is still quite jarring, as it challenges the close association between women and the house.

    In the world of early Judaism, “wife” was almost synonymous with “house.” Baker explains how the person of a woman was essentially equated with the place of a house, as the single word bayit was used for both “wife” and “house” in the Mishnah’s original Hebrew (49). The women-as-house image speaks to more than just the affairs of the domestic realm being considered “proper” for a woman, for even when outside of the home, the house was still part of who and what a woman was. Baker writes, “woman-as-house is instructed in the examination, purification, and setting in order of that edifice” (57). Jewish wives embodied the house and internalized the domesticity and habits associated with its regulation. Baker also quells the common presupposition that homes were private, intimate spaces that were distinctly separate from public, social spaces: “the people occupying such dwellings… were, while in their domestic environment, in a fundamentally social environment” (37). Considering the inextricable attachment of women to the house, it is unsurprising that when Luke includes a parable with feminine imagery as a mirror to the Parable of the Lost Sheep, the illustration depicts a woman in a house: “‘Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin’’” (Luke 15:8-9). Just as Jewish women were responsible for the careful regulation of their homes and their bodies, in this parable Jesus’ rhetorical question implies that the woman was expected to dutifully care for her house. The illustration also demonstrates the social nature of the household unit, as the woman immediately calls together her neighbors to celebrate the locating of her coin. 

    A widely accepted view of women in early Judaism is that they were completely oppressed and excluded from power and influence. The story of Judith, a Jewish woman who left her besieged city to beguile and behead an Assaryian general, challenges the assumption that women were totally denied any level of influence or sense of agency; for that even if Judith is a fictional woman, one must still question what type of community would construct a woman who is empowered in this way. When Judith’s character is introduced in the eighth chapter, the author repeatedly mentions that Judith is a widow: “Judith was living as a widow in her home for three years and four months” (v. 4), “and wore widow’s clothing” (v. 5), “She fasted all the days of her widowhood” (v. 6). In view of the apparent importance of Judith’s widowhood to the author, one might assume that her ability to obtain influence and agency is rooted in her status as a widow. Despite being vulnerable in a particarhical society without a husband, widowhood granted women a greater sense of freedom and agency than they found within marriages. This concept is similarly depicted in Luke 18:1-8, as Jesus tells the Parable of the Persistent Widow, saying that “there was a widow in that town who kept coming to [the judge] with the plea, ‘Grant me justice against my adversary’” (v. 3). Here, it is evident that the widow freely moved throughout the town, which is an ability that would have likely been accorded by the “invisibility” created by her mourning/widow’s clothes. Additionally, this fictional widow has the agency to speak directly to the judge and advocate for the correction of her own injustices. 

    By giving women a more prominent place within his Gospel, I think Luke was trying to communicate to his audience that despite the androcentric society it emerged within, Christianity was not limited to only men. In early Judaism, women were not granted ubiquitous, equal participation in religious and spiritual activities, whether that be anything from the study of Torah to the obedience of festival-related commandments. By portraying Jesus as someone who interacted with women, healed women, accepted the financial support of women, and used women/female imagery to communicate metaphors of God in His parables, Luke may have been trying to set Christianity apart from other sects of Judaism that were more strictly limiting to women. Instead of focusing on the exclusivity of purity and Temple rules, Luke’s central focus is on the inclusivity of Jesus. 

    Based on my new understanding of the status, roles, and functions of women within early Judaism, I have challenged my previous assumption that when women appear in Jewish and Christian texts, they appear as exceptions to the social norms of the world of early Judaism. My understanding of women in early Judaism has caused me to question that if so many “exceptions” appear, usually in a manner that seems quite unexceptional to the author of the text, at what point do we stop considering them exceptions and start viewing them as rules to the community’s customs? Even when I had learned about women having bishop-like roles in early Christianity in Dr. Hovland’s Women in Christian History course, I never once questioned if these “exceptions” could have actually just been a pattern of common behavior among women during this time period. Another way my new understandings change the way I read the New Testament is by showing me that the way Jesus interacted with women may not be as out of the ordinary as I have been taught to think. Instead of viewing Jesus as some type of extraordinary proto-feminist, I now understand that He could have just been doing what other rabbis already were: simply yielding to the inclusion of women.