|
Writing a paper for New Testament...the subject is ideological criticism. There's an interesting technique in that area known as historical reconstruction. The basic idea is that certain elements of the gospel story (the role of women, for instance) have been downplayed by the dominantly male voice of the church. We know that women served as leaders in the early church. Paul refers to "Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae," (Romans 16:1) and calls her a "benefactor of many." Those two words, deacon and benefactor, were translated in the King James version as "servant" and "succourer." While the word deacon is Greek for minister, and to minister is to serve, the word is otherwise translated as "deacon" or "minister" when it refers to men. To succour has a mothering flavour, while a benefactor indicates substantial support. They're similar words, but with different connotations. Why the translation problem? The translators were, of course, men. They lived in a society in which women simply didn't have leadership roles in the church. It wasn't part of their reality, so these fellows couldn't translate the text properly. Not that they didn't...they couldn't. It simply wasn't in their paradigm. Turning to the gospels, we see evidence that women were extremely important to Jesus' ministry. Witness Luke 8:1-3... Soon afterwards he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources. So a group of women were with Jesus, helping to sustain his ministry and followers. They had been cured, presumably by Jesus. They're part of the story, yet after this mention they disappear for fifteen chapters. We next see them at the foot of the cross - Luke 23:49... But all his acquaintances, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things. So they've been there all along. Why don't we hear about them? Two ideas - 1) because the author and audience for this particular telling were men and they related best to the male characters. 2) maybe we do hear about them, just not specifically. Huh? Hang on...we need to look at some more verses. Luke 23:55 - 24:10... The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment. But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in, they did not find the body. While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them. The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again." Then they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. The italics are mine...they point to the presence of the women throughout the ministry. "They remembered his words" means that the women who found the empty tomb were also present when Jesus foretold his death and resurrection. They were there all along. That alone is pretty cool, but it gets better. Let's go to Luke 9:18-22... Once when Jesus was praying alone, with only the disciples near him, he asked them, "Who do the crowds say that I am?" They answered, "John the Baptist; but others, Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has arisen." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered, "The Messiah of God." He sternly ordered and commanded them not to tell anyone, saying, "The Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised." In all of Luke, this is one of only two times when Jesus predicts his death and resurrection. The other is in Luke 18:31-34, but in that instance Jesus tells only "the twelve." So if the women heard Jesus predict his death and resurrection, they heard it in 9:22. But look again at that beginning... Once when Jesus was praying alone, with only the disciples near him... So if the women were there, as they must have been, they were considered disciples. We're used to thinking of the disciples as only the twelve, but it is clear from 18:31 that the twelve were a specific group within Jesus' disciples. Following this logic, it can be assumed that any time Luke talks about "the disciples" without further specification, the group in question includes those same women from 8:1-3. "Some women" turn out to be vital participants in Christ's ministry, a tradition reclaimed by proper translation and a little detective work. You will note that I stayed entirely within Luke to cess this out. Obviously, you can't cross into separate gospels in this sort of work...Luke can't be held responsible for what Matthew writes, nor the other way around. The other gospels have similar passages, of course, and within them one can find plenty more evidence that women were among Jesus' trusted friends. This kind of stuff is fascinating, eh? |
