McCabe, Elizabeth A. - Women in The Biblical World - A Survey of Old and New Testament Perspectives. (Vol. 1) - University Press of America (2009)

Women in
the Biblical world
A Survey of Old and

New Testament Perspectives
Edited by
Elizabeth A. McCabe
UNIVERSITY PRESS OF AMERICA,® INC.

Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK
Copyright © 2009 by University Press of America,® Inc.
4501 Forbes Boulevard

Suite 200
Lanham, Maryland 20706
UPA Acquisitions Department (301) 459-3366
Estover Road
Plymouth PL6 7PY
United Kingdom
All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
British Library Cataloging in Publication Information Available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2009931150

ISBN: 978-0-7618-4677-2 (paperback : alk. paper)
eISBN: 978-0-7618-4678-9
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—
Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992
Soli Deo Gloria
“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female;
for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).
Foreword
William R. Baker
Professor of New Testament
Cincinnati Christian University—Graduate School
Editor, Stone-Campbell Journal
Questions about the role of women in society pervade every culture in every time. Despite numerous
advances for women in Western societies, many glass ceilings remain to be shattered, never more so
than with regard to the church. In the global South and Eastern societies, and those dominated by
Islamic faith, the situation is even more daunting, as the position of women seems to have hardly
changed from that in biblical times. What are we to do to make any advance at all in any culture at any
time? As both believers and non-believers have done for centuries, we still look to the Bible for help
to discern the complexity of this issue and others.
Given all the articles and books that have appeared in the past thirty years of research on the topic
of women in society, and especially in the church, one might wonder whether room remains for yet
another volume of articles to approach this topic with respect to the perspectives in the Bible. The
answer is a resounding “Yes!” because the topic is so complex and so crucial that no stone should be
left unturned as we look toward continuing to advance the place of women in global societies. The
fact is that the Bible’s voice is not singular on this topic. The way women are treated in fashioning the
biblical narrative varies significantly from one situation to another. Plus, fresh data about ancient
cultures and fresh ways of approaching these narratives continue to enlighten the picture and provide
help toward consensus interpretations at various places.
This new volume on women in the biblical world welcomes several newcomers to the discussion.
That is not a negative because what they also bring is new research, new eyes and new minds to the
task that too easily grows stale. Wisely, this volume does not try to cover every place in the Bible that
women appear. It is selective in treating women we might expect in a volume like this, like Phoebe
and Junia, but it surprises with treatments of Achsah, the Syro-Phoenician woman, and the young
widows in the Pastorals. It further surprises with explorations into the birth of daughters and blessing
of Jesus’ “first birth.”
Readers will be gratified with the numerous new insights into old passages bolstered by careful
research and respectful sifting of interpretations. I am personally pleased to see this volume that has
been coordinated by a former student at Cincinnati Bible Seminary, who displays in this volume—as
she always has—a passion for understanding the Bible through cultural studies combined with deep
research into the topic. This volume is yet another outstanding achievement that warrants praise from
her friends, colleagues, and family.
Preface
After attending the Midwest Society of Biblical Literature Conference in February 2008, I was
driving up to Ohio State University for a rare book on Artemis at Ephesus. Along my journey on I-71
North, I felt the Lord placing the task on my heart of editing a book about women and the Bible. My
first thought was actually, “How I could edit a book? I’ve never done anything like that before.” But I
felt confident after my recent appointment as co-chair of “Gender Studies in the Bible” at the 2009
Midwest SBL to at least embark on the task. Although it seemed a daunting task at first (rejection,
unfortunately, was part of the process), I soon recruited many biblical scholars who wanted to
contribute to my cause. It took a few months (and lots of prayer!) until I finally came up with the list
of contributors that I am featuring in this volume. I am proud of their contributions and am very
grateful that they agreed to share in this adventure.
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I want to thank God who truly gave me this idea and has faithfully brought it to
completion. This work would never have been birthed into being if God did not ordain it.
Second, I want to thank all the contributors who agreed to be a part of this volume. This work
would not have been possible without your help. I truly am grateful for each and every one of you.
Your contributions are to be applauded, for they have all exceeded my expectations.
Thanks also to University Press of America, which has seen the promise and potential of this work
in biblical studies. A personal thanks also goes to Barbara who has put forth effort in proofreading
this manuscript and has overseen the process of this book since the beginning. Thanks also to Mr.
Rooney, who has been a faithful friend and supporter throughout the duration of this volume. I also
thank those who have prayed for this volume. This volume is a testimony to the handiwork and
creativity of God. To Him be all the glory.
Abbreviations
AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D.N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York, 1992
Aeg Aegyptus
ALUOS Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society
ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commentaries
ASV American Standard Version
Bauer, W., W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
BAG
Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, 1957
Bauer, W., W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker. Greek-English Lexicon of the New
BAGD
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Chicago, 1979.
BAR Biblical Archaeology Review
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Danker, F.W., W. Bauer, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New
BDAG
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, 2000
Brown, G., S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
BDB
Testament. Oxford, 1907
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Eiliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart, 1983
BibInt Biblical Interpretation
BJS Brown Judaic Studies
BT The Bible Translator
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CEV Contemporary English Version
ChrCent Christian Century
Comm. in Ep.
Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos
ad Rom.
Comm. Rom. Commentarii in Romanos
CTQ Concordia Theological Quarterly
Dial. mort. Dialogi mortuorum
Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by H. Balz, G. Schneider. ET. Grand
EDNT
Rapids, 1990–1993
EG Epigrafia Graeca
Ep. Epistulae
Ep. ad Rom. Epistula ad Romanos
ESV English Standard Version
ET English translation
Expositio in
Expositio in Epistolam ad Romanos
Ep. ad Rom.
ExpTim Expository Times
FF Foundations and Facets
GNB Good News Bible
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament
Hom. Rom. Homiliae in epistulam ad Romanos
HTR Harvard Theological Review
ICC International Critical Commentary
Inschriften griechischer StWdte aus Kleinasien XI–XVII. Die Inschriften von Ephesos I–VIII.
I. Eph.
Edited by H. Wankel, C. Börker, R. Merkelbach et al. Bonn, 1979–1984
In Ep. ad
In Epistolam ad Romanos
Rom.
Int Interpretation
Interpretatio
Interpretatio Epistolae ad Romanos
Ep. ad Rom.
ITQ Irish Theological Quarterly
JB Jerusalem Bible
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JFSR Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Joüon, P. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols.
Joüon
Subsidia biblica 14/1-2. Rome, 2003
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
KJV King James Version
LB Living Bible
LEC Library of Early Christianity
LCL Loeb Classical Library
Liddell, H.G., R. Scott, H.S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised
LSJ
supplement. Oxford, 1996
LTJ Lutheran Theological Journal
LXX Septuagint
LW Luther’s Works
m. Mishnah
Merc. cond. De mercede conductis
Moulton, J.H., and G. Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London, 1930.
MM Reprint, Peabody Mass., 1997
MSG The Message

MT Masoretic Text
NAB New American Bible
NAC New American Commentary
NAS New American Standard
NCV New Century Version
NEB New English Bible
New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Edited by G.H.R. Horsley and S. Llewelyn.
NewDocs
North Ryde, N.S.W., 1981–
NIB The New Interpreter’s Bible
NIBC New International Biblical Commentary
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
Nid. Niddah
NIV New International Version
NJB New Jerusalem Bible
NKJV New King James Version
NLT New Living Translation
NNT Noli New Testament
NovT Novum Testamentum
NPNF1 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
NTS New Testament Series
NTS New Testament Studies
OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën
PG Patrologia graeca. Edited by J. -P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857–1886
Papyri graecae magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. Edited by K. Preisendanz. Leipzig,
PGM
1928-1932
PL Patrologia latina. Edited by J.-P Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1844–1864
Plin. Pliny (the Younger)
P.Med.Bar. 1 Papyri Mediolanenses Barelli 1
PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies
REB Revised English Bible
rec. recensuit
RNAB Revised New American Bible
RSV Revised Standard Version
RV Revised Version
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBLABS Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and Biblical Studies
SHR Studies in the History of Religions
SPCK Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
STAR Studies in Theology and Religion
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
Them. Themelios
TJT Toronto Journal of Theology
TNIV Today’s New International Version
TRINJ NS Trinity Journal New Series
UBS United Bible Societies
VT Vetus Testamentum
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WCC World Council of Churches
WTJ Westminster Theological Journal
WW Word and World
YLT Young’s Literal Translation
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
About the Contributors
Lynn B.E. Jencks is currently a doctoral student at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois in
Medieval Christianity, focusing on the roles, power, and oppression of women in the medieval
church. She has been named a National Merit Scholar and Washington Scholar before she began her
university studies, and has earned the title of President’s Scholar at Pacific Lutheran University and
St. Michael’s College Scholar at University of Toronto during her undergraduate work in the field of
Celtic Studies. After earning her B.A. at Fairhaven College at Western Washington University, she
completed an M.A. in Theology at Xavier University in Cincinnati in May of 2008. Works completed
for this degree program include the article in the current publication, a presentation at the Eastern
Great Lakes Bible Society Annual Meeting in 2007, a paper entitled “Everardus Bogardus’ Ministry
to Enslaved Africans in New Amsterdam, 1633-1647” which was presented at the Midwest
American Academy of Religion Regional Meeting in 2008, and her Master’s thesis,” ‘Bibles for the
Poor?’: British Medieval Parish Church Stained Glass as Locus for the Interests of the Wealthy.”
Lee A. Johnson is an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies in the Riley Chair of Biblical
Interpretation at the Methodist Theological School in Ohio. She specializes in Pauline Studies,
particularly Paul’s letters to the Corinthian community. She has published articles in Catholic
Biblical Quarterly, Biblical Interpretation, and Biblical Theology Bulletin, as well as contributing
to a volume entitled Religious Rivalries and the Struggle for Success in Caesarea Maritima. She is
currently completing a manuscript on Paul and the Corinthian correspondence. Johnson has presented
papers at the regional and national meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature and at the Canadian
Society of Biblical Literature meetings. She is also an active member of the Context Group, which
applies social-science models to Biblical texts. Johnson has also been honored as the 2007 Society of
Biblical Literature Eastern Great Lakes Regional Scholar.
Rev. Karen Fitz La Barge is the Minister of Lifelong Learning at Central Reformed Church in Grand
Rapids, MI where she serves as a teacher and a preacher among other roles. She presented “Women,
the Prominent Apostles! The Scriptural Evidence for Women in Leadership” at the Women’s
Ordination Worldwide Conference in 2005. In addition, her article, “Who Prepared the Feast?
Women Disciples Prepare the Passover in Mark 14:12-17” appeared in the Proceedings of the
Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies in 2005. Her current contribution in this volume
was presented at the Midwest Society of Biblical Literature in 2008.
William L. Lyons is an Associate Professor of Religion at Regent University in Virginia Beach, VA.
He received his Ph.D. in Religions of Western Antiquity from Florida State University. The focus of
his current research is warfare in the Bible and just war studies. He has also written on human
sacrifice and war in the Hebrew Bible (including ḥērem; the so-called “holy war”; and human
sacrifice); ancient Near Eastern thought; Old Testament character ethics; biblical hermeneutics
(including feminist, rabbinic, and modern evangelical perspectives); and Wisdom literature.
Elizabeth A. McCabe is a doctoral candidate at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, OH. She
received an M.A. in Biblical Studies at Cincinnati Christian University with a dual concentration in
Old Testament and New Testament. McCabe also received the Stone-Campbell’s Journal Promising
Scholar Award of 2005. She is the author of the 2008 book, An Examination of the Isis Cult with
Preliminary Exploration into New Testament Studies. She has also recently been appointed co-chair
of “Gender Studies and the Bible” in the Midwest Society of Biblical Literature. McCabe has
presented at the Biblical Studies Forum at Cincinnati Christian University, the Stone-Campbell
Journal Conference, the Evangelical Theological Society, and the regional as well as national level of
the Society of Biblical Literature.
Julie Faith Parker, an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church, is currently completing her
Ph.D. in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible at Yale University. The author of four books, she is especially
interested in feminist and child-centered interpretation of texts. She recently published a feminist
interpretation of Ugaritic narrative poetry in Ugarit Forschungen (vol. 38), and is co-founder of the
“Children in the Biblical World” section of the Society of Biblical Literature.
Victoria Phillips is an Associate Professor of Religion at West Virginia Wesleyan College. She holds
a B.A. in Liberal Arts from St. John’s College, an M.T.S. from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D.
in Religion from Vanderbilt University. Her research areas include feminist biblical criticism, women
and social change, and Jewish-Christian relations. Phillips has published articles in A Feminist
Companion to Mark, the Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, as well as in Transforming
Encounters: Re-visioning Jesus and Women. She also helped to design and implement Equipping the
Saints, a diocesan education program for locally trained lay and ordained leadership in the Episcopal
Diocese of West Virginia.
Tammi J. Schneider is a Professor of Religion at Claremont Graduate University. She received her
doctorate in Ancient History from the University of Pennsylvania. Her books include Mothers of
Promise: Women in the Book of Genesis (Baker Academic, 2008), Sarah: Mother of Nations (The
Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004), and Judges in the Berit Olam Series (Liturgical
Press, 2000). She has worked at a number of archaeological sites including: Tel Miqne/Ekron, Tel es-
Safi, Tel Harasim, and Tel el-Far’ah (South). She is also the editor for the ancient Near East section
of the Religious Studies Review and Vice President of Membership for the American Schools of
Oriental Research.
Hope Stephenson is currently a Marquand Scholar at Yale Divinity School of Yale University and
will earn an M.A. in Religion with a Bible concentration. She holds a B.A. in Theological Studies
from Saint Louis University in St. Louis, MO. In 2008, she presented a paper entitled “The Evidence
for Junia as a Woman Apostle (Rom 16:7): The Implications for Interpreting 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1
Tim 2:9-15” at the Society of Biblical Literature Central States Region Annual Meeting. Also that
year, she received the Peter Verhaegen, S.J. Award from Saint Louis University for outstanding
theological research.
Gail PC. Streete is currently the W.J. Millard Professor of Religious Studies and Chair of the
Religious Studies Department at Rhodes College. She has taught at a number of colleges and
universities, including the Harvard Divinity School, the College of William and Mary, Drew
University, and Penn State University. Streete received her M.A. in Classical Studies from SUNY at
Buffalo in 1973 and her Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Drew University in 1983. She is the author of
numerous articles on women and early Christianity, including articles in the Encyclopedia of
Marriage, Courtship and Sexuality (Greenwood Press, 2007) and three books, The Divine Man
(Peter Lang, 1987), Her Image of Salvation (Westminster John Knox, 1992), and The Strange
Woman (Westminster John Knox, 1997). A fourth book, Redeemed Bodies, is under contract with
Westminster John Knox Press.
1
Answers to Unresolved Questions: A Closer
Look at Eve and Adam in Genesis 2-3
Elizabeth A. McCabe
When reading the first few chapters of the Bible, more questions arise than answers, especially for
those who are attempting to reconcile the role of Eve and Adam regarding gender equality and the fall
of humankind. Here’s a list of common questions with which modern readers wrestle:
“Is a masculine term used to designate humankind?”

“Are man and woman equal from God’s perspective?”
“Is Adam superior to Eve because he is created first?”
“Is Eve responsible for the fall of humankind?”
“Is Eve the ‘helper’ of Adam?”
“Does equality exist in the creation account?”
“Does the serpent address Eve alone in the temptation?”
“Is Adam present with Eve when she is being tempted by the serpent?”
“How does God honor the woman in Gen 3:15?”
“Is the husband ruling over the wife in Gen 3:16 a command of God?”
“Is the judgment of Adam more severe than the judgment of Eve?”
“Does the act of naming Eve imply subordination?”
This chapter will not only answer all of the above questions, but will also reveal facets of Genesis
that are often either ignored or masked in today’s English translations. For instance, few readers
realize that Adam is present with Eve in her encounter with the serpent. The serpent, also, addresses
both the woman and man in attempting to deceive Eve.
Before embarking on a quest through the pages of Genesis, it is enlightening to read Alvera
Mickelsen’s words. According to Mickelsen, “Theologians in days past have ‘read into’ the Genesis
account many faulty ideas—the woman is less human than man; that all sin is due to woman,” and so
forth. But these ideas are birthed with a “preconceived proposition” and then the Bible is interpreted
“in light of this proposition.”1 These perspectives have inadvertently been woven in with the text.
This chapter will dismantle such notions in the biblical text by examining the Hebrew text itself while
engaging in biblical scholarship to provide a fresh perspective on words written ages ago. With this
stated, it is time to begin with our first question:
QUESTION: IS A MASCULINE TERM USED TO
DESIGNATE HUMANKIND? ANSWER: NO.
The first mention of the creation of human beings in the Bible is given in Gen 1:26. It reads, “Then
God said, “Let us make humankind (‫ )אדם‬in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the
wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”2 The word in
discussion, ‫אדם‬, often translated as “man,”3 is thus thought to express masculinity. However, ‫אדם‬
“does not automatically suggest maleness, especially not without the prefix ‫בן‬, ‘son of,’ and so the
traditional rendering ‘man’ is misleading.”4 The word ‫ אדם‬as given here is simply in reference to
humankind.5 This phenomenon can be noted in Gen 1:27 where the author defines ‫אדם‬: “So God
created humankind (‫ )אדם‬in His image, in the image of God He created them; male (‫ )זכר‬and female
(‫ )נקבה‬He created them.”6 Genesis 5:2 also defines ‫ אדם‬as follows: “Male (‫ )זכר‬and female (‫ )נקבה‬He
created them, and He blessed them and named them humankind (‫ )אדם‬when they were created.”
‫ אדם‬is utilized by the author because of the limitations of the Hebrew language in denoting
“humankind.” The only other possible Hebrew word is ‫עם‬, but this word has its own restrictions,
namely that is rendered as people, inhabitants, or relatives. In a similar manner, the LXX echoes the
MT. The LXX confirms the gender neutrality conveyed in ‫אדם‬, for it uses the word ἄυθρωποζ to
describe both man and woman in Gen 1:26-27. If the masculine gender was being emphasized, ἀυὴρ
would have been used or ‘Aδάμ.
In other words, ‫ אדם‬is a gender neutral term and is utilized by the author to convey both man and
woman. The confusion over ‫ אדם‬is that it is also translated as “Adam” or “man.” However, since ‫אדם‬
is also used as “humankind” (clearly a gender neutral term), it is not accurate to conclude that ‫ אדם‬is a
masculine term.
QUESTION: ARE MAN AND WOMAN EQUAL
FROM GOD’S PERSPECTIVE? ANSWER:
ABSOLUTELY.
First and foremost, both man and woman are created in the image of God (Gen 1:26). Eve and Adam
are fashioned by the Creator Himself, both bearing His very image. Thus, not even a hint of inequality
exists in the creation of man and woman. God also blesses both man and woman in Gen 1:28. One
gender is not given preferential treatment over the other.
In addition to being made in the image of God and being blessed by God, both man and woman are
given equal authority in managing creation as noted in Gen 1:28. In this verse, God commands both
man and woman to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over
the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
Clearly, both genders are treated with equal consideration, and God “summons male and female alike
to a common calling” without special treatment of either gender.7 God then blesses both man and
woman.
From God’s perspective, equality regarding man and woman can also be gained from the fact that
God directly relates to each on independent terms. Adam does not answer for Eve and Eve does not
answer for Adam. In the account of the fall, God first questions Adam and asks him of his
whereabouts in Gen 3:9. A few verses later, God asks Adam, “Have you eaten from the tree of which
I commanded you not to eat?”8 Adam is directly held accountable for his actions. Later, God
addresses Eve for eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God asks her, “What is this
you have done?” in Gen 3:13. Thus, both Adam and Eve are questioned about their actions, held
responsible for their actions, and incur consequences.9
QUESTION: IS ADAM SUPERIOR TO EVE
BECAUSE HE IS CREATED FIRST? ANSWER: NO,
BEING CREATED FIRST IS IRRELEVANT IN THIS
REGARD.
The mistaken notion is often expressed that Adam is superior to Eve because he is created before her.
Essentially, this idea is based upon a faulty understanding of 1 Tim 2:13 that because the man is
created first, the woman is not allowed to exercise authority over him.10 However, being created first
does not establish authority or superiority. Temporal priority does not demonstrate the leadership of
one group over another. If one were to adopt this viewpoint, the animals may be deemed as more
important than humankind because they were created first.
Second, being born first does not always indicate a better status or position than those later-born.
The blessing is often given to the second or later-born. For instance, Abraham’s firstborn son Ishmael
does not receive the blessing, but Isaac does. Jacob, although using trickery to outsmart his father, is
blessed instead of the firstborn son Esau as seen in Gen 27:27-29. Joseph is also blessed over his
brothers, even though he is not firstborn, and is placed second-in-charge in Egypt. In a similar
fashion, the firstborn son of Joseph, Manasseh, does not receive the blessing as recorded in Gen
48:14: “But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on the head of Ephraim, who was the
younger, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh, crossing his hands, for Manasseh was the
firstborn.” Being created before a sibling is irrelevant.11 In the case of Eve and Adam, Adam’s
creation before the woman does not indicate superiority or authority.
The act of God choosing the second or later-born is contrary to the law of primogeniture in
patriarchal times. The law of primogeniture can be described as the tradition where the firstborn
child inherits the wealth or blessing of the parent, including property rights. The firstborn is given a
privileged position in comparison to the second-born. The idea of the superiority of Adam might also
originate from the custom of primogeniture. However, because this practice pertains to male siblings
rather than husband and wife, the relevancy to the situation of Adam is doubtful at best.
QUESTION: IS EVE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FALL
OF HUMANKIND? ANSWER: NO.
When the events of the fall are recounted, Eve generally is considered the guilty party. However, is
the woman really responsible for the fall of man? This premise is similar to the line of thought that the
snake is responsible for the fall of the woman.
First and foremost, Eve is innocent from the blame of the fall of humankind because she never
receives the command from God. Richard S. Hess notes the assumptions that readers make, “The
narrative assumes that sometime between chapters 2 and 3 the man spoke with the woman and
explained the rules for living in the garden. We are never told this happened.”12 Instead of Eve
receiving the command, the command of God is given to Adam in Gen 2:16-17:
And the LORD God laid a charge upon the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may freely eat. But from the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you shall surely die.”13
Since Eve never receives this directive from God, the reader can only assume that Eve is informed
of the command through Adam. Evidently, Eve possesses some knowledge of the command. But the
strong possibility exists that Eve receives a distorted version of God’s directive from Adam. An
examination of Eve’s words merits this possibility. Genesis 3:2-3 reads:
The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees in the garden we may eat, but from the fruit of the tree which is in
the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You must not eat from it and not touch it, lest you die.’”14
Notice how the original command of God is distorted. The freedom of God’s original directives is
likely not conveyed to Eve. God speaks to Adam that he is free to eat from “any” or “every” tree.15
Furthermore, emphasis is given on the freedom to eat, which can be translated “freely eat.”16 Clearly,
God’s directives are not designed to be burdensome. In retelling the command to Eve, it is highly
likely that Adam downplays the freedom of God’s directives.
In addition, Eve’s words add the stipulation that it is prohibited even to “touch” the tree, thus
making “God’s command more stringent than what it really was.”17 Instead of appreciating the
freedom that God had granted, “the Creator’s generosity is not being given its full due, and He is
being painted as a little harsh and repressive.”18 Even touching the tree is thought to bring the
consequence of death.19
Another alteration in God’s command is seen when the reason for the prohibition of not eating the
fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is avoided. Rather than the reason for the
prohibition being stated, it is ignored. In failing to recognize the tree for its role, “Eve has removed
the reason for not eating from it.”20 Whether Eve is informed about the special identity of the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil is uncertain, for she neglects to speak of it. Another difference is that
God says to Adam that he will “surely die” if he partakes of the fruit whereas Eve says, “lest you
die.”
Eve’s distorted view of God’s directives may have originated from Adam distorting God’s
commands. Perhaps he is so afraid of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that he
hedges the command as a means of not violating God’s orders. That is, not partaking of the fruit
becomes not touching the tree itself. Instead of dying for eating of its fruit, even touching the tree
became an act deserving of death. By increasing the severity of the consequence, a frame is built
around the command not to partake of the fruit. Furthermore, instead of identifying the tree as the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, the command is extended to the tree which is in the “middle of the
garden.”21 Adam might even have erected a barrier around the middle of the garden to ensure the tree
would not even be touched. Even if Adam has good intentions in his actions, the end result is the
same: a distortion of God’s original command paves the way to deception.
Adam has a greater advantage over Eve. First, Adam may have known of the shrewdness of the
snake since he names this creature. Interestingly, “wisdom was ascribed to snakes in the Ancient Near
Eastern world,”22 which is reflected in the biblical account in Gen 3:1, “Now the serpent was more
crafty (‫ )ערום‬than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made.”23 Eve, on the other hand,
does not name the animals and may not have known the crafty character of the snake. The curse upon
the serpent could be linked to his crafty nature. Gordon J. Wenham comments that Gen 3:14, “‘You are
more cursed (‫ ’)ארור‬than ‘all wild animals’ echoes 3:1, ‘the snake was more shrewd (‫ )ערום‬than all
the wild animals . . .’ in sound as well as phraseology.”24
Adam also holds an advantage over Eve because he is not tricked by the serpent. The element of
deception in the exchange between Eve and the serpent is significant for understanding the biblical
story. The serpent purposefully deceives Eve in order for her to sin whereas Adam is simply
presented with the fruit. Essentially, more effort is required to entice the woman to sin than the man.
Eve has to be subtly deceived in a conversation, rather than being presented with an object.
The record of the NT also clears up any remaining doubts about Eve’s guilt in the fall of
humankind. The NT speaks clearly that Eve is deceived (see 1 Tim 2:14; 2 Cor 11:3). However,
Adam, unlike Eve, is not deceived. Adam sins with full knowledge of wrongdoing. Romans 5:12
states that “sin came into the world through one man,” thus “death spread to all,”25 which absolves
Eve’s alleged responsibility for the fall of humankind.
QUESTION: IS EVE THE “HELPER” OF ADAM?
ANSWER: NO.
In Gen 2:18, God says, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his
partner.” This verse raises confusion for readers because of the word “helper,” often utilized in
English translations (ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NIT, NRSV, RSV) or “help meet” (ASV, KJV). The
word “helper,” however, often suggests an individual in a subordinate capacity and “suggests a
merely auxiliary function.”26 Furthermore, “helper” in and of itself may not represent the Hebrew
accurately. R. David Freedman examines the etymology of ‫ עזר‬and argues that “helper” is not true to
the original roots, meaning “to save” or “to be strong.”27 “Helper” as a translation originated from a
combination of these two meanings.28
Based upon his linguistic analysis of ‫כננדו עזד‬, Freedman finds that
the customary translation of these two words [‫ עזר כנגדו‬as a “helper” or a “helpmate suitable” for man], despite its near universal
adoption, is wrong. That is not what the words are intended to convey. They should be translated instead to mean approximately
“a power equal to man.” That is, when God concluded that He would create another creature so that man would not be alone.
He decided to make “a power equal to him,” someone whose strength was equal to man’s. Woman was not intended to be
merely man’s helper. She was to be instead his partner.29
Perhaps inaccuracies in translation also arise due to a neglect or mistranslation of the words that
come directly after ‫עזר‬. The author writes the preposition ‫“( כ‬like” or “as”) which is a particle of
comparison, using it to connect with what follows. This preposition ‫ כ‬is combined with another
preposition ‫( נגד‬literally “in front of”) which is followed by the pronominal suffix ‫ר‬. Literally, this
combination with ‫ עזר‬would read “a helper in front of him.” Obviously, this construction does not
make sense when rendered in English.
Rather, the combination of ‫ נגד‬with ‫( כ‬hence ‫ )כנגד‬is rendered with a special meaning. In terms of
Gen 2:18, the word ‫( נגד‬often rendered “suitable”) changes when the preposition ‫ כ‬is attached to it, as
is the case here, and can be translated “to what is in front of = corresponding to.”30 This variation
puts a whole new spin on the passage. According to the BDB, ‫ כנגדו עזה אעשהלו‬in Gen 2:18 should be
rendered I will make him “a help corresponding to him i.e. equal and adequate to himself.”31 Thus,
‫ נגד‬with the preposition ‫ כ‬expresses “complementarity rather than identity.”32 In other words, the
premise that Eve is equal to Adam is being underlined with the preposition ‫כ‬, rather than simply
seeing Eve as an extension of Adam as a mere “helper.” To put it simply, no hint of subordination
exists for Eve in the original language; Eve is not in any way inferior to her counterpart.33
The problem with “helper” when translated into English is that an element of subordination or
subserviency overshadows the connotation of this word. For this reason, other alternatives are
favored. My translation of Gen 2:18 reads as follows: “I will make a power equal and adequate to
him;” highlighting that Eve is of the “same essence and on the same level” as Adam.34
Furthermore, the translation of “helper” for Eve is misleading because the word in question ‫ עזר‬is
never utilized in the OT to refer to someone in an inferior capacity. In fact, ‫ עזר‬is used to describe
God Himself.35 For instance, 1 Sam 7:12 reads, “Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between
Mizpah and Jeshanah, and named it Ebenezer, for he said, ‘Thus far the LORD has helped us.’ “Some
other notable references of God as a “helper” are Ps 30:10, “O LORD, be my helper!” and Ps 54:4,
“But surely, God is my helper.” Describing God as an ‫ עזר‬does not mean he is second-in-command to
us. In the same manner, Eve as an ‫ עזר‬does not reflect inequality or inferiority.
QUESTION: DOES EQUALITY EXIST IN THE
CREATION ACCOUNT? ANSWER: YES.
The question of equality concerning creation is important to ponder. Adam needs a suitable power
equal to him. The other alternative, the animals, are not a complementary match to Adam. Eve,
however, is a suitable counterpart to Adam.
The creation of Eve is critical for the act of creation. In Gen 2:18, the creation of man alone is
actually deemed “not good” by God, for man needs a counterpart. The labeling of “not good” is in
stark contrast to the preceding chapter, where everything created is labeled as “good.”36
However, once the woman has been created, creation is “very good” (Gen 1:31); creation of the
woman is essential for the completion of creation. Genesis 2:22 speaks of the creation of the woman,
“Then the LORD God built (‫ )בנה‬the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman.”37 Because of
the “soft clay” being used in the formation of Adam, it is appropriate to say that God creates or
fashions (‫ )ברא‬the man; in a similar sense, ‫ בנה‬is appropriate here for the creation of the woman
because “the Lord is now working with hard material.”38 Victor Hamilton states this reality
succinctly, “Working with clay, God is Potter. Working with body tissue, God is Builder.”39 That is,
Eve is formed from the essence of Adam for she is built from him. To see the formation of Eve as in
any way inferior to that of her counterpart would be distorting the biblical record.
Equality concerning the creation of woman is also evident in Gen 2:23, “Then the man said, ‘This
at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called woman, for out of man this
one was taken.’ “These words spoken by Adam in Gen 2:23 comprise the “traditional kinship
formula.”40 This formula is not unique to Adam but is seen in Laban’s words to Jacob in Gen 29:14,
“Surely you are my bone and my flesh!” The traditional kinship formula is also seen throughout the
OT.41
What exactly does it mean to be of one’s bone and flesh? When this depiction is used in the
Hebrew language, it simply designates relatives. The term “flesh and bone” is significant because it
“sets man and woman on an equal footing” in terms of their humanity.42 The terms “bone and flesh”
are another way of saying “one of us” or “our equal.”43 Eve is made out of the same material which
composes Adam’s skeletal structure, demonstrating that they are “an inseparable union.”44 Walter
Brueggemann argues that “your bone and flesh” indicates a “commonality of concern, loyalty, and
responsibility.”45 However, Hamilton finds that Gen 2:23 is a more accurate depiction of Adam’s
responsibility in the relationship, indicating a “covenantal statement of his commitment to her.”46
Furthermore, the fact that Eve is taken from the rib (‫ )צלע‬or the side of the man also denotes
equality.47 What is interesting is that ‫ צלע‬generally “refers to the side of an object (Exod 25:12, 27:7)
or building (Exod 26:20) or to a side chamber (1 Kgs 6:5-6).”48 However, ‫ צלע‬is being used in a
unique regard in Gen 2:22. Perhaps the author of Genesis is using ‫ צלע‬to emphasize that Eve is equal
to Adam. Eve could have been formed from his foot or another body part which would suggest that
she is in an inferior position to Adam. Adam also has no part in the creation of woman for he is put
into a deep sleep. Eve is created by the hand of God Himself.
In addition to a case for equality being argued for Eve being built from Adam’s side, equality is
demonstrated in the words used to describe man and woman, both in the Hebrew and the English. The
Hebrew words ‫’( אשה‬ishah) and ‫‘( איש‬ish) could be argued to emphasize equality because of the
same sound (‘ish) in both in Gen 2:23.49 Perhaps this is a wordplay on behalf of the author, especially
since the author could have chosen the word ‫ אדם‬to describe the man. Of interest also is the
interpretation by the Samaritan Pentateuch, the LXX, and the Targum which adds a final ‫ ה‬to ‫ איש‬with
the mappiq preceded by the qamets, thus forming the feminine possessive pronoun “her,”50 which
also might demonstrate the etiology behind ‫אשה‬. In this manner, the latter half of Gen 2:23 would
read, “this one shall be called woman, for out of her man, this one was taken.”51
The manner in which the words ‫ אשה‬and ‫ איש‬are positioned in Gen 2:23 may pose an argument for
equality. The poetic structure for this verse begins with the word ‫זאת‬, a feminine demonstrative
pronoun (“this one”), and ends utilizing this same word. In this manner, an inclusio is formed with a
“tight envelope structure,”52 highlighting Eve. To better understand the structure employed by the
author, Gen 2:23 can be illustrated in a concentric (or a chiastic) format as illustrated in Figure 1.1.53
Notice how the words for man and woman are almost positioned in the center. This also may be an
intentional maneuver by the author to denote equality or “suggesting a corresponding relationship to
one another.”54 The following verse, Gen 2:24, expresses that this relationship is best personified in a
marriage relationship. In this context, both parties come together as “one flesh.” Originally, the two
were divided but are now brought back together in restoration,55 demonstrating that no hierarchy in
the relationship between man and woman is expressed here.”56
The NT also expresses equality between man and woman in creation as given in 1 Cor 11:12, “For
just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God.” The
message is simple: without man, woman would not be in existence and without woman, man would no
longer exist.
First Corinthians 11:9 is also important for understanding equality in the creation account. This
verse can be translated, “for indeed man was not created for the cause of the woman, but the woman
for the cause of man.”57 Eve is formed because of Adam’s need. In this sense, Adam has a deficiency
within him since he needs another to fill his personal void. Because Adam cannot find a suitable
companion, he has need of a wife. Adam is not complete without the creation of Eve, which extends
to the general premise: the creation of Eve is essential for the completion of humankind.
QUESTION: DOES THE SERPENT ADDRESS EVE
ALONE IN THE TEMPTATION? ANSWER: NO.
Some individuals are under the misconception that the serpent addresses Eve alone in her temptation
by the serpent. However, this observation is not true to the Hebrew verbal forms employed in this
passage. The serpent actually speaks to Eve utilizing the second person plural form in the Hebrew
throughout the temptation. Interestingly, Eve addresses the serpent using the first plural form “we.” An
examination of their dialogue in Table 1.1 is necessary to illustrate these realities.
The first encounter with the serpent takes place in Gen 3:1, which reads, “He [the serpent] said to
the woman, ‘Did God really say, You (plural) shall not eat of any tree of the garden?’ “Notice that in
English translations, no differentiation is given for the second person singular and second person
plural forms, which inadvertently causes many to believe that the serpent is referring to the woman
alone.58 However, the verbal form employed for “eat” is clearly in the plural, ‫תאכלו‬. John Hartley
comments that this verbal form implies that Adam is probably “in hearing range of the conversation
between the serpent and the woman.”59 To further support the fact that this verbal form is intended by
the author. Eve answers the serpent’s question in the first person plural form as noted in Gen 3:2 with
the word ‫ נאכל‬or “we may eat,” thus speaking for herself and for Adam.
Eve continues to speak in Gen 3:3, saying, “But God said, ‘You (plural) shall not eat of the fruit of
the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you (plural) touch it, or you (plural) shall die.’
“Although Eve is merely retelling the command to the best of her ability (perhaps she is given a
distorted version from Adam), the plural forms are still being utilized. At no time does Eve simply
speak for herself. The serpent responds to Eve with the words, “You (plural) surely will not die!” in
Gen 3:4.60 He then adds, “For God knows that when you (plural) eat of it your (plural) eyes will be
opened and you (plural) will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:6 tells of both Adam
and Eve partaking of the fruit.
The fact that Eve is not acting independently from Adam is seen in the consequences of their
actions, which are felt by both parties equally in Gen 3:7. This verse reads, “Then the eyes of both
were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made
loincloths for themselves.” Notice that the eyes of both Adam and Eve are opened at the same time,
not Eve and then Adam.61 When Eve ate the fruit, she “acted in harmony with the man, rather than as
an individual set apart from him.”62 Thus, rather than seeing Eve acting alone in the temptation, it is
more accurate to see both man and woman caught in the temptation together and the corresponding
downfall.
QUESTION: IS ADAM PRESENT WITH EVE WHEN
SHE IS BEING TEMPTED BY THE SERPENT?
ANSWER: YES.
Genesis 3:6 informs the reader that Adam is “with” Eve. What does this mean? It may suggest that
Adam is present with Eve when the serpent approached her. The text specifies that Adam is with his
wife by the word ‫ עמה‬in Gen 3:6, which is critical for understanding the role of Adam in the fall of
humankind. Two ways exist for interpreting this prepositional phrase. The first way is to recognize
‫ עמה‬as having the attribute of a noun as appropriate in this passage,63 meaning that Adam is physically
present with his wife (translated as “with her”). The second way is to understand ‫ עמה‬as an adverb,
modifying the verb ‫“( נתן‬gave”); that is, Eve gave the fruit to her husband also. The former translation
appears to be favored among translations, such as the ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, and
NRSV, meaning that Adam is physically present with his wife, which is the most natural reading of the
text.64 It could also be argued that the biblical text itself supports the view of Adam being “with Eve”
because Eve does not change her physical proximity to Adam after her creation. That is, she remains
in the same place according to the end of Gen 2. For these reasons, it is logical to conclude that Adam
is present with Eve when she is being tempted by the serpent.
QUESTION: HOW DOES GOD HONOR THE
WOMAN IN GEN 3:15? ANSWER: GOD PROMISES
THAT THE ENEMY WILL BE CRUSHED BY THE
SEED OF THE WOMAN.
What is paramount in God’s treatment of the woman in Genesis is that the woman is not cursed. God
curses (‫ )ארר‬the serpent,65 God curses (‫ )ארר‬the ground “because of you [Adam],”66 but God does not
curse the woman. The words “cursed” (‫ )ארר‬are not used in God’s treatment of Eve.67 Eve is actually
blessed for she is chosen by God to bear the chosen offspring as seen in Gen 3:15.
Genesis 3:15 reads, “I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between
your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.” This verse is often
called the “protoevangelium” (literally the “first gospel”) or the “first messianic prophecy” in the OT
even from the time of the Church Father’s.68 Further support for the protoevangelium can also be
gained by the LXX, which supports a “messianic understanding” of this verse, for Gen 3:15 is the
only verse where the LXX translates the “independent personal pronoun” ‫ הוא‬with αύτόζ “although
the Greek idiom would require the neuter.”69 Derek Kidner writes that this verse provides the “first
glimmer of the gospel.”70 The offspring, or seed,71 of the woman is honored here because of what He
(or Christ) will accomplish. The seed of Mary eventually would crush the head of the serpent, thus
exhibiting Christs victory over the enemy.
The act of childbearing through Mary cannot be emphasized enough for this very act has significant
implications for all believers. Believers will partake in the victory over evil as indicated in Rom
16:20: “The God of peace will shortly crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ be with you.”72 Without the Christ child being born, a defeat of the powers of darkness never
would have occurred.
QUESTION: IS THE HUSBAND RULING OVER THE
WIFE IN GEN 3:16 A COMMAND OF GOD?
ANSWER: NO.
The latter half of Gen 3:16 has caused confusion for many readers. It reads as follows: “yet your
desire (‫ )תשוקה‬shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” The last phrase particularly
raises legitimate questions. For instance, is the husband sanctioned by God to rule over his wife? Or
is this statement simply a description of life in biblical times?
Biblical scholars have different thoughts on this verse. Hess classifies this verse as a “description
of the new order of things, of how life will be lived as a result of the fall, rather than how it should
be lived.”73 In other words, it is not God’s original design for the husband to rule over the wife. From
a linguist’s standpoint, Robert Chisholm argues that ruling should simply be understood as a desire of
the husband. From this perspective, the verb ‫ משל‬is understood in a conative sense. That is, the action
expressed (ruling) is merely an attempt or an intention. Thus, the husband desires to rule the wife;
however, ruling is not a prescriptive command. When this view is adopted, Gen 3:16 reads, “Yet your
desire will be for your husband and he shall try to rule over you.” Another translation could read, “he
desires to rule over you.”74 The latter translation would go hand-in-hand with the previous clause that
the woman’s desire will be for her husband. Essentially, the picture that emerges is a struggle of the
wills. Chisholm states, “In this case, the Lord is not necessarily or directly predicting the outcome of
the conflict, only announcing that a conflict will take place.”75 In addition to Chisholm, Walter Kaiser
finds no grammatical basis to read “he will rule over you” as a command of God:
The verb contains a simple statement of futurity; there is not one hint of obligation nor normativity in this verb. To argue
differently would be as logical as demanding that a verb in v. 18 be rendered, “It shall produce thorns and thistles.” Thereafter, all
Christian farmers who used weed killer could be disobedient.76
In other words, the verb ‫ משל‬does not express an order from God. Consideration should also be
given to the fact that ‫ משל‬is not an imperative in the Hebrew but an imperfect.77
QUESTION: IS THE JUDGMENT OF ADAM MORE
SEVERE THAN THE JUDGMENT OF EVE?
ANSWER: YES.
Genesis 3:17-19 records the punishment of Adam, which is the longest of the three judgments.
Because of Adam’s sin, the ground is cursed. Wenham suggests that Adam is held more at fault than
Eve for “the sentence of the man is the longest and fullest.”78 Adam is not punished solely for obeying
his wife. Rather, Adam is punished because he listened to the voice of his wife and (evident by the
vav consecutive in Hebrew) he ate from the tree which he is commanded by God not to eat. The
punishment inflicted upon the man impacts his activity and his work, consisting of a large part of his
identity. The hardship brought about by the curse on the land makes Adam’s life much more difficult.
The author highlights the land in this section, ‫אדמה‬, which is mentioned at the “beginning and close
of the curse,” thus forming an inclusio.79 ‫ אדמה‬also serves as a wordplay on the name ‫“( אדם‬Adam”).
Notice also the effect of the “death” that is spoken about because of the sin. Man must return from the
ground from which he is formed, and he must return to the dust of the land.
The judgment upon Eve differs from that of Adam. First, there is “no cause specified for her
suffering,” whereas Adam is charged “with eating disobediently.”80 Perhaps because Eve is deceived
(instead of being willfully defiant as Adam is), her charge is lessened. Second, no “curse” is used in
God’s judgment toward Eve. Third, Eve’s judgment is specified in a single verse (Gen 3:16).
Previous to this verse, however, God blesses Eve to play a special role in redeeming humanity
Hamilton writes,
Whereas the man’s action condemned the human family. Eve will play the critical role in liberating them from sin’s consequences.
This is realized in part immediately since the woman gives birth to new life (e.g., 4:1, 25), but v. 15 indicates that the final conflict
will also be humanity’s victory by virtue of the woman’s role as childbearer.81
Adam, unfortunately, has no redeeming factor to his judgment. From the length and consequences of
the judgment, it is accurate to conclude that Adam is held to a higher level of accountability than Eve.
One must realize as well that Adam is the one who is given the command from God. Adam is also
with Eve in the temptation. While Eve is deceived, Adam deliberately disobeys the command of the
Lord. While Adam tries to blame Eve for his downfall in the garden, saying in Gen 3:12, “The
woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate,” God rejects Adam’s
accusation of the woman as the culprit to blame as evidenced by His silence.82
QUESTION: DOES THE ACT OF NAMING EVE
IMPLY SUBORDINATION? ANSWER: NO.
One argument to demonstrate Adam’s dominance over Eve is the fact that he names her. The naming of
Eve occurs in Gen 3:20: “The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.”
The act of naming is an act of special significance for “naming in antiquity was a way of
memorializing an event or capturing a distinctive attribute.”83
Naming occurs frequently in the OT without reference to subordination but marking a distinctive
event. For instance, Isaac names the well in the Valley of Gerar as Esek or “contend” because of the
dispute between Isaac’s herdsmen and Gerar’s herdsmen. Abraham names his son Isaac (“he laughs”)
because his wife laughs at the news that she would bear a son. Ishmael means “God hears” to
illustrate that God hears the plight of Hagar. The distinctive nature of Eve as “mother of all the living”
is what is significant here—her function is seen in her name. To solidify this connection, evidence is
found in the Hebrew in a phonetic similarity between the name “Eve” (‫ )חוה‬and the word “living”
(84(.‫חי‬
Finally, it should be realized that Adam names Eve of his own accord. Whereas in Gen 2:19,
animals are brought to Adam “to see what he would call them,” this action does not occur with Eve.
While God allows Adam to name Eve, this act is not ordained by God. Eve is named “Eve” solely
because this is true to the function of her name, signifying her identity in the ancient world.
CONCLUSION
“Answers to Unresolved Questions: A Closer Look at Eve and Adam in Genesis 2-3” has served to
bring clarity to studying the first few chapters of the Bible. Today’s modern reader often struggles
with the roles of Eve and Adam in the biblical text in regard to gender equality and the fall of
humankind. Some individuals have even believed that Eve is responsible for the fall of humankind. In
short, misconceptions arise when reading about creation, particularly in terms of gender roles. This
chapter has sought to bring lucidity to much misunderstood sections of the biblical text. By breathing
new understanding on Eve, Adam, creation, and the fall, readers can hopefully straighten out
misconstrued ideas and appreciate the biblical text in a new light.
NOTES
1. Alvera Mickelsen, “An Egalitarian View: There is Neither Male nor Female in Christ” in Women in Ministry: Four Views (eds.
Bonnidell Clouse & Robert G. Clouse; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1989), 186.
2. All translations will be taken from the NRSV unless otherwise indicated. In this section, this question is answered with the
understanding that the third masculine plural form can designate both men and women.
3. ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV.
4. Robert Alter, Genesis (New York: WAV. Norton & Company, 1996), 5.
5. The translation of “humankind” for ‫ אדם‬is required here as evident by the third masculine plural form utilized in the verb ‫רדה‬
(Kenneth A. Matthews, Genesis 1-11:26; NAC 1A; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002, 163).
6. Emphasis added.
7. Christiane Carlson-Thies, “Man and Woman at Creation: A Critique of Complementarian Interpretations,” in Priscilla Papers 18
(2004): 5.
8. Gen 3:11.
9. See Gen 3:16-19 for the judgments pronounced upon Adam and Eve.
10. The best way of reconciling this verse is to realize that errant notions of the creation story are circulating at Ephesus. One
possibility for a reversed creation order could be due to influences of protognosticism, which might be a possible explanation why the
author refers to the creation account, in order to replace heresy with biblical truth. Gnostic creation accounts had the order of Adam and
Eve reversed. Some accounts also had Adam falling into transgression and he was supposed to wake up from his sleep (or ignorance),
and recognize Eve (see Elaine Pagels, “Adam and Eve and the Serpent in Genesis 1-3,” in Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism;
Studies in Antiquity & Christianity, ed. Karen L. King; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000, 412-24). But besides the possibility of
Gnostic ideas circulating at Ephesus, pagan activity at Ephesus was widespread for “religion was of paramount significance” in this city
(Richard E. Oster, “Ephesus,” ABD 2:548). Ephesus was known for the temple of Artemis, but also has documentation of over
seventeen other pagan deities (see Oster’s documentation of traditional deities at Ephesus in the forms of literature, coins, epigraphy, and
monuments in “Ephesus,” ABD 2:548).
On another note, when examining the biblical text in 1 Tim 2:13, it can be argued that the language expressed in 1 Tim 2:13 does not
designate superiority. How does the language first (πρω̑τος)... then (ϵἰ̑τα/ϵ̓ ́πϵιτα) designate “leader ... follower” (as is often supposed)?
These two words are utilized in discussing a variety of topics in the NT: the parable of the growing seed, the resurrection body, the
coming of the Lord, qualifications for deacons, and the priestly order of Melchizedek. But in all of these passages, the idea of leader and
follower is not seen in these verses (see Mark 4:28; 1 Cor 15:46; 1 Thess 4:16-17; 1 Tim 3:10; Heb 7:2). To read this nuance into 1 Tim
2:13 is not consistent with NT usage.
11. In surveying the OT, many instances exist where God favored the later-born and gave the one born later precedence over the
firstborn. Consider Abel (Gen 4:45‫)־‬, Moses (Exod 7:7), Gideon (Judg 6:15), and David (1 Sam 16:11-13).
12. Richard S. Hess, “The Roles of Woman and the Man in Genesis 3,” Them 18 (1993): 16.
13. My translation, emphasis added.
14. My translation.
15. The word ‫ כל‬emphasizes the freedom of God’s command. Adam is free to eat from every (or any) tree in the garden (with the
exception of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).
16. The verb ‫ תאכל‬is preceded by the infinitive absolute ‫ אכל‬for the purpose of emphasis, making the Lord’s directive “freely eat.”
17. John E. Hartley, Genesis (NIBC 1; Old Testament Series; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), 65.
18. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC 1; Word: Waco, 1987), 73.
19. The consequence of death, however, is thought to be lessened in severity. While God tells Adam that by disobeying his command
in Gen 2:17, one would “surely die” (which is emphatic in the Hebrew by the infinitive absolute ‫ מות‬preceding ‫)תמות‬, in Gen 3:3, one
would simply “die” (‫)תמתון‬. Thus, instead of emphasizing the consequences of death with an element of certainty, the punishment is seen
as less important. Adam may have downplayed the certainty of death to Eve for disobedience in violating God’s command.
20. Hess, “Genesis 3,” 16.
21. Gen 3:3.
22. Hess, “Genesis 3,” 16.
23. ‫ ערום‬gives the idea of being cunning or deceptive. Furthermore, the role of the serpent is emphasized by breaking the verb-subject
sequence (as characteristic in Hebrew narrative) by placing the subject tfru prior to the verb.
24. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 78.
25. Romans 5:14 clearly identifies this man as Adam.
26. Robert Alter, Genesis (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996), 9.
27. R. David Freedman, “Woman, A Power Equal to Man: Translation of Woman as a ‘Fit Helpmate’ for Man is Questioned,” BAR
1983: 56.
28. Freedman, “Woman, A Power Equal to Man,” 56.
30. “‫נגד‬,” BDB, 617.
31. “‫נגד‬,” BDB, 617, orig. emphasis.
33. Support for equality for Eve also can be found in “later Mishnaic Hebrew,” where the root ‫ כנגד‬means “equal” (Freedman,
“Woman, A Power Equal to Man,” 57).
34. Hartley, Genesis, 61.
35. Other references to God as Helper include Ex 18:4; Deut 33:7, 26; Ps 33:20, 115:9-11, 121:2, 124:8.
36. See Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31.
37. My translation.
38. Alter, Genesis, 9.
39. Victor P. Hamilton, Genesis 1-17 (NICOT 1; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1990), 179.
41. Other OT examples include Judg 9:2 (Abimelech addresses the men of Shechem, saying, “Remember also that I am your bone
and flesh”), 2 Sam 5:1 (tribes addressed David, saying, “we are your bone and flesh”), 2 Sam 19:12 (David instructs the priests Zadok
and Abiathar to address the elders of Judah, saying, “You are my kin, you are my bone and my flesh”), and 2 Sam 19:13 (David instructs
the priests to address Amasa, saying, “Are you not my bone and my flesh?”).
44. Ed Noort, “The Creation of Man and Woman in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Traditions,” in The Creation of Man and
Woman: Interpretations of the Biblical Narratives in Jewish and Christian Traditions (vol. 3 of Themes in Biblical Narratives:
Jewish and Christian Traditions; ed. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 12.
45. Walter Breggemann, “Of the Same Flesh and Bone (Genesis 2:23a),” CBQ 32 (1970): 540.
46. Hamilton, Genesis 1-17, 180.
47. Genesis 2:21-22 are the only Scriptures where ‫ צלע‬is translated as “rib” or “ribs.” However, “side” is just as appropriate of a
translation (see M.P. Korsak, “Genesis a New Look,” in A Feminist Companion to Genesis Feminist Companion to Genesis; ed. A.
Brenner; vol. 2 of The Feminist Companion to the Bible; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993, 48-49).
48. Hartley, Genesis, 73. ‫ צלע‬is used as a whole in the OT to designate architectural elements, often in describing ihe Tabernacle, the
Ark of the Covenant, or the temple.
49. This is not to imply that ‫ אישז‬and ‫ אשה‬have an identical etymological origin, however (Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 70) but the
striking wordplay between the two words does bear significance (Hess, “Genesis 3,” 87, n. 30).
50. See note 23a for Gen 2:23 in BHS.
51. My translation.
53. Adapted from J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, 2nd ed.. Biblical
Seminar 12 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 37, referencing Luis Alonso Schökel in “Motivos sapienciales y de alianza en Génesis 2-3” Biblica
43 (1962): 295-316.
54. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, 37.
55. To accomplish this, men are forced to leave their parents as stated in Gen 2:24 which is significant in antiquity since honoring
one’s parents is the “highest human obligation next to honoring God” in “traditional societies like Israel” (Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 71).
57. My translation.
58. While the biblical text is clear that the serpent is speaking to the woman alone, he is still addressing both woman and man.
Otherwise, the second person verbal form would not be used here. Further support for addressing both woman and man can be gathered
from the fact that Adam is “with” his wife, as evident from Gen 3:6. Greater discussion to this fact will be provided under the following
question, “Is Adam present with Eve when she is being tempted by the serpent?”
60. My translation.
61. Jean M. Higgins, “Myth of Temptress,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 44 (1976): 646.
63. Joüon §132a.
64. The latter option is only seen in the RSV.
65. Gen 3:14.
66. Gen 3:17.
67. Matthews, Genesis 1-11:26, 248.
68. Wenham, Genesis, 81. Justin (CE 160) and Irenaeus (CE 180) both recognize Gen 3:15 as the protoevangelium.
69. Hamilton, Genesis, 199.
70. Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1967), 70.
71. For a discussion of ‫ זרע‬and how it relates to the protoevangelium, see Hamilton, Genesis, 199.
72. Other Scriptures that speak of this victory include Heb 2:14 in that through the death of Jesus, the power of death is broken.
73. Hess, “Genesis 3,92”.
74. Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., From Exegesis to Exposition: A Practical Guide to Using Biblical Hebrew (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1998), 103.
75. Chisholm, From Exegesis to Exposition, 103.
76. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Hard Sayings of the Old Testament (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1988), 35.
77. While imperfects often can take a jussive sense, thus illustrating a command, such is not the case here.
83. Linda. L. Belleville, “Women in Ministry,” in Two Views on Women in Ministry (eds. James R. Beck and Craig L. Blomberg;
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 143.
2
A Biological Consideration for the Extended
Period of Impurity after the Birth of a
Daughter in Ancient Israel
Rev. Karen Fitz La Barge

WOMEN’S PERIOD OF IMPURITY AFTER BIRTH
In Lev 12:2-8, we find the ancient Israelite purification laws for women after childbirth:
If a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation,
she shall be unclean. On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Her time of blood purification shall be 33
days; she shall not touch any holy thing, or come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed. If she bears a
female child, she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; her time of blood purification shall be 66 days.
When the days of her purification are completed, whether for a son or a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of
the tent of meeting a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. He shall offer it
before the LORD, and make atonement on her behalf; then she shall be clean from her flow of blood. This is the law for her who
bears a child, male or female.
If she cannot afford a sheep, she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin
offering; and the priest shall make atonement on her behalf, and she shall be clean.1
For many scholars, the ancient Israelite purity laws listed in Lev 12 immediately raise a number of
interesting theological and ethical questions. What could be the reason behind the ancient Israelite
practice of mothers undergoing a longer period of impurity after the birth of their daughters than after
the birth of their sons?2 What possible ethical or theological purpose could this discrepancy serve the
Israelites living in the Ancient Near East?
This paper will begin by giving a brief explanation of the theological reasons for purity laws in
ancient Israel and then summarize the purity laws concerning genital emissions in Leviticus. I will
then argue that the most logical explanation for this increased time of impurity is due to the common
occurrence for a newborn daughter to have a white or blood-tinged vaginal discharge during her first
two weeks of life. Since all genital discharges had theological and ethical implications in ancient
Israel, this phenomenon of an infant’s false menstruation would be no exception, but would require
accommodation and a time of purification. Because the increased time of purification required for a
newborn daughter was not limited to ancient Israel, but was also practiced within the Hittite culture
for their newborn daughters, only explanations that are broad enough to cover the vast theological
differences in these two cultures should be considered plausible. With this standard before us, I will
consider the various other explanations for the longer period of impurity after the birth of a daughter
which have been proposed by ancient as well as modern scholars.
The Reason for Purity Laws

What function did the purity laws have in ancient Israel? In Lev 15:31, we find a simple explanation:
“Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness, so that they do not die in
their uncleanness by defiling My tabernacle that is in their midst.” The purity laws functioned as a
system for maintaining theological holiness through ritualized behavior.
The list of things that were considered impure was extensive. Certain animals were considered
unsuitable for consumption; childbirth rendered women impure for a time; swellings, eruptions, or
spots on the skin were considered impurities; even mildew on the wall of a house was considered an
impure disease. Furthermore, bodily discharges such as semen, pus, or menstrual blood were
included as impure as well as sexual activities and corpses.3
Arthur Ide gives a good explanation (based upon Lev 17:14) why bodily discharges such as blood
would have been considered impure:
The ancient Israelites considered blood to be the source of life and thus the loss of blood was the loss (or at least the lessening)
of life. It is for this reason that the men of Israel prohibited the eating or drinking of blood, ruling: “The life of every creature is
the blood (‫ )דם‬of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel: ‘You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every
creature is its blood; whosoever shall eat of it (s/he) shall be cut off [from the community].’”4
All Genital Discharges Were Impure in Ancient Israel

Genital emissions in the Levitical law were taken very seriously, meticulously described as to the
extent of their impurity and categorized into two broad types: normal and abnormal.5 Normal genital
emissions were characterized by having a fixed time frame for the impurity, such as a certain number
of days or weeks, while abnormal genital emissions required impurity for the duration of the ailment
and always required a sacrifice at the temple once the ailment had passed.
For example, normal sexual intercourse rendered both the man and the woman impure.6 Following
coitus, they were both to bathe in water but were still considered impure until the evening. Males
who had a seminal emission when they were alone could also be impure. They were required to bathe
in water and were considered unclean until the evening.
Leviticus 15:1-15 gives the detailed description of the impurity of male abnormal genital
emissions (‫)זב‬, such as those experienced from venereal disease. In this man’s case, every bed,
everything that he sits on, every saddle, and everyone who touches him or who touches those things
that were under him is considered impure until evening. Even his spit is considered impure, and every
pottery item that he touches is required to be broken, and every wooden vessel he uses must be
washed. Once free of his emissions, he must wait seven days, wash his clothes and himself.
Furthermore, on the eighth day he must bring two turtledoves or two doves to the temple door to the
priest, where they would be given to God as a burnt offering and as a sin offering.
In an almost identical way, a woman who has abnormal vaginal bleeding (‫ )זבה‬also has instructions
concerning her impurity:
If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of
her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness; as in the days of her impurity, she shall be unclean.
Every bed on which she lies during all the days of her discharge shall be treated as the bed of her impurity; and everything on
which she sits shall be unclean, as in the uncleanness of her impurity. Whoever touches these things shall be unclean, and shall
wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. If she is cleansed from her discharge, she shall count seven
days, and after that she shall be clean. On the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons and bring them to the
priest to the entrance of the tent of meeting. The priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering; and
the priest shall make atonement on her behalf before the LORD for her unclean discharge.7
While a sin offering and a burnt offering were required only for the impurity of a woman’s or a
man’s abnormal discharge, the Levitical purity laws were even more explicit and cautious with the
instructions concerning women’s normal menstrual bleeding (‫)נדה‬:
When a woman has a discharge of blood that is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days,
and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. Everything upon which she lies during her impurity shall be unclean;
everything also upon which she sits shall be unclean. Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be
unclean until the evening. Whoever touches anything upon which she sits; when he touches it he shall be unclean until evening. If
any man lies with her, and her impurity falls on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be
unclean.8
According to these descriptions in Leviticus, a woman’s menstrual blood was seemingly

especially powerful, being the only genital emission that could cause the transferring of that impurity
via sexual intercourse to the male for his own seven days of impurity. Also, any male who sought to
have intercourse with a female who was known to be ‫נדה‬, was categorized in Lev 18 with those who
committed incest, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality.9
A Biological Consideration for the Purification after the Birth of a

Daughter
Given these strict regulations for female menstruation, consider the normal condition of
pseudomenstruation in female infants. “Physiologic leucorrhea is a normal vaginal discharge common
among female infants during the first two to three weeks of life. It is clear or white, slippery when
fresh and sticky when dried. Some neonates have associated withdrawal bleeding when maternal
estrogenic stimulation of the uterine endometrium wanes.”10
Because all genital emissions in ancient Israel were strictly regulated and bloody vaginal
emissions were considered especially potent, it would be entirely plausible and in keeping with the
ancient intent of the Levitical purity law that that the eerie and inexplicable bloody vaginal emissions
in baby girls would inspire a doubling of the time of impurity for these mothers and their infant
daughters
While it is true that we have no Levitical example that the vaginal discharge of infant girls would
be considered ‫ נדה‬in the Ancient Near East, we do have some later evidence from the Mishnah in 200
CE:
A girl one day old [if she suffers a flow] can become unclean by virtue of being a menstruant. A girl ten days old [if she had
passed her first seven days in the uncleanness of a menstruant, and then she suffered flows on the next three consecutive days]
can become unclean by reason of a flux [vaginal discharge other than a normal period].11
Here we have clear evidence that newborn vaginal discharge is not merely a modern phenomenon
brought on by birth control pills or hormonally laced dairy products. This important biological fact
was known, and according to these Rabbis’ interpretation of the law, it would render the newborn
daughter impure.
However, the writers of the Talmud did not discern one important fact that is apparent from the
purity laws in Lev 15. If the mother was considered impure for fourteen days following birth, anyone
who touched her was also considered impure until evening. Since newborns’ nursing schedules can
vary from every two to four hours, the newborn daughter, by reason of touching her mother would
have automatically be considered impure for fourteen days. Therefore, the ancient purity laws of the
Torah had already made accommodations for the possibility for a newborn daughter’s impurity, and
this later detailed talmudic explanation merely has made the possibility of newborn girls’ impurity
clearer.12
ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFERENT THEORIES
ABOUT THE LENGTH OF PURIFICATION
TIMES
Over the centuries, scholars have presented many different theories about the reason for the disparity
in the purification times in Lev 12. Authors from the Book of Jubilees in 135 BCE to the Mishnah in
200 CE to Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities in 1997 have all addressed this disparity of
gender-directed purification time and presented compelling arguments about the theological purposes
of this Lev 12 discrepancy. Let us briefly turn our attention to these theological arguments.
Disparity Based Upon Genesis and Entrance into the Garden of

Eden Dating from 135 BCE
In the Book of Jubilees 3:8-9,13 an answer to this debate about Lev 12 is woven into a version of the
story of the Garden of Eden: “Woman was created in the second week, and thus the period of
uncleanness for a female is two weeks; Adam was brought to the Garden of Eden after forty days, and
Eve only after eighty days, thus a woman’s period of purification for a son is forty days and for a
daughter eighty.”14
While the Book of Jubilees creates a timetable that conveniently explains the Lev 12 difficulty, it
runs counter to the evidence that comes to us from the book of Genesis. In the first creation account of
Gen 1, God created both male and female on the sixth day of creation.15 While in the second creation
account God creates Adam “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,”16 it is not
clear that the gender of Adam was differentiated at the time that the human was placed in the Garden
of Eden. Because the Book of Jubilees was written in a completely different era than Genesis, it
cannot be used as a reliable source to document a previously unknown Israelite view that counted the
number of days that passed in the garden, when there is no other evidence that precedes this tradition.
Talmudic Disparity Based on the Number of Days to Form an

Infant’s Sex Dating from 70 CE
In the Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Ismail attempted to explain this purity law disparity in a more
scientific way: he argues that a son is formed on the 41st day of pregnancy, whereas a daughter is
formed on the 81st.17 Rabbi Ismael cites an experiment, supposedly carried out in Alexandria:
A story is told of Cleopatra the Greek queen that when her maidservants were sentenced to death under a government order,
they were subjected to a test [which was to force them to have intercourse with a man] and it was found that [when they were
executed] a male embryo was fully fashioned on the 41st day and a female embryo on the 81st day.18
This view is disputed in the Mishnah by the sages (up to 200 CE) who said that the creation of a
male and the creation of a female were alike: each was fully fashioned after 41 days.19 While the
writers of either Talmud would not have access to modern scientific knowledge, the extensive writing
about miscarried fetuses in the later portions of the Talmud would lend credibility to the sages who
viewed a fetus as fully formed on the 41st day.
Unfortunately, further difficulties arise with both of these arguments when we realize that the
ancients most likely had no way to differentiate between normal menstrual bleeding (which shows
that a woman is not pregnant) and implantation bleeding (which typically occurs during the first
trimester of pregnancy when an embryo fastens itself to the uterine wall). Ancient scholars could have
easily misinterpreted implantation bleeding as being a menstrual or a longer vaginal discharge, which
could have thrown off their counting of gestational days. Due to the wide variation in the number of
days which pregnant woman bleed, it is no wonder that these ancient scholars could not come to a
consensus about the day when the sex of a fetus was formed.20
Daughters, Because of the Curse of Ever Were Considered

Especially Sinful21
In the response to this argument, there are several things to note about the purity laws of Leviticus.
First of all, while the time required for purification after the birth of a daughter was twice as long as
the time required after the birth of a son, there is no difference in the required sin or burnt offerings. If
a newborn daughter was considered to have been more sinful or more impure than a newborn son,
there probably would have been an additional or greater sacrificial component required, since
Levitical law specified different sacrificial requirements when the instances of impurity were
different. For example, in the case of a leprous person, the purity laws required the sacrifice of two
male lambs without blemish, one ewe lamb without blemish, a grain offering of three-tenths of an
ephah of choice flour mixed with oil and one log of oil.22 This is a much greater sacrificial
requirement in comparison to the offerings required after a birth or in the case of an impure discharge
that continues after seven days. Since Levitical law seemed to have no difficulty in adjusting the
sacrificial requirements based on the situation (for example reducing the requirement for a financial
situation), we could expect to see different sacrificial requirements for daughters if they were
considered to be doubly impure. Males of any age were more highly valued than females.
In Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities,23 the feminist scholar Phyllis Bird attempts to
explain the gender directed discrepancies in Lev 12 by pointing out that in Lev 27:2-8 there was a
monetary difference in the labor values between males and females taking cultic vows. She accurately
portrays the cost to a family of supporting daughters and correctly describes the instance of Gen 46:8-
27 where women were overlooked in a tally However, if the female infant of Lev 12 were indeed
less valued or of less importance as Bird infers, we would expect to see less care and attention given
to the time of female purification. Instead, the time of purification after a birth of a daughter in Lev 12
is extravagantly doubled, even when the work of the mother would have been desperately needed in
the poorest of families. The valuation in Lev 12 has nothing to do with the economic realities of the
Ancient Near East. It is an explicit statement of the Levitical value placed upon holiness.
Increased Length of Time of Impurity after the Birth of a Hittite
Daughter
An interesting discovery of this study is that the longer purification time required for a daughter is not
peculiar to ancient Israel. In ancient Hittite birth rituals, the time period for cleansing are three
months for a male, and four months for a female:
But (when) the woman gives birth, and while the seventh day after birth is passing—then the mala (offering) of the newborn on
that seventh day they perform. And if a male child has been born, in whichever month he has been born—whether one day or
two days remain than from that month they count off. But when the third month arrives, then the male child with kunzigannahit
[public outing ceremony] they cleanse. For the seers are expert with the kunzigannahit and it to . . . they offer. But if a female
child is born, then from that month they count off. But when the fourth month arrives, then they cleanse the female child with
kunzigannahit.24
The fact that the Hittites increase the time of impurity for a daughter by one-third (instead of
doubling it) supports the idea that the reason behind the increased length of purification time was not
intrinsic only to the theology of ancient Israel, but based upon some other fundamental principle that
can easily cross theological and cultural bias.
Also in the Hittite birth rituals, the following is notable:
And if a male child is then born, then the midwife thus speaks: “Look! Now I have brought the goods of a male child. But next
year I will certainly bring the goods of a female child!”
If it is a female child, then she speaks thus: “Now—look!—the goods of a female child I have brought. But next year the goods
of a male child I will certainly bring!”25
Gary M. Beckman points out that, “It is interesting to note that the mother’s next pregnancy should
result in the birth of a child of the sex opposite to that of the child just born. No preference for male
children is evidenced here.”26 Clearly, more exploration of Hittite purity laws is needed in order to
understand fully these ancient birth ritual similarities and differences.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, it is important to note that many scholars have claimed that there is no reasonable
explanation for the extended period of time of impurity for women who have given birth to a
daughter.27 Because the Levitical law does not clarify this purity requirement, all explanations,
including my own, are entirely retroactive and can never be completely validated. However, I would
submit the following premises for your consideration. First, we are almost entirely certain that
newborn daughters in ancient Israel had the biological capacity for the common occurrence of a
bloody vaginal discharge. Second, documented evidence exists that all genital emissions in ancient
Israel were very highly regulated and considered impure to greater or lesser degrees in their Levitical
context. Third, because the ancient Israelites deemed women’s menstrual blood to have held a
particularly potent and transferable impurity, infant pseudomenstruation would probably have been
treated with great caution. Finally, because the Hittite culture also extended the time for purity after
the birth of their daughters in their own theological and cultural context, it is likely that some common
experience held by these two diverse cultures would be the source of this practice. With these four
premises it is possible to argue that the potential for pseudomenstruation by an infant girl could be
viewed as a very logical explanation for the doubling of the mother’s impurity time after the birth of a
daughter in ancient Israel.
NOTES
1. NRSV. All Scripture references will be taken from the NRSV unless otherwise indicated. A few notes of clarification will shed
light onto this passage. First, while men were allowed to come before YHWH during their purification sacrifices, women could not come
before YHWH but had to depend on the intercession of the priest for this act (see Lev 14:24). Second, the regulations as specified in
Lev 12:8 were the same as for a woman who bleeds longer than seven days, as in Lev 15:25-30. In this way, the seriousness of the
impurity and sin after birth could be considered as no greater than that of a long vaginal secretion.
2. For a further discussion of “purity” and “impurity” rather than the commonly accepted translation of “clean” and “unclean,” see
Jacob Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973), 1. The rationale behind this reclassification is to
remove the idea of the hygienic categories of observable dirtiness and cleanliness from the understanding of the reader.
3. Neusner, Idea of Purity, 18-22. Neusner provides an excellent summary of the Levitical categories of impurity in his work.
4. Arthur Frederick Ide, Women in Ancient Israel under the Torah and the Talmud (Mesquite: Ide House, 1982), 4.
5. Rachel Biale, Women & Jewish Law, An Exploration of Women’s Issues in Halakhic Sources (New York: Schocken Books,
1984), 149.
6. Lev 15:18.
7. Lev 15:25-30.
8. Lev 15:19-24.
9. Biale, Women & Jewish Law, 155.
10. Jan E. Paradise, M.D., “Vaginal Discharge,” in Textbook of Pediatric Emergency Medicine (eds. Gary R. Fleisher, Stephen
Ludwig, and Fred M. Henretig; 5th ed.; Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2006), 678.
11. m. Nid. 5:3.
12. This talmudic interpretation would have been important if the mother of the child died in childbirth, and a child with a vaginal
discharge was given to a wet nurse to feed.
13. The Book of Jubilees (trans. R.H. Charles; London: A.C. Black, 1902). This book was written in Hebrew by a Pharisee
between the year of the accession of Hyrcanus to the high priesthood in 135 BCE and his breach with the Pharisees some years before
his death in 105 BCE. It is considered an apocrypha to the Hebrew Bible.
14. Tal Ilan, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995), 46.
15. Gen 1:26-31.
16. Gen 2:4.
17. Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah before 70 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 203.
18. m. Nid. 30b. In his book. The Mishnah before 70, Jacob Neusner dates this quote from the Rabbi Ismael before 70 CE
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 203.
19. m. Nid. 3:7.
20. Modern science has shown that external masculinization begins at about week ten of fetal development. At sixteen weeks of
gestation, a baby girl’s ovaries contain early egg follicles (P.C. Sizonenko, Pediatric Endocrinology; eds. J. Bertrand, R. Rappaport,
P.C. Sizonenko; Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1993, 88-99).
21. Sicardus, a bishop who died in 1215 CE, explains the gender disparity after childbirth in Lev 12 by arguing that a double curse lies
on the feminine growth: “Solutio: quia dupla est. feminei germinis maledictio; habuit enim maledictionem Adea, et insuper, ‘In
dolore paries,’vel quia, sicut ait peritia pysicorum, feminae in conceptu manent informes duplo tempore masculorum” (Solution:
“because a double curse lies on the feminine growth. For she carries the curse of Adam and also the [punishment] ‘you will give birth in
pain’ Or, perhaps, because, as the knowledge of physicians reveals, female children remain at conception twice as long as unformed male
children”) as found in Sicardus, Bishop of Cremona Mitrale V (trans. John Wijngaards; PL 11:213, 242). Additional discussion of
Sicardus is done by Ida Raming in Exclusion of Women from the Priesthood (Metuchen: Scarecrow Press, 1976), 58-60, 188.
22. Lev 14:10.
23. Phyllis Bird, Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 28.
24. Beckman describes kunzigannahit as an “Outing Ceremony for the child, by which the child is both purified and presented to
the community” (Gary M. Beckman, Hittite Birth Rituals; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983), 143, 160.
25. Beckman, Hittite Birth Rituals, 35.
26. Beckman, Hittite Birth Rituals, 35.
27. Biale, Women and Jewish Law, 152.
3
Rahab in Rehab: Christian Interpretation of
the Madame from Jericho
William L. Lyons
The story of Rahab during the early days of the Israelite conquest or settlement of the Promised Land
has been told and retold for generations. It offers a first glimpse of what would be the new home of
nascent Israel and foreshadows some of the tensions that would accompany the capture and settling of
the land. Beyond the anticipation of new land during the lengthy wilderness sojourn and what strategy
would be employed to secure a new homeland, however, is the question of Rahab and her prominent
position so early in the narrative.
The story of Rahab in Josh 2:1-21 and 6:17, 22-25 is a narrative of struggle—insider versus
outsider, male versus female, land owner versus newcomer—and its particular irony. One of the
central themes of the story is that life is not always controlled by the whims of powerful men.1 Rahab,
a marginalized brothel owner living on the edge of town in ancient Jericho (2:15),2 was convinced
that her city was about to undergo a significant change: the Canaanites, who had wielded power for
so many years, were about to be overthrown by the menacing armies of Israel. Rahab (perhaps
because of her marginalized status in Jericho) wanted to secure a future for both herself and her
family (2:8-13). To that end, she hid the Israelite spies who were sent to reconnoiter the territory
before attacking Jericho from the probing eyes of the soldiers of her own king, directed the attention
of the soldiers away from the brothel in order to protect the spies, and then sent the spies safely on
their way in the opposite direction. Her only request was that the attacking armies of Israel would
spare her family.3 The Israelite spies readily agreed and returned to Joshua (the new commander of
the armies of Israel) with a positive report—it was time to move against Jericho.
For centuries, Christian writers have struggled with how to make sense of such a woman. Was she
a common harlot,4 or some type of temple functionary? Did she remain a Gentile after her contact
with the spies, or did she profess some type of faith in the God of Israel and join the ancient covenant
community? The fact that Rahab is mentioned not once but three times in the NT makes her all but
impossible to ignore by later Christian writers. Early on in the book of James (late 80s or early 90s
CE), she is an example of faith that/with works: “Was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works
when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road?”5 In Hebrews, she is
remembered as an example of faith because she welcomed the spies into her home: “By faith Rahab
the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had received the spies in
peace” (11:31). In Matthew, she is mentioned in passing as a member of the lineage of Christ (1:5).6
Obviously then, Christian exegetes could not dismiss her from their theological deliberations.
In commenting on Matthew’s genealogy of Christ (1:1-17), Raymond E. Brown summarizes
Christian queries well when he asked, “Why the women?” when referring to Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and
Bathsheba.7 For our purposes his question might be restated to ask, “Why include these women in
particular, and why draw attention to Rahab?”8
This study examines a variety of Christian attempts to make sense out of this enigmatic biblical
figure. I begin by gathering together multiple references from Christian writers through the ages
(please see Table 3.1 of the multiple references from antiquity as Christian writers reflect on Rahab).
The different writers are categorized according to how they interpret Rahab, e.g., as a prophet, a
reminder of the Pharisees, a typological symbol of the church, or as a symbol of repentance and
conversion, etc. This information is then reviewed along the lines of John Cassian’s four-fold sense
of Scripture: allegorical, tropological, anagogical (to a limited extent), and literal.9 By doing so I
realize that I run the risk of generalization; furthermore, I am aware that most biblical interpreters
adopt different types of biblical interpretation at different times to suit their homiletical or apologetic
purposes. Nevertheless, such an overview highlights the various types of biblical interpretation
operative in diverse Christian circles as they seek to make the Scriptures relevant to their own time
and place.
Allegorical biblical interpretation focuses on what may be called the hidden meaning of a biblical
passage and these references may be subdivided into two types: one to one correspondence (usually a
typological interpretation), and a broader extended allegory.
ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION: ONE TO ONE
CORRESPONDENCE
1. The scarlet thread which hung from Rahab’s window
a. As early as the mid-second century, Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 CE) claims in his Dialogue with
Trypho (a Rabbi) that Rahab’s scarlet thread was a symbol of the blood of Christ, by which
those who were once harlots and unrighteous from all nations were saved (111).10
b. Origen (185-254 CE) also finds that the thread hanging from Rahab’s window signified the
blood of Christ and thus redemption. He believes that Rahab “knew no salvation except for the
blood of Christ” (Homilies on Joshua 3.5).
2. The spies
a. The spies sent to reconnoiter the Promised Land, according to Irenaeus (130-200 CE), were
doubtless a type of the Godhead visiting Rahab’s home (Preface 4.20.12).
3. The church
a. Augustine (354-430 CE) teaches that Rahab feared God and thus represented the church and the
Gentiles; Rahab was synonymous with the Gentile church (Psalms 87.8.4).
b. Jerome (c.345-419 CE) essentially holds the same belief as Augustine and mentions it twice,
that is, the harlot from among the Gentles corresponded to the church (Letters 52.3; cf. Against
Jovinianus 6.23).
ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION: BROADER
EXTENDED ALLEGORY
Most Christian writers in ages past only make cursory allusions to the Rahab story in their writings
and utilize it as one of several ways to support some homiletical point they wanted to make (e.g.,
James and the issue of “faith and works”). These passing allusions, however, give insight into how
they interpreted Rahab. They see her as one of several ways of supporting their particular theological
perspectives (e.g., the prominence of the blood of Christ throughout the Bible, or the inclusion of the
Gentile church within the larger context of the covenant, etc.). Two writers in particular, Origen and
Calvin, offer an exception to the typical approach to Rahab and pen longer reflections on her story.
Only Origen approaches her story allegorically (Calvin will be reviewed separately below).
Origen writes that by seeking refuge from the invading Israelite armies in her house, Rahab and her
family are in essence entering into the church. Those remaining outside the house that perished are
like those not saved. Additionally, Origen accents a play on words in the Hebrew Bible with his own
creative illustration. Since Rahab (‫ )בחר‬means “wide” or “broad” in Hebrew, Origen believes that
she must represent some sort of ampleur or “wideness.”11 To illustrate this Origen suggests that
Rahab said, “this place is too narrow for me,” to which the Israelite spies replied, “enlarge your
tent,” meaning enter the covenant. (Is Origen intentionally overlooking the sexual overtones in this
language?12 It is difficult to be certain.) Because Rahab widened her house to allow the spies to enter,
the Kingdom of God became a wider place (i.e., including Gentiles), and eventually her wideness
was heard around the world.13
TROPOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
In addition to allegorical interpretation of the Bible, Cassian also identified tropological
interpretation of the Bible. This second type of biblical interpretation focuses on the moral meaning
of a biblical story as a model for current actions and ethical reflection. This is where most of the
biblical interpreters invest the bulk of their hermeneutical efforts. Rahab is seen as a model of
hospitality, mercy, faith, patience, and repentance as she interacts with the spies sent by Joshua. Thus,
the harlot of Jericho becomes a paragon of virtue.
1. Hospitality
a. James 2:25 maintains that Rahab was justified because she treated the spies hospitably.
b. Gregory the Nazianzen (329-390 CE) writes that Rahab was justified by one thing alone, her
hospitality (Select Orations 7.40.19).
c. Ambrose (339-397 CE) argues that in showing hospitality Rahab found safety from the coming
destruction of both Jericho and in the hereafter (Epistles 10.63.105).
d. Chrysostom (350-407 CE) writes that by faith Rahab did not perish with the other citizens of
Jericho because she received the spies in peace (Homilies 14.27 [writing on Heb 11]; cf.
Homilies 26).
2. Mercy: Augustine finds that God treated Rahab well because she was merciful to God’s servants,
in spite of lying (On the Trinity, To Consentius, Against Lying 2.60.32-34).14
3. Faith (frequently mixed with other personal qualities)
a. Hebrews 11:31 lists Rahab in what might be called the “hall of faith” where she is remembered
as an example of faith for later generations.
b. First Clement (c.96 CE) claims that because of her faith and hospitality, Rahab was saved (12:1,
3, 8).
c. Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE) agrees with Clement and says that because of her faith and
hospitality, Rahab was saved (Epistle to the Corinthians on Martyrdom 17).
d. Origen believes that by receiving the spies into her house Rahab was placed in a position of
high honor (something he refers to as one of the mysteries of faith [139]; Homilies on Joshua
3.3).
e. Voicing a different opinion, Calvin (1509-1564 CE) is skeptical of earlier writers’ certainty
about Rahab’s faith and maintains that her faith was only a seed of faith and insufficient for
eternal salvation. In surrendering herself to God’s power (i.e., embracing the promise of God
and casting herself on His protection), Rahab gave proof of her election (Joshua 2.11).
Moreover, in the Institutes Calvin asks, “What seed of righteousness was in Rahab the harlot
before she had faith?” His answer as with other biblical stories is none (see 3.24.11) because
“all we like sheep have gone astray” (Isa 53:6). Thus, Calvin’s interpretation of Rahab gives
expression to his theology of total depravity.
f. Similarly, the modern scholar, Mary J. Evans finds that Rahab’s unique insight into the
political/spiritual situation of her day apparently grew into a genuine commitment to the God of
Israel and thus she was incorporated into the Israelite community of faith.15
4. Patience
a. Clement of Alexandria teaches that “by patience and faith [Rahab] proclaimed the Kingdom of
Christ” (Epistle to the Corinthians on Martyrdom 17).
b. The Constitution of the Holy Apostles (c.350-380 CE) directs its readers to receive without
doubt the one who repents as God received repentant Rahab (7.3.14).16
c. Chrysostom declares that like Rahab the harlot, Christians should learn to do away with ills,
i.e., sins (Homily III 5).
d. Jerome writes that the faithful should take refuge from the fall of Jericho with the justified harlot
Rahab (Letters 22.37).
e. Ambrose recalls that Rahab believed in God and found salvation (Epistles 2.4.22).
f. Luther believes that Rahab was an example of repentance and thus avoided divine judgment and
punishment because she was not destroyed along with Jericho (LW, “Deuteronomy” 7:1-2; cf.
Isa 30:7).17 Elsewhere Luther mentions that a heathen became a believer when Rahab received
the Word (Christ) from the Israelites (LW, Gen 47:26).
ANAGOGICAL INTERPRETATION
The third category of Cassius is anagogical. This hermeneutic is a favorite of those hermeneutists who
are interested in the mystical or spiritual elements of a biblical passage and is often expressed via
allusions to heaven or the afterlife. Thus, Jerusalem may be understood to represent the city of God,
and as such it indicates where one is going or the direction of one’s spiritual life (the heavenly home).
There is little in the remarks of ancient biblical interpreters specifically referring to heaven or the
afterlife with regard to Rahab. Origen comes close when he talks about Rahab as a symbol of
wideness (ampleur). Her actions, in opening her home to the spies, were not unlike the opening of
heaven to receive the Gentiles. Other writers refer to the lasting or eternal effects of her actions in
passing while discussing other issues. Augustine, for example, said Rahab made the transition to
God’s people and gained an eternal prize that cannot be secured by a lie.
LITERAL INTERPRETATION
Thus far we have looked at allegorical, tropological, and anagogical interpretations of Rahab.
Interpretative writings in Cassian’s fourth category, literal interpretation, do not appear until the
modern period of biblical hermeneutics and in particular when socio-political considerations began
to garner the attention of biblical interpreters. What earlier scholars overlooked could no longer be
ignored. One such hermeneutic is feminist biblical interpretation, and with regard to Rahab, the work
of two scholars, Phyllis Bird and Alice Bellis, is particularly seminal.
In “The Harlot as Heroine,”18 Bird resists attempts of most previous Christian writers to
rehabilitate or sanitize the Rahab story. Rather, she maintains that the Hebrew word for harlot used in
this story (‫ )הנז‬does not refer to some type of temple prostitution as some writers suggest, but rather,
to a common harlot. She argues that nothing in the story suggests a hierodule role for Rahab.
Moreover, one of the various reasons that the spies visited Rahab was certainly sexual since “they
slept there.”19 Bird maintains that the language is obviously meant to suggest a brothel and sanitizing
it changes the entire story.20 The portrayal of Rahab as a heroine, Bird holds, does not negate the
negative social appraisal attached to her role as a harlot.21 The entire account depends on Rahab’s
marginal status. She is a social outcast, though not an outlaw; tolerated, but without honor in society.22
She lives alone (we know nothing of her family except that she fights to protect them as the armies of
Israel approach), dwells at the edge of the city in the city walls, negotiates with strangers, etc. If
Rahab’s marginal status is changed the whole story is altered.
Bellis in Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes: Women’s Status in the Bible takes a similar approach.
Agreeing with many of the issues raised by Bird, she also notes that prostitutes are rarely considered
heroines in either ancient or modern times, and that the story of Rahab is somewhat of an
embarrassment to Christian readers (and I would add that they spiritualize the event in order to make
sense of it). Nevertheless, this and other biblical stories about women struggling for life in a
patriarchal society are preserved not primarily because of what happened or even because they are
important expressions of faith. Rather, Bellis maintains they are preserved in Christian tradition
because of the way they can be used to offer hope to readers in subsequent ages.23
This review of Christian reflections on the Rahab story has shown that later Christian writers have
built on or at times reacted to the interpretations of earlier exegetes. Nevertheless, it seems that once
certain interpretations were generally accepted and adopted into the Christian vernacular or set in
Christian literature, rarely if ever, do later interpreters diverge from it. Thus, the scarlet thread is
interpreted as a type of the blood of Christ very early in Christian literary reflection, or Rahab
becomes a symbol of faith, hospitality, and repentance equally early. It is left to later exegetes to
expand, elaborate, explain, or perhaps even contradict earlier interpretations.
With regard to later reflection on the Rahab story, exegetes appear to be trying to answer
problematic questions seemingly overlooked earlier, but nevertheless disturbing to readers of their
day. For example, both Augustine and Luther go to considerable lengths to explain how such a liar as
Rahab could actually be blessed by God without a specific textual reference to her repentance of her
misdeeds. This whole issue is missed by earlier writers. Focusing on other matters of concern,
Gregory of Nazianzus is not certain how a harlot could be justified and Calvin is uncomfortable with
the facile acceptance of Rahab’s supposed “faith.” Many writers have great difficulty with this lying
woman who is included in the lineage of the Messiah. How could a liar be included in the Bible as an
example of faith? Bird and Bellis prefer a more literal reading of the biblical text and argue to
maintain the tensions and theological conundrums preserved throughout the centuries without positing
a kinder, gentler Rahab.
There are yet other interpretations of Rahab that could be reviewed, including Rahab as a prophet,
or as a reminder of the Pharisees (cf. Table 3.1) Moreover, Murray L. Newman has offered a
trenchant review of Rahab along the lines of Gottwald’s reconstruction of the Israelite conquest of
Canaan. Rahab’s story could be understood as part of the narrative of multiple groups who joined
together in an attempt to gain power and influence in a situation where they had none.24
Rahab indeed embodies a contradiction of terms, “a whore with a heart of gold, the harlot who
saves the city, the courtesan who sacrifices for her patron.”25 The history of Christian interpretation
of Rahab clearly demonstrates that the art of biblical interpretation is not an exact science. Each
exegete working through the centuries believed that he or she was reading the biblical text closely.
Exegetes struggled to make the ancient story address the concerns or issues of their day—addressing
perceived lacunas in previous interpretations while raising concerns common to their time. Thus, via
multiple avenues of interpretation, the Bible could speak to those of antiquity and those of every
subsequent age.
NOTES
1. Gustave Staal, “Rahab the Harlot” in Great Women of the Bible in Art and Literature (eds. Dorodiée Sölle, Joe H. Kirchberger,
Herbert Haag, et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 110.
2. The narrative makes no comment whatsoever on Rahab’s profession (see Philippa Carter, “Joshua” in The IVP Women’s Bible
Commentary, eds. Catherine Clark Kroeger and Mary J. Evans; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002, 116-20).
3. Irene Nowell, “Jesus Great-Grandmothers: Matthew’s Four and More,” CBQ 70 (2008): 5-6. Rahab offered the spies ‫( דסח‬Josh
2:12, translated “dealt kindly with” in the NRSV) and then asked for it in return. (All Scripture references will be taken from the NRSV
unless otherwise indicated.)
4. Mary J. Evans maintains that Rahab is to be understood as a landlady or an innkeeper, an independent business person of political
awareness, intelligence, great courage, and spiritual acumen (“Women,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, eds.
Bill T. Arnold and H.G.M. Williamson; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2005, 990).
5. James 2:25.
6. The Hebrew Bible never connects Rahab to the Davidic line; thus, it cannot be Matthew’s source for including her in David’s
lineage. Rahab is also mentioned in 1 Clement 12:1-8.
7. Raymond E. Brown, Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives of Matthew and Luke (updated ed.;
New York: Doubleday, 1993), 71. Brown considers three hermeneutical options for the inclusion of the women in Matthew (Birth of the
Messiah, 71-74):
a. The women were regarded as sinners and were included in Matthew in order to foreshadow the ministry of Jesus to save sinners
(espoused by Jerome). Brown finds little merit in this proposal.
b. Since the women were regarded as foreigners, they were included to show that the Messiah was related to Gentiles as well as
Jews (popularized by Luther). Brown considers this to be a significant suggestion, but not the primary reason for their inclusion in
Matthew’s genealogy.
c. They were included because they share two things in common with Mary: (1) something extraordinary or irregular in their union
with men, and (2) the women demonstrated initiative or played an important role in God’s plan so they came to be viewed as an
instrument of divine providence. Brown maintains that this third option is the most plausible.
8. Staal has assembled a visually rich and diverse collection of artistic renderings of Rahab in Great Women of the Bible in Art and
Literature. His article, “Rahab the Harlot” (104-113) includes the biblical story, and two excurses on Rahab’s red cord and various
extra-biblical materials.
9. Working at Marseilles, John Cassian (c. 360-435) was the greatest writer on monasticism in the Western church. Although he
went unrecognized during his lifetime, a favorable reception from Gregory the Great and Cassiodorus made him quite popular during the
Middle Ages. In addition to his writings on proper clothing, monastic service, or the temptations common to monks, he also penned the
four-fold sense of Scripture which had a tremendous effect on later generations of students of the Bible. (The roots of Cassian’s four-
fold sense of Scripture are traceable back to Origen, Gregory of Nazianzus, Jerome, and Tyconius.) The four-fold sense of Scripture in
Western hermeneutics held that there are four distinct ways of reading the Bible. See Cassian’s Confessions XIX.8, c. 420; cf.
Christopher Ocker, “Biblical Interpretation in the Middle Ages,” 80-81, 97; and Tyconius, Tyconius: The Book of Rules (trans. William
S. Babcock; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). For example, Jerusalem may be read and interpreted in four different ways:
a. Literal: Jerusalem is the city of the Jews. This approach focuses on the plain sense of the Bible (stressed by the Antioch School in
antiquity with its emphasis on historical and grammatical analysis).
b. Allegorical: Jerusalem is the church. This approach focuses on the hidden meaning of the Bible and seeks to uncover those
meanings and their value for personal faith (typological interpretation is a commonly used with this hermeneutic).
c. Tropological (moral sense): Jerusalem is the human soul. This teaches how one should live; it focuses on the didactic elements of
Scripture and gives expression to the interests of both Jewish and Christian moralists.
d. Anagogical (spiritual sense): Jerusalem is the city of God. This indicates where one is going or the direction of one’s spiritual life
(the heavenly home, cf. Gal 4:26; it was the focus of the Alexandrian school which stressed a spiritual biblical hermeneutic).
On this topic Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1349) writes:
The letter teaches events
allegory what you should believe
tropology what you should do
anagogy where you should aim.
10. Unless otherwise noted, all references to early Christian writers are from Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Latina (Turnholt:
Typographi Brepols, 1953) and A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Father’s of the Christian Church, (ed. P. Schaff; New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1894-1899) and A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Father’s of the Christian Church (2nd
series; eds. P. Schaff and H Wace; New York: Christian Literature Company, 1895-1896).
11. Homilies on Joshua 3.3.
12. Danna Nolan Fewell, “Joshua” in Women’s Bible Commentary (expanded ed., eds. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe;
Louisville: WJK Press, 1992), 72.
13. Origen, Homilies on Joshua 3.5.
14. For a discussion of ‫ דסח‬in the story of Rahab see Phyllis A. Bird, “The Harlot as Heroine: Narrative Art and Social Presumption
in Three Old Testament Texts,” Semeia 46 (1989): 129.
15. Evans, “Women,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, 989-99.
16. The Constitution of the Holy Apostles is a collection of ecclesiastical laws of Syrian provenance and based in part on the
Didascalia Apostolorum (an early church order).
17. Cf. Luther, LW, Gen 26:9 for another mention of Rahab.
18. Semeia 46 (1989):119-39.
19. Translated “lodged there” (NRSV), or “stayed there” (NIV). In this regard see Tikya Fryer-Kensky, “Rahab in the Hebrew
Bible” in Women in Scripture (eds. Carol Meyers, Toni Craven, and Ross S. Kraemer; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 141.
20. Bird, “The Harlot as Heroine,” 127-28.
21. Bird, “The Harlot as Heroine,” 127.
23. Alice O. Bellis, Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible (Louisville: WJK Press, 1994), 114-
15.
24. In “Rahab and the Conquest,” Murray L. Newman writes that Rahab sided with a disenfranchised Israelite minority (see
Newman’s article in Understanding the Word, eds. James T. Butler, Edgar W. Conrad, and Ben C. Ollenburger; Sheffield: JSOT,
1985). Since she was an outcast in her society, she would likely entertain other outcasts and thus the Rahab narrative might fit well into
Gottwald’s theory. Bird and Bellis, however, note that they cannot find any historical or literary evidence that would render this reading
plausible (Bird, “The Harlot as Heroine,” 132; Bellis, Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes, 114).
4
Achsah, the Raped Pîlegeš, and the Book of
Judges
Tammi J. Schneider
The character of Achsah in the book of Judges has traditionally been treated as an element of the
Othniel story,1 or as a metaphor for Israel.2 She is a vehicle to connect Othniel, through Caleb, to the
chain of command from the Sinai generation to the period of the Judges. The verses concerning her
are translated and interpreted in such a way as to depict her as “an image of ideal Yahwist
womanhood.”3 Yet, a careful reading of her story in relation to what precedes and follows it, as well
as in light of the final four chapters of the book, establishes Achsah’s situation as a prototype to which
the later story must be compared. These two stories begin and end the book in order to show how far
off course Israel strayed during the “narrative” time period of Judges.4
This study will focus primarily on the Achsah narrative (Judg 1:12-15) and how it relates to the
rape of the Levite’s ‫( פילגש‬Judg 19),5 and the subsequent civil war (Judg 20-21). The story of Achsah
will be examined in light of the elements relevant from the ‫ פיזגש‬narrative. Emphasis will be placed
on key words and events in these texts which highlight reading these narratives together.
JUDGES 1
The placement of the Achsah narrative within the book of Judges is essential to understanding its role
in the narrative. Judges begins with the question of who will lead Israel upon the death of Joshua
(Judg 1:1). The answer is Judah (Judg 1:2). While “the children of Israel” ask the original question,
only Judah, who asks Simeon to join, campaigns in the next verses.6 Judah defeats ten thousand men at
Bezek, and after pursuing their leader, Adoni Bezek, they capture him and cut off his big fingers and
toes (Judg 6).7 Adoni Bezek is brought to Jerusalem by an unidentified “they” (third masculine plural)
where he dies (Judg 1:7).
The book’s leading question “who will begin to lead” and the answer of Judah is repeated prior to
the battle with the Benjaminites at the end of Judges with the same response (Judg 20:18). While all
the children of Israel seemingly ask the question, only Judah, who invites Simeon, campaigns. This
contrasts with the final story where almost all the children of Israel take part in the battle, but at the
end of the book the exception is Benjamin, against whom the campaign is directed.
The site of Bezek is mentioned once more in 1 Sam 11:8. Here is the site where Saul gathers the
troops to fight the Ammonites in order to protect Jabesh-Gilead, coincidently the only group that does
not take part in the battle during the civil war against Benjamin at the end of Judges.8 Saul summons
the army of Israel to Bezek by dismembering a yoke of oxen (1 Sam 11:7). Thus, the reference to
Bezek and partial dismemberment of its ruler are mirrored with both dismemberment and Jabesh-
Gilead in the civil war at the end.9
The status of Jerusalem is also raised at this point. In this story some group, either the people of
Bezek or Judah, brings Adoni Bezek to Jerusalem, which is then destroyed by Judah. The status of
Jerusalem in the books of Joshua and Judges is confusing, with both Benjamin and Judah at various
points laying claim to it.10 In the final story Jerusalem is not visited because it is not inhabited by
Israelites (Judg 19:12). According to M. Weinfeld, Jerusalem is introduced here to show that Judah
originally captured the city and the problem at the end is the fault of the tribe of Benjamin.11
Continuing in Judges, the children of Judah then attack Jerusalem, capture it, put it to the sword, set
it on fire (Judg 1:8) and then go down to attack more Canaanites in the hill country, Negev, and
Shephelah (Judg 1:9). They then march against the Canaanites in Hebron (Judg 1:10). Hebron is
attacked and then Debir (Judg 1:11).12 The battle against Hebron introduces Caleb. While Caleb is
prominent in other biblical books, this is the only reference to him in Judges.13 These battles are not
led by him, as they are in Joshua, but they take place in areas once attributed to Caleb.14 These
references recall Caleb and his holdings, and, it would follow, territory or land that was his to give
as an inheritance. Deleting Caleb as the leader of these battles not only focuses on Judah again but
may also bring into question Caleb’s continuing authority or right to these lands. Thus, when Caleb
makes his announcement it is not completely out of context, since the text is examining the future of the
areas once under his control. It is also possible that the text questions Caleb’s authority to decide the
ultimate status of these lands.
In v. 11, we learn that they (presumably Judah) marched against the inhabitants of Debir.15 It is
here that Caleb is finally introduced by name and in v.12 he states that he will give his daughter
Achsah as a “wife” to the man who attacks and captures Kiriath-Sepher/Debir. His younger brother,
Othniel the Kenizzite, captures it and Caleb gives him his daughter Achsah as “wife.”
In this text Caleb clearly identifies who is to be given as “wife”16 by referring to her as both “his
daughter” and by her first name, Achsah.17 While these two aspects may not seem unusual, many of
the women appearing in the book of Judges lack names and their status is seldom clearly defined.18
The reason and nature of the relationships among Achsah, Caleb, and Othniel are established prior to
their consummation. Othniel “wins” Achsah. Achsah then becomes a “wife,” which is apparently the
highest rank a woman can attain in her relationship with a man. She is given this rank by her father,
one of two from the desert generation allowed into Canaan.19 This relationship between Achsah’s
“man/husband”20 and her father is identified and solidified by the reference to Othniel as Caleb’s
younger brother.21 Regardless of their exact relationship, this reference ties the two men together as
brothers, with Caleb as the older and possibly more authoritative, in some form that the text, or its
narrator, sees as significant or binding. Thus, the marriage is organized and consummated with and by
the correct parties following the proper sequence of events.
The text states that upon her arrival she (Achsah) induced him (presumably Othniel) to ask her
father for land. Traditional commentaries fear tarnishing Othniel’s image by having the request come
from her, and they follow the LXX, which states that “he nagged her.”22 J. Alberto Soggin says that it
is “manifestly absurd” to follow the MT since it must be Othniel who did the “prompting.” He claims,
“the reading is obviously wrong since the ‘father’ is her father.”23 One could envision numerous
marital scenarios that make “sense” but we must be careful not to use our interpretations to protect
Othniel’s image, or our image of what Othniel should be. The Hebrew text clearly has a feminine
subject for the verb, therefore she, Achsah, was the character carrying out the action.24
Her precise action is controversial. The verb, ‫סות‬, according to BDB means, “to allure, incite,
instigate”25 though Soggin adds a more sexual connotation, “seduce, tempt” to the verb.26 Other
translators prefer “nag” for reasons not elaborated.27 Whatever it is that she does, apparently it is not
effective because the continuation of the verse has her carrying out more actions in order to achieve
her goal.28
In a quick turn of events, in the same verse, Achsah is dismounting from her donkey at her father’s
house. While the verb used here has received a great deal of attention, her arrival on a donkey has
received little. The donkey (‫ )חמור‬as a mode of transportation is seen in only two stories in Judges,
that of Achsah and of the raped 29‫ פיזגש‬We hear nothing about her ascent to the donkey: the text only
relates her descent from it. The only other person who rides a donkey in the book is the Levite’s
raped ‫ פילגש‬after her ordeal, and we do not read of her descent but ascent onto it.
Some scholars see the action of dismounting as problematic.30 According to the Hebrew text, “she
dismounted from her donkey and Caleb asked her, ‘What is the matter?’” The LXX already has a
different interpretation, translating, “she murmured and cried out.” Another addition is that she
“clapped her hands.”31 The assumption is that because of the following question she must have done
something beyond descending from her donkey to have gained her father’s attention.32 G.R. Driver
went so far as to suggest a connection with the Akkadian sānāhu translating, “she broke wind.”33
Lillian R. Klein sees the act of descending from the donkey as unimportant but what matters is that
Achsah bows low, prostrates herself, before her father.34 In her interpretation her father is puzzled by
her prostrating herself and thus asks the question.35
The problem surrounds not only the precise meaning of the verb ‫ צנח‬but also the interpretation and
significance given to that action. Many arguments against it meaning “simple descent” assume that the
action must somehow gain the attention of her father. But the previous verse explains Achsah’s
marriage to Othniel, and the beginning of this very verse explains her arrival to her new place. Thus,
her leaving such a place and returning to her father should be significant enough. This too ties
Achsah’s story to that of the Levite’s ‫ פילגש‬because she is the only other woman in Judges to return to
her father’s home after being sent away, following a relationship formed with a man.36 What is
significant here is that Achsah leaves her husband and descends from a donkey, probably in front of
her father once she arrives at his place.
Achsah’s actions are enough to gain the attention of her father because his response to her is to ask,
“What is with you?” (Judg 1:14). Achsah responds by saying, “Give me a blessing. You have given
me away as Negev land, give me springs of water” (Judg 1:15). Achsah uses the imperative with her
father.37 It is unusual for women to speak in Judges, so the use of the imperative, especially with her
father, is rather shocking.38 She asks for a blessing, but defines the specific parcel of land intended,
leading some to translate “present” instead of blessing.39 Achsah even provides a reason why he
should do this: “You gave me away.” Her comment reads almost like a reprimand. The implication is
she is upset either that he gives her away as a prize or that the area in which she is forced to live is
problematic.
Another interpretation of this scene has to do with the role of Achsah as representing Israel. Klein
even suggests that this is the first biblical metaphor of Israel as bride.40 According to Klein, “The
bride is a reward to the hero who proves his worth, she leads to honorable occupation of the land,
and she asks for life-giving water.”41 She also sees this request as related to reproduction, not of the
moment but of time.42 As a result, Achsah emerges in her view as the image of ideal Yahwist
womanhood.43 Idealizing women and their desire to have children also develops around Jephthah’s
daughter’s lament, which is considered by some scholars as a sign of her regret at not having
children, despite no reference to children in her statement (Judg 11:36-37).44 Regardless of scholars’
view of motherhood, there are only two women in the book of Judges who are actually depicted with
their children.45 Thus, there is little basis to say that Achsah is asking for children, wants children, or
ever had children. Achsah is asking her father for better land because her husband would not ask for
her.
Achsah’s request of her father is granted. The Hebrew is not grammatically correct but this is done
to create the wordplay with her father’s name.46 The translation of the Hebrew is “and he gave her
according to heart.” While one would expect “according to her heart,” the addition of the ‫ ה‬at the end
of the word would destroy the wordplay using the name Caleb. This reference is essential because a
variation of this phrase is used later in the story of the Levite’s ‫פילגש‬.
The verses following Achsah’s story concern the conquest of the tribes of the land, or their
inability to do so (Judg 1:16-34). The text states that in most cases they managed to take some
territory but did not manage to conquer all. In v. 21 we learn that the children of Benjamin did not
dispossess the Jebusites from Jerusalem. This is the only case in this list where the narrator adds, “so
the Jebusites have dwelt with the children of Benjamin to this day.” Again the relationship between
Benjamin and Jerusalem at the end of the book is recalled. The set up for ch. 18 in Judges can be
found in 1:34, which informs us that the Amorites were troublesome for Dan and would not let them
come down to the plain. Thus, by the end of ch. 1 all the pieces are in place for chs. 18-21.
In summation, the book begins with the question of leadership and the answer to this question is
Judah. The first battle at Bezek concerns partial mutilation and is related through key words found in
1 Samuel to Jabesh-Gilead and dismemberment, both essential elements in the final three chapters.
Caleb offers his daughter Achsah to whoever captures Debir. Achsah entreats her husband to talk to
her father, and then takes the action of leaving her husband on a donkey and appearing before her
father, where she demands a “blessing” of land. Her father grants her wish. The narrative turns to the
status of the different tribes’ success in capturing the land, with special notice that the children of
Benjamin were living with the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the trouble Dan has finding a place for
itself.
JUDGES 18-21
The placement of the rape of the Levite’s ‫ פילגש‬is significant for its interpretation. Chapter 18 begins
with the statement that, “In those days there was no king in Israel” (Judg 18:1). For our purposes here
the author of Judges stresses that things are not as they should be. Interestingly enough, at the
beginning of the book, upon the death of Joshua there was also no king in Israel, but that was not
considered the essential problem.47 Only after all that has occurred in the intervening chapters is it
apparent that this is an aspect of the story that must be highlighted.
Chapter 18 concerns the tribe of Dan and its search for a home. It is relevant here that the final
element in ch. 1 ended with the status of Dan and its problems securing a home. Thus, this story can
be seen as beginning where the previous story ended.
Chapter 19 is our second focus. This section too begins with the comment, “In those days there
was no king in Israel” (Judg 19:1). The verse continues with “a Levite residing at the other end of the
hill country of Ephraim took to himself a woman, ‫ פילגש‬from Bethlehem in Judah.”48 As opposed to
the Achsah narrative, none of the protagonists are named. The Levite is a man with no established
territory, again contrasting with Othniel, who has captured land from a leader of the community and
won a bride as a result.
Not only is the Levite’s home poorly defined but his status in Israel is questionable. Phyllis Trible
takes the reference to the man as a Levite to show that he has status in his society.49 While Levites in
various periods are considered persons of status and rank, that position is not clearly in place in
Judges. The previous story portrays a Levite with a nebulous status who carries out actions that could
be considered blasphemous, since he set up a shrine of debatable legitimacy (Judg 18:30-31), with
stolen graven images (Judg 18:14-20), made with stolen money (Judg 17:1-4). Thus it is not clear that
the reference to the man as a Levite carries with it glorious connotations, but rather that neither this
man nor his ‫ פילגש‬are from the kind of lineage as Othniel and Achsah. Note also that both Achsah and
the ‫ פילגש‬are from Judah and the man, who in many ways is the perpetrator of the problems in this
story, is not.
The status and relationship of the woman to the man is clouded. It is not clear exactly how to
define the status of a ‫פילגש‬, usually translated as a “concubine.” Many of the issues concerning the
status of the ‫ פילגש‬concern whether she is a secondary wife and what that would mean in terms of
legal status and the status of her children.50 Susan Ackerman too questions the meaning of the term
“concubine” in general but thinks that in this case it is clearly a secondary wife.51 Again, the reason
the term is not translated here is that whatever its meaning in the original Hebrew, we no longer
understand it and thus any translation will contain the interpretative bias of the translator.52
The question of how the woman becomes his ‫ פילגש‬is not addressed. The text notes that he “took
her.” We do not know who made the arrangements, what they were, how they found each other, and
what role her father plays. The man does not appear to have other “wives,” making the woman’s
status even more baffling. The other ‫ פילגש‬in Judges is the mother of Abimelech. Her “man/husband”
also has “wives,” and therefore status. The reference to the woman and her status arise only when the
question of her child’s status vis-à-vis inheritance and his half-siblings becomes an issue (Judg 8:31).
Thus, it is not clear why the man would take a ‫ פילגש‬as opposed to an official “wife” at this stage of
his life.
In Judg 19:2 the text states that the ‫“ פילגש‬prostituted,” leaving him (presumably her
“man/husband”) for her father’s house in Bethlehem of Judah, where she stayed for four months. The
first action appears to be from the root ‫זנה‬, “commit fornication, play the harlot,” and in the biblical
text this action is punishable by stoning (Deut 22:13-21).53 The method of translation already
indicates the problem in understanding the import of the word. Fornication alone is not a “crime” but
harlotry and adultery are. The question surrounding “harlotry” and “prostitution” in English has to do
with the acceptance of payment for the act. Does “playing” the harlot avoid the financial aspect by
noting that the participant was not actually a prostitute/harlot but only acting accordingly. Earlier in
the book the verb is used for what Israel does to her deity (Judg 2:17),54 and in the nominal form the
root describes the woman from Gaza that Samson visits (Judg 16:1).
As with Achsah’s actions, the trouble in translating the verb lies not so much in the difficulty of the
Hebrew but in the difficulty some interpreters have with the ramifications of that meaning in their
reconstruction of what the text must mean. The LXX and Vulgate already translate “she became angry
with him.” J. Alberto Soggin declares that, “in no way can this be ‫‘ זנה‬practice prostitution’ in the
sense of betraying him,” but his comment is not followed by an explanation or discussion.55 Robert G.
Boling too has problems with this meaning of the verb because in his view a woman would not
prostitute herself and then go home to her father.56 He even sees the fact that the Levite goes after the
woman as proof that the woman must have been the wronged party.57 Trible too questions who
initiated the action.58 Victor H. Matthews suggests that her leaving him may be a sign that she is
initiating a divorce.59 Hans W. Jungling emphasizes that the woman initiated the separation, something
he finds reminiscent of Hagar.60
Achsah may be the better parallel than Hagar. While the story, or its most recent interpretations,
has not stressed this aspect, Achsah does leave her husband in order to go speak to her father. The
fact that she travels on a beast of burden, rather than by foot, may indicate either she is privileged and
has such a means of transportation or more likely indicates the great distance necessitated it. Thus, the
parallels continue since both women leave their men and return to their fathers. While this similarity
is key to understanding the text, the differences in the outcome—how each is received by her father
and what they receive for their return—are critical.
After four months, “her man/husband” sets out with a young man and a pair of donkeys to “speak to
her heart” (Judg 19:2-3).61 The meaning of “speaking to her heart” has a number of interpretations,
including an appeal to her mind, not her emotions, since, according to both Boling and Soggin, in the
biblical text the heart was the seat of the mind, not emotions.62 Trible has studied the use of the term
in other biblical contexts centering on the actions of a man toward a woman and has found that it is
used with either the offended or guilty party.63 Regardless of whether he is speaking to her heart or
her mind, the phrase incorporates the word “heart” as does Achsah’s father when referring to giving
her the land. In that case he “gave according to the heart” at the end of the story, whereas here, the
drama begins by the man who is going to “speak to her heart.” In this case there is no play on words.
The continuation of the verse has the ‫ פיזגש‬admitting the man into her father’s house and her father
greeting him warmly. What follows is a five-day feast for the men. At issue here is how the narrative
employs a number of different terms to express the various relationships of the protagonists to each
other. In v. 3 the Levite is called “her man/husband.” Also, in v. 3 the father is referred to as “the
girl’s” father, calling her a “64.”‫ נערה‬The next verse calls the father both “the girl’s father” and “his
(the man/husband’s) father-in-law,” stressing the father’s relationship to each individual in the
couple. In v. 6 the characters are described as “the girl’s father” and “the man/husband.” In v. 7 they
are “man/husband” and “father-in-law” again. It is difficult to know, this far removed from the author,
whether these terms, when used in relationship to a ‫פיזגש‬, were clearly understood and the shift in
terminology was a stylistic addition by an author, or whether these terms are used specifically to
show how problematic these relationships were. This too contrasts with the Achsah narrative where
all the parties are named and their status and relationship to each other is consistent and clearly
defined.
There is no contact with the ‫ פיזגש‬in these passages (Judg 19:4-9). She neither speaks nor acts, nor
is she involved in any of the feasting or decisions concerning staying or leaving. In the end, the man,
along with his concubine and servant, were asked to stay for the sake of protection, and her
“man/husband” decides to leave (Judg 19:10). The contrast with the Achsah story is immense. Here
the woman’s fate is decided by two men whose concern for her is at best minimal. In Achsah’s case
she initiates the visit, makes the demand of her father, receives what her heart desires, and the story
ends with no fear for her safety.
In the next verse the couple, accompanied by the ‫נער‬, leave and arrive in the vicinity of Jebus, that
is Jerusalem (Judg 19:10). The ‫ נער‬suggests that they stay in Jerusalem, but the master states, “We will
not turn aside to a town of aliens who are not of Israel but will continue to Gibeah” (Judg 19:12). The
irony of this statement has been noted many times before, but what is significant here is that the last
time Jerusalem was mentioned in Judges it was not taken over by Benjamin, but the Benjaminites
were living there together with the Jebusites.
There is not room for a full elaboration of the events in Gibeah but some important elements must
be noted. The “man/husband,” his ‫ פיזגש‬and the ‫ נער‬arrive in Gibeah and are finally taken into
someone’s home for the evening until a group gathers asking for the Levite (Judg 19:15-22). The
group’s interest in the Levite is sexual (Judg 19:22).65 The old man who takes the group into his home
offers both the ‫ פיזגש‬and his own virgin daughter to the group outside interested in the Levite (Judg
19:24). The text states simply that, “the men would not listen,” so the “man/husband” seizes his ‫פיזגש‬
and “pushes her out to them” (Judg 19:25).66 The crucial point for us here is that the woman is thrown
out of the house, a place of safety by her “man/husband,” who has just taken her from her father’s
house.
Contrast this scene with Caleb, who gives his daughter to a man who evinces bravery by attacking
and capturing an enemy town. In the final narrative the ‫ פיזגש‬is given away by her “man/husband” so
the man could remain in safety. The woman is raped and abused all night until the morning (Judg
19:25). The man remains for the night in the safety of the old man’s home.
The raped ‫ פיזגש‬manages to return and collapse at the foot of the door where her “man/husband”
spends the night (Judg 19:26). He somehow manages to get some sleep since the text informs us that
the man arose and opened the doors of the house and went out to continue his journey (Judg 19:27). It
is not clear whether he intends to look for the woman, take her with him, or if he is simply going to
continue his journey alone. When he sees her he commands her in the imperative, “Get up.”67 There is
no reply. Note again the imperative is used here but this time it is used by the “man/husband” to a
woman who is no longer even capable of speech. No requests will be made by this woman.
The text continues, “he took her on the donkey” and they returned home.68 This is our second case
of a woman in Judges traveling by donkey. In this case it is not a sign of privilege but rather necessity:
there was no other way to move her.69 The contrast is chilling.
At this point in the narrative the Hebrew text does not state whether the ‫ פיזגש‬is alive or dead. The
LXX adds to v. 28 the reason she does not reply is that she is dead, but this is not expressed in the
Hebrew. Thus, it is not clear whether she is alive when her “man/husband” returns home, dismembers
her, and distributes her body parts as a call to the children of Israel to fight the children of Benjamin
(Judg 19:29-30).70 Again, dismemberment figures prominently in the story.
The man’s summons is successful and the children of Israel gather (Judg 20:1-2). The question is
again raised, “who will lead us,” and as in the beginning the answer is Judah (Judg 20:18). As
opposed to the beginning of the book, all the tribes take part rather than just two tribes. Again the
story parallels and yet twists the events because this time the battle is against one of their own tribes.
The children of Israel fight a civil war against the tribe of Benjamin (Judg 20). They are successful
down to 600 remaining men of Benjamin, having killed all the other men, women, and children. At
this point the idea that a tribe will be completely destroyed disturbs Israel and they decide to seek out
wives for the remaining Benjaminites (Judg 21:12). A problem arises since all who fought had taken
oaths against letting their daughters marry with Benjamin (Judg 21:1). They discover that Jabesh-
Gilead did not attend the battle and therefore did not make the vow. As a result, the children of Israel
kill the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead, except for their virgin daughters, who are then made into wives
for the Benjaminites (Judg 21:8-14). Thus Jabesh-Gilead reappears.
After stealing a few more wives for the rest of Benjamin from the town of Shiloh, the tribes
disperse and each returns to their own territory. The final note of the book is once again the reminder
that, “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did as he pleased.”
CONCLUSION
Judges begins and ends with similar situations containing the same key words, phrases and women in
pivotal roles in the narrative. The first line of the book raises the question of leadership. The answer
is Judah. The beginning of the civil war battle also raises the question of leadership. The original
battle at Bezek concerns partial dismemberment and is related through 1 Sam 18 to Jabesh-Gilead.
The book ends with the dismemberment of a woman to call together the troops, but this time to
destroy a whole tribe, and then a whole town except for its virgin women so one tribe can continue.
Caleb offers his daughter Achsah to whoever captures Debir, the Levite offers his ‫ פיזגש‬to anyone
who threatens him. Achsah entreats her husband to talk to her father; the ‫ פיזגש‬has no problem with her
“man/husband” and father speaking to each other, though it leads to her death. When Achsah’s
husband does not take action, she does by leaving her husband on a donkey and appearing before her
father. The ‫ פיזגש‬takes some action that leads her to return to her father but results in her not being
able even to move. Where Achsah demands a “blessing” the ‫ פיזגש‬is killed for not responding to an
imperative. When Achsah’s father grants according to her heart, the heart of the ‫ פיזגש‬is approached
and then destroyed. The original chapter begins with the status of the different tribes’ success in
capturing the land, with special notice that the children of Benjamin are living with the inhabitants of
Jerusalem and the trouble Dan has finding a place for itself, and thus begins the tale of the raped
‫פיזגש‬.
The story of Achsah and its surrounding texts are crucial for understanding the book of Judges.
They set up many of the themes and situations that follow throughout the book and culminate in the
rape of the ‫ פיזגש‬and civil war. Examining the Achsah narrative in conjunction with the final three
chapters of the book shows how much more meaningful and understandable even the small words and
phrases in both stories are when read together. Furthermore, it sets up how significantly the world of
Israel has declined since the beginning of the “period.” As a result, Achsah now appears as a more
major character further highlighting the horror of the final story. This horror was probably depicted as
extreme as possible to justify for Israel the kingship that follows in the books of Samuel.
NOTES
1. While the verses related to Achsah in the book of Josh 15:-16-19 are almost identical to those found in Judges, they function
differently because of the surrounding texts. Only Achsah’s role in the book of Judges is under discussion in this study. Neither Robert G.
Boling, Judges: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Anchor Bible Commentary: Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1975, 63-
67) nor J. Alberto Soggin, Judges: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981, 25-33) even mentions the story in the
“Comment” portion of the relevant chapter in their commentary. Newer studies of Judges have begun highlighting her role in the
narrative such as: Danna Nolan Fewell, “Judges,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary (eds. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe;
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 68; Susan Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical
Israel (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 1-3;Tammi J. Schneider, Judges (Berit Olam Series; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2000),
10-17; Victor H. Matthews, Judges and Ruth (New Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004),
40-41.
2. Lillian R. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges (JSOT 14/68; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989), 26.
3. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 26. Even Mieke Bal views her as the “model daughter” (Bal, Death and Dissymmetry: The Politics of
Coherence in the Book of Judges: Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 155.
4. The book of Judges claims to be a chronological account of successive Judges in the period between the conquest and the
establishment of the monarchy, but there is no extra-biblical textual evidence reinforcing any of these narratives. For purposes here, the
time period for these accounts will be treated as a “narrative time” as opposed to any particular historical period.
5. This woman is usually defined as the “concubine” of the Levite. Since this study includes a discussion of that term not only in the
Hebrew, but what the term “concubine” means in English as well, I leave the term undefined and simply use the Hebrew.
6. Matthews suggests comparing the reference to Simeon to the role Simeon plays in the Joseph narrative. He also suggests the
reference is more likely an early indicator of the political submersion of Simeon within the tribe of Judah in Israel’s early history
(Matthews, Judges and Ruth, 38). Schneider suggests in the Genesis birth narratives that some of Leah’s children are already
separated out for different roles. Tammi J. Schneider, Mothers of Promise: Women in the Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Academic, 2008), 68-69.
7. It is unclear whether Adoni Bezek is his title or his name. While it would be useful to know and understand, for purposes of this
paper the reference to Bezek is the fundamental element connecting the early chapters to the ending of the book.
8. M. Weinfeld notes the literary use of the reference to Bezek in its relation to Saul. Weinfeld focuses on the relationship to these
verses and the Judah versus Benjamin themes of the books. His comments are directed toward the parallel between Saul’s initial
campaign beginning with Bezek just as is the case in Judges, but in Judges the leader is Judah (M. Weinfeld, “Judges 1:1-2:5: The
Conquest under the Leadership of the House of Judah” in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart
Anderson; ed. A. Graeme Auld; ISOT 152; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993, 392).
9. The dismemberment of Adoni Bezek is only partial, namely his thumbs and big toes. Traditional responses to why these parts were
removed relate to the fact that without these parts one is no longer a useful soldier and therefore it was a way of making sure that the
leader would never attack again. There are a number of other ways of preventing soldiers from being useful, and the preferred method in
the book of Judges is death. These two body parts in the Hebrew Bible are usually associated with ceremonial cleansing. The term for
the large digit, appearing either on the foot or hand, is ‫בהן‬. Bohan (a possible combination when ‫ בהן‬is pointed) is also a place, which was
a border spot between Judah and Benjamin. Since the final battle is a battle between the forces led by Judah against Benjamin, might this
be another subtle reference to that crisis? Weinfeld sees the reference to the dismemberment of Adoni Bezek as conjuring up the image
of Nahash the Ammonite, who demanded that they gouge out the right eye of all the residents of Jabesh-Gilead (1 Sam 11:2). Both
interpretations may be functioning at the same time (Weinfeld, “Judges 1:1-2:5,” 390).
10. Josh 10:1-29, 12:10, 15:8, 63; Judg 1:8, 21; 19:10.
11. He also notes that this contradicts Josh 15:63 where Judah cannot take the city (Weinfeld, “Judges 1:1-2:5,” 392).
12. Both Brettler and Sweeney identify this as a means of promoting Judah as David’s political base. Marvin A. Sweeney, “David
Polemics in the Book of Judges,” VT 47 (1997): 517-29; Marc Brettler “Literature as Politics,” JBL 108 (1989): 405-28.
13. Caleb initially gained his fame by not fearing the Canaanites in the land the Israelites originally investigate in Num 14:6 and is
therefore one of two of the desert generation who is allowed into the land in Num 14:24. He is given Hebron as a gift in Josh 14:14 and
15:13.
14. See Josh 15:14 where Caleb takes Hebron. In the book of Judges these sentences serve a different function than they served in
the book of Joshua (Schneider, Judges, 8-9).
15. Josh 11:21 has Joshua wiping out all the Anakim living in Debir.
16. The word usually translated as “wife,” ‫אשה‬, also translates as “woman,” and determining which translation is suitable in any
context is governed, to a large extent, by the translator’s understanding of the relationships portrayed in the text.
17. Achsah is again identified as the daughter of Caleb in 1 Chr 2:49. Boling presents an uncertain etymology for her name as related
to seductive anklets that attracted attention, as in Isa 3:16-18 (Boling, Judges, 56). Following this etymology, Fewell asks if her name is
a clue to how she is perceived and wonders if she represents a trinket or if she is a subject in her own right. Danna Nolan Fewell,
“Deconstructive Criticism: Achsah and the (E)razed City of Writing” in Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies (2d
ed.; ed. Gale Yee; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 127.
18. For example, Abimelech’s mother, Jephthah’s daughter, Samson’s mother, Samson’s first betrothed, the “prostitute” in Gaza, and
the ‫ פיזגש‬are all unnamed. This further complicates our understanding of these women, since many terms used in connection with them,
such as ‫ פיזגש‬,‫זונה‬, and ‫עלמה‬, are difficult to translate.
19. The other is Joshua, who according to this book has died (Judg 1:1).
20. Just as there are technical problems understanding relationship terms with women, so too the same problem exists in referring to
a woman’s husband, especially in the story of the ‫פיזגש‬, where their relationship to each other is rather ambiguous.
21. Othniel’s specific relationship with Caleb is not entirely certain. In 1 Chr 4:13 he is identified as the son of Caleb’s brother, and 1
Chr 27:15 Othniel appears as a clan or a tribal name. Here he says he is the younger “brother.” The term “brother” can be used in many
senses of “brotherhood” and it is not clear that in this instance he is referring specifically to the son of either of his parents.
22. C.F. Burney, The Book of Judges (New York: KTAV Publishing, 1970), 13; Boling, Judges, 57. Later Boling goes so far as to
claim that, “Caleb’s daughter Achsah ignores the request of her husband, who will be a judge in 3:7, and substitutes her own desire
(surely the editor implies a contrast with the Shiloh maidens in ch. 21 and the quick-thinking elders who there attend to the future of all
Israel)” (Boling, Judges , 65).
23. Soggin, Judges , 22.
24. Susan Niditch, Judges: A Commentary, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008) suggests this makes her role
more “plucky,” 33.
25. ‫סות‬, BDB, 694.
26. Soggin, Judges, 22. Note Bal’s discussion on the ideologically based problems behind many of the interpretations of this verb,
both in terms of who carries out the action and what the action is (Bal, Death , 152-53). Fewell too has a thorough discussion as to what
the various translations say about the interpreter (Fewell, “Deconstructive Criticism,” 128-29).
27. Boling translates as “nag,” but feels that Othniel is the subject (Boling, Judges, 56-57).
28. Note that the terminology is different but Deborah too must verbally coerce Baraq into fighting and, as in this case, when that is
not enough she must take some action in order for the events to be carried out completely (Judg 6-10).
29. The other references to a “donkey” in the book of Judges are: Judg 6:4 and 15:15-16.
30. Here too Fewell couches the question well, following Paul G. Mosca about how commentators view Othniel’s reputation as the
one at stake (Fewell, “Deconstructive Criticism,” 128).
31. Soggin, Judges, 22.
33. G.R. Driver, “Problems in Judges Newly Discussed,” ALUOS 4 (1964): 6-25.
34. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 26.
36. This will be discussed in more detail below. The situation with Samson’s first betrothed is complicated. It is not clear where she is
when Samson returns after the debacle of his wedding week (Judg 15:1-2). Furthermore, Samson’s first wife is not an Israelite, and the
wedding practices of the Philistines are unknown (Schneider, Judges, 212-17).
37. Note that in Josh 15:19 a different verb is used (‫)נתן‬, but the meaning is the same and it too is the imperative.
38. The other woman to use the imperative in the Book of Judges is Deborah.
39. Soggin, Judges, 22 translates “favor,” JPS Tanach, 377, translates “present.”
42. Klein, Triumph of Irony, 26
44. Schneider, Judges, 179-82.
45. This is contra Ackerman, who sees the nature of motherhood, idealized and real, elsewhere in Judges (Wamor, 184). Samson’s
nameless mother is the only woman depicted from pregnancy through part of her child’s life (Judg 13-14:4), and Michah’s nameless
mother appears only briefly, but in some relationship to her child (Judg 17:2-4). Other mothers, such as the mothers of Abimelech and
Jephthah, are referred to, but are never named or seen, and the legitimacy of the circumstances in which they were conceived is
questioned by the text.
46. Another interpretation is to follow the LXX and say that Kelibbāh has dropped out by haplography (Boling, Judges, 57).
47. Matthews suggests it is the failure of all the tribes to unite, which is the grand argument for monarchy as the solution to political
and military weakness (Judges and Ruth , 38).
48. For a discussion of this text with a different approach to the beginning and ending of the story see Phyllis Trible, “An Unnamed
Woman: The Extravagance of Violence,” in Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1984), 65-91.
49. Trible, “An Unnamed Woman,” 66.
51. Ackerman, Warrior, 237.
52. Ken Stone also refers to the spilled ink on the topic and suggests that it is best to not translate the term. Ken Stone, “Gender
Criticism: The Un-Manning of Abimelech” in Judges & Method: New Approaches to Biblical Studies (ed. Gale A. Yee;
Minneapolis.: Fortress Press, 2007), 193.
53. BDB, “275 ,”‫זנה‬.
54. Judg 2:17.
56. Boling, Judges, 273-74.
57. Boling, Judges, 274.
58. Trible, “An Unnamed Woman,” 67.
59. Matthews, Judges and Ruth, 180.
60. Hans W. Jungling, Richter 19- ein Pladoyer fur das Konigtum: Stilistische Analyse der Tendenzerzahlung Ri 19,1-30a;
21,25, (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981), 87-90.
61. The shifting terms to express the various relationships in this chapter will be discussed below.
62. Boling, Judges, 110; Soggin, Judges, 285.
63. Trible notes Shechem speaking to Dinah after raping her (Gen 34:3), and the prophecy of Hosea (Hos 2:14) (“Unnamed
Woman,” 67). Trible also assumes that love is implied without specifying guilt, but it is not clear that “love” plays a role, so much as his
desire for the return of his ‫“( פיזגש‬Unnamed Woman,” 67).
64. Leeb has done a thorough analysis of the term ‫ נערה‬and ‫נער‬. She points out that the term ‫ נערה‬is never applied to the ‫ פיזגש‬herself
but only as a means of referring to her father. She suggests the reason for die woman’s status as a ‫ פיזגש‬and the disregard with which
she is treated by her husband/master is connected to the use of the term in Deut 22, where it applies to the father of a woman who has
had sexual relations, either as a result of rape or seduction, while still living in the home of her father. Thus, her status as, at least, not a
full wife is rooted in what happened to her in her father’s house. Carolyn S. Leeb, Away from the Father’s House: The Social
Location of the ‫ נער‬and the ‫ נערה‬in Ancient Israel (JSOT 301; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 140-41.
66. For a detailed analysis of this story see Trible, Texts of Terror, 70-79.
67. Note Deborah’s command to Baraq uses the same verb (Judg 4:14).
68. This phrase does not translate well into English, but the verb is “to take” not “to place.”
69. Bal notes that in the earlier case Achsah would have been addressing her father Caleb from above, whereas here the raped
woman is being addressed from above by the man, a reversal of fortunes (Bal, Death, 156). This comparison depends upon the
translation of 1:14 concerning whether Achsah claps her hands (Bal’s understanding of the text) or “descends” (my understanding of the
verb) in which case she would no longer be “above” her father.
70. The biblical account of the Levite’s actions are recounted as quickly and as devoid of emotion as recounted here.
5
You Are a Bible Child: Exploring the Lives of
Children and Mothers Through the Elisha
Cycle1
Julie Faith Parker
What scholars choose to study in the Hebrew Bible often reveals a great deal about themselves. Until
recent decades, the scholars who wrote about the Bible were nearly all well-educated, privileged
men, and in this way, probably like the writers of the Bible. While it still takes substantial privilege
to embark on full-time, academic study of the text, the background of those undertaking this discipline
has broadened widely since the latter part of the twentieth century. This has brought attention to
previously neglected areas of Bible study and characters within the text. Perhaps the most obvious
example is the rise of feminist scholarship, offering countless new insights about the women of the
Bible. Today there are hundreds, if not thousands, of scholarly books about biblical women. Thirty
years ago, there were virtually none. Similarly, the children of the Bible currently languish in a realm
of textual obscurity.
This chapter calls for long-overdue attention to the children of the text, most of whom are
anonymous and have been overlooked or ignored by scholars. A salient example can be found within
the core of the Elisha cycle (2 Kgs 2-8). While discussing the stories of the prophet Elisha, scholars
barely notice, let alone comment on, what I see as a preponderance of child characters. There are the
42 children mauled by bears (2:23-25), King Mesha’s son who becomes a burnt offering (3:27), the
debt collateral children (4:1-7), the Shunammite woman’s son (4:8-37, 8:1-6), Naaman’s slave girl
(5:1-14), the sons of the cannibal mothers (6:24-31), and the mention of suckling children who will
be dashed into pieces (8:12). This density of child characters within the Elisha cycle makes this set of
stories a compelling starting point for child-centered exploration of the text.
Also, all of these children are anonymous. Unlike better known children in the Bible, such as
young Isaac being led to slaughter (Gen 22:1-19), baby Moses in the bulrushes (Exod 2:1-10),
Samuel as a boy with Eli (1 Sam 3), or David as a youth with Goliath (1 Sam 17), these children in 2
Kings are background characters whose orbits overlap with that of the prophet. The tales with these
nameless children are not being told to raise up these young characters as illustrations of larger issues
of fidelity to God, the workings of salvation history, the call of a prophet, or the bravery of a future
king. Precisely because the spotlight is not thrown on the children in the Elisha cycle, they offer a
textual “back window” through which readers might peer in to get an honest glimpse at life for
children in the periods that produced and preserved these stories. While precisely determining the
exact cultural context(s) that yielded these texts is a difficult to impossible task, we can still
recognize that the stories are consonant with the ancient culture that created them. These narratives
then can help to teach us about what life would have been like for children whose realities are
reflected in the text.
To explore some of these realities, this chapter takes two approaches. First, I offer a second
person narration that invites you to imagine yourself as a girl going through a typical day in the
highlands of Israel, toward the end of the ninth century BCE (the period when the text places the
Elisha stories). Subsequently, we will turn our attention to the biblical text and focus on the lives of
children in ancient Israel by looking at three passages within the Elisha cycle. The children in these
stories lack names, but I designate them as the debt collateral children (2 Kgs 4:1-7), the Shunammite
woman’s son (2 Kgs 4:8-37, 8:1-6), and the sons of the cannibal mothers (2 Kgs 6:24-31). I have
chosen these three stories of those in the Elisha cycle because they involve mothers. This chapter then
combines socio-historical, archeological, and textual approaches to help us learn about some of the
quotidian realities and extraordinary challenges for children in ancient Israel during the First Temple
period.
YOU ARE A BIBLE CHILD2
Your name is Devorah, and you are around eleven years old. You live approximately 800 years
before the turn of the Common Era in the highlands of Israel. Your family struggles to survive, and the
threat of danger, disease, and death is never far. Yet for you, these looming perils are simply part of
life.
You live in a mud brick house with your mother, Shula (age 26) and father, Elimelech (age 36),
your blind, elderly grandfather, Perez (age 59), and your two younger sisters, Tamara (age 6) and
Rivkah (age 3). Your little brother, Caleb, got sick when he was a baby, and died. He is buried in a
cave near your house, next to your grandmother, whom you never knew because she died while giving
birth to her third son (who survived). To the right of your house, your father’s brother lives with his
wife and two sons and your father’s sister, who is not yet married. Also lives with them lives the
third son of the family, now grown, and his pregnant wife. Your two houses together form a little
complex around a walled open-air courtyard. This small plot of land came from your grandfather’s
family and is passed on through the eldest male of each successive generation. This homestead must
stay in your family, because, along with your family’s field, this is the foundation of your survival.
Your house has two floors, plus the roof. The bottom floor has four rooms, separated by pillars and
partition walls. Three long rooms are parallel to each other, and there is a horizontal room in the
back, which your family uses for storing farming implements and large pottery jars, some of which
contain dried food. Two of the small side rooms serve at night as stables for your family’s sheep and
goats. On the second floor, which you reach by ladder, there is a loom for weaving, and mats that you
roll out to use for sleeping. When the weather is warm enough, you sleep on the roof. You love those
clear nights because you sleep so much better without the sound and stench of the animals below.
Each day you wake up at the crack of dawn. Your mother always tells you that you live up to your
name, Devorah, which means “bee.” Your mother gave you this name, hoping you would be busy like
a bee and contribute to the work of the house, which you do everyday from sunup to sundown.
Before you go downstairs from the roof, you check on little Rivkah. Your mother is still weaning
her and so Rivkah sleeps next to Shula at night. However, your mother has gotten up while it was still
dark to put out a small breakfast before everyone starts their day of work. When Rivkah is awake, you
need to help her down the ladder and bring her outside so she can go to the bathroom. Sometimes she
just relieves herself by the animals, but you are trying to break her of that habit since the house
already smells bad enough. Fortunately, Rivkah is still asleep, so you can get some work done before
she wakes up.
You clamber down the ladder and see your mother at work pounding grain. The two of you
exchange wordless smiles, then you quickly eat some bread and a dried fig. Next you go to the back
room and take a pottery jar. It is heavy, but you are strong for a girl of eleven years. You heave the jar
onto your head and make your way down to the cistern, a large hole carved out of the stony wall of a
mountain nearby that is used for collecting rainwater. While you are leaving the house, you see your
father coming down the ladder to eat some breakfast before heading off to the fields. He will go with
his brothers and your two male cousins for the day. They need to leave early, because it is unbearable
to work in the fields in the heat of the relentless midday sun. You also need to gather water in the
morning, because lugging the filled jar is hard enough while the day is still cool.
After you return from one trip to the cistern, Rivkah is awake. You were hoping to get two jars of
water before your baby sister woke up, but no such luck. Instead you try to get your middle sister,
Tamara, to take care of Rivkah. Tamara may be younger than you are, but she is strong-willed. She has
her own early morning job—gathering kindling wood. She also collects the dung from the animals and
puts it into a clay pot, then brings the pot to your grandfather to make dung cakes for fuel. Even though
Perez is old and blind and can no longer work in the fields, he can still contribute in this way. Tamara
knows that it is your job to watch Rivkah. Shula is now kneading grain to make bread and cannot keep
running around after a little three-year old. Your mother has also put you in charge of Rivkah because
she knows that you will be married and having your own children within a few years.
Sometimes you talk with the wives of your father’s brothers about this while you are herding the
animals during the day. You take some bread with you. After a few hours of walking with the animals
as they graze, you stop to sit under a tree and eat with your companions. Yafah, the pregnant wife of
your father’s youngest brother, is fifteen. You had known her, however, before she married your uncle.
Her family’s compound is not too far from yours, and her grandfather was the cousin of your
grandfather. You would see her at the well when you would take your family flocks there or at festival
gatherings. Perez arranged the match with Yafah’s father. Yafah feels fortunate to be part of the family
of Perez now, because she is not far from her own mother and father and can see them at celebrations.
Also, her new family is relatively wealthy, with strong houses, healthy flocks, and a location for their
compound that is close to the cistern.
When you are married in a few years, you will move to the household of your husband. There you
will fulfill the responsibilities your mother has now—turning grain into flour, turning flour into bread,
drying and storing foodstuffs, making yarn and weaving cloth, making pottery, bearing and raising
children, and tending to a small family garden near the house. You may also have many of the same
jobs you have now—milking the animals, taking them out for pasture and water, getting water for the
family, as well as taking care of children. Your mother is teaching you the many skills you will need
to know when you become a wife and mother. You will have to see where you fit in your husband’s
family, which can be challenging.
Your day is filled with tasks, but also some laughter. At night your family gather’s on the second
floor for the evening meal. Shula has cooked a pot of vegetable stew with lentils, leeks, garlic, and
some spices, and she serves it with some soft cheese. Everyone eagerly consumes their bowl of stew
and sops up every last drop with bread. Before bed, your grandfather tells stories. Since his eyes
became white and full of pus years ago, robbing him of sight, Perez now sees stories in his head. You
know that he must think of them all day, getting ready to entertain everyone at night. He loves to talk
about the creation of the world, and the God—El—who rules over all. You listen, but you are
exhausted. Finally, when you can stay awake no longer, you climb onto the roof. In your heart, you
thank El for another day, and you fall fast asleep under starry skies.
CHILDREN IN THE ELISHA CYCLE
While Devorah in the story above lives only in our imaginations, other children like her are at home
in the pages of the Hebrew Bible. We now turn our attention to some of the children in the Elisha
cycle, to see how these young characters interact with the rest of their biblical scene. We ask
questions of the text as we enter the world of the narrative, with a keen eye on the children.3 What is
the social and physical location of the story? How much does this shape the characters? What
background, if any, are we given about the children, and how does it influence our opinions? What
props might the children handle, and what does this tell us about their capabilities and
responsibilities? Do the children speak? How do the adult characters react to them and treat them?
How do the children act toward others? What difference, if any, does it make that these characters are
children and not full grown? How much do the children seem integral to the plot, and why do they
matter as much (or as little) as they do? How does the narrator regard the children or take note of
their role in the story? Is the narrator seeking to provoke sympathy, judgment, or maintaining an
emotional distance? The influence of children in the text is usually subtle, yet still affords these
characters a limited degree of power. How they use this power in the text, and how we observe it,
converges ancient thoughts about children with our own.
The Debt Collateral Children (2 Kings 4:1-7)

The story of the debt collateral children (2 Kgs 4:1-7) shows how small characters can point to big
problems, such as the sale of one’s own offspring to pay debts. As Gregory Chirichigno explains in
Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East, using family members to remunerate creditors
was a crushing reality for those at the bottom of society’s strata during the divided monarchies.4 The
woman in this story is a widow, struggling to maintain a precarious existence.5 Societal protection for
the widowed woman allowed her to return to her father’s house. However, this was only an option if
the head of the household of her deceased husband approved, so the ‫מהר‬, (or “bride price”) paid by a
man to his new wife’s family would not be wasted.6 The levirate marriage arranged for the widow
and her children to have a means of survival and prevented the husband’s family from suffering
financial loss.7
For reasons unknown, neither the possibility of a levirate marriage or a return to her father’s house
seems to have been an option for this widow at the brink of utmost desperation. She risks losing her
children, with the distinct possibility that she may not get them back, which also was a societal
reality.8 Her predicament as a widow facing debt slavery for her children was not uncommon, as the
elite gained a monopoly over land and money, forcing the dependency of smaller landowners. By
charging high interest rates, the moneyed class often procured the plot of the small farmer.9 Once the
land was taken and the poor had nothing else to give, they sold dependents (cf. Neh 5:1-5). For many,
the high price of penury was progeny. If necessary, impoverished people also sold themselves into
slavery.10 This widow’s greatest hope is the prophet’s help.
We see from her actions that she is fighting to hold onto her children. She is the advocate, and
arguably the story’s hero, seeking intervention to keep what remains of her family together. Neither
narrator nor any character explains the widow’s motivation, but we infer that she cares about her
children and their wellbeing. We do not know how old these two children are, who are revealed as
sons, but they are young enough to be dependent on their mother, old enough to fetch containers for
oil, and one engages in conversation. The mother may want to keep her sons because they are the hope
for her own future survival, but we need to be careful not to automatically divorce economic from
emotional ties. We see children as emotionally priceless but financially draining.11 In societies that
have the labor of children woven into their economy, this may be an irrelevant dichotomy.
The children have a role in their own salvation. They participate in the miracle by bringing in the
neighbors’ vessels from outside. Only the mother and children, along with the reader by invitation of
the narrator, are privy to the workings of wonder. Even the man of God needs to wait for the widow’s
report. As the vessels come in and fill up with the oil that miraculously keeps flowing, the door is
shut to the house, perhaps to keep out the encroaching creditor or any nosy neighbors. When the
mother asks her son for more containers, he informs her that there are no more. She listens to him and
believes him. The child’s words seem to prompt the miracle’s termination; as the vessels stop, so
does the supply of oil. The boy is obedient and trustworthy, inferably worried and hopeful. The story
ends with the prophet’s instructions to sell the oil and stave off the creditor. We readers, encouraged
like the boys and their mother, heave a sigh of relief, believing that this poor family can stay together.
Elisha, whose name means “God saves” and thus promises deliverance, has indeed saved these
children from the fate of becoming debt slaves.
The Shunammite Woman’s Son (2 Kings 4:8-37)

The very next story in 2 Kings also involves rescuing a child (4:8-37).12 Here Elisha is taken in by a
Shunammite woman, who gives him a furnished room on the upper story of her house, but wants
nothing in return. Even though she and her husband have no children, this woman does not ask for a
child when the prophet seeks to bestow favor upon her. She is a woman of status, an ‫אשׁה גדולה‬, likely
rich and perhaps an ancient career woman who feels perfectly fulfilled without a baby. But the
prophet wants her to have a child, and so she does. Once this woman has a son, the narrator now
describes her as “the mother of the child.” Yet the Shunammite woman’s son, like the debt collateral
children, is also in peril, for while out in the fields with his father, the boy’s head hurts and he
complains simply but repeatedly, “my head, my head.” His father quickly passes the child to his
mother, who holds the boy until noon, when he dies. But that is not the end of the story, for this
determined mother refuses to go back to her childless state. An ‫ אשה גדולה‬knows how to get things
done, and she will save her son. The men around her do not understand. When the Shunammite woman
announces to her husband her plan to go to the prophet, he seems unaware of the child’s death. Nor
does this father ask about his child, whom he had last seen in distress. Rather, the husband inquires
about the new moon or Sabbath, perhaps thinking that his wife is going to see the prophet for
customary ritualistic purposes (cf. Isa 66:23, Ezek 46:1). The Shunammite woman does not even take
time to explain about the boy’s demise, but succinctly replies, “Shalom.” She then saddles and mounts
a donkey and goes as fast as possible to the prophet. When Elisha sees her approaching, he sends his
assistant, Gehazi, to ask how she and the family are doing. She also tells him, “Shalom” (read: “Get
out my way, my child is in trouble!”). Upon reaching Elisha, the Shunammite woman grabs his feet,
and will not be pushed away. This mother is relentless: rushing, riding, and rightfully insisting that the
one who gave her the life of her son now must give her son life. When Elisha comes up with a plan
for Gehazi to execute, she will not settle for this lackey’s intervention. Indeed, Gehazi does try to
revive the child, but fails. Elisha follows the Shunammite woman back to her house where he
discovers the dead child. The prophet lies on the boy, warming his flesh. Elisha then walks around
and then bends over the boy, who sneezes and opens his eyes. The prophet succeeds in resurrecting
the child, spurred by this fiercely devoted mother. Here we have reason to believe the mother is not
economically motivated to act on behalf of her child, since she is well-off herself. Rather, as in the
story of the debt collateral children, we once again see how much children matter to their mothers.
And once again, the prophet Elisha lives up to his name.
The Sons of the Cannibal Mothers (2 Kings 6:24-31)

But Elisha cannot, or does not, save the boy eaten by his own mother in the particularly gruesome tale
of 2 Kgs 6:24-31. Here a mother comes before the king seeking justice. During a wartime siege and
ensuing famine, one mother bargained with another. The first day, they would boil and eat one
woman’s son, and on the second day, the other woman’s son. But after consuming one child, the
second mother hides her son. The first mother, in a strikingly matter-of-fact report, recounts this to the
king, then appeals for retribution. The king rends his garments and vows to kill Elisha. Where was the
prophet when needed to help this child?
This cannibal mother is not alone in the Hebrew Bible.13 Other passages describe parents
consuming children (Deut 28:52-57; Lam 2:20, 4:10; Ezek 5:9-10), but only here in 2 Kgs 6:24-31 do
we focus on a specific child character in the narrative, instead of a general threat or depiction. We
see, up close, the horrific vulnerability that could haunt a child’s life. In the stories of the debt
collateral children and the Shunammite woman’s son, the mother advocates for her offspring, and the
prophet is coerced to respond. But the cannibal mother not only fails to advocate for her son, she
agrees to his murder and then joins in eating him. If the mother does not try to save her own child,
why should the prophet get involved? Perhaps the power of God is most effective when in consort
with human agents, for indeed, the prophet is absent throughout this sad scene—and this child has
been left to perish. This mother and child know macabre union as, once again, he becomes bone of
her bone and flesh of her flesh.
This story offers parallels to the tale found in 1 Kgs 3:16-28, in which the prostitutes come before
the king (whom context designates as Solomon) wrangling over a living child. In both the stories of 1
Kgs 3 and 2 Kgs 6, an anonymous woman cries out to the (unnamed) king seeking justice. In both
stories, one son has been killed due to the suggestion or action of the other boy’s mother. In both
stories, a mother is ready to give up her son, either to save his life or that he might lose it. Yet only the
prostitute who is the mother of the living son in 1 Kgs 3 expresses concern for her child. The mother
of 2 Kgs 6:26-29 is mad that she has been tricked; she makes no signs of grief and utters no regret
about her deadly deal. Accordingly, the king of 1 Kgs 3 is wise; he hears the plea, restates the case,
and renders fair judgment with his royal ruse. The king of 2 Kgs 6 is inept; he begrudgingly listens to
the petition, then makes a show of remorse, but offers no pertinent guidance.14 His retributive
sentence calling for Elisha’s death does not impact the mothers or the living son. The woman who
comes before the king of 1 Kgs 3 gets the justice she seeks—her son is given to her alive. The woman
who comes before the king of 2 Kgs 6 gets no relevant response—and her son is already dead,
cooked, and eaten by her own actions (v. 29a: ‫)ונבשׁל א בני ונאכלהו‬. The second mother in
2 Kgs 6 is silent, as the narrator grants her a low profile that helps keep her and her son alive. This
story illustrates the extreme toll that war can take on its most vulnerable victims, namely its children.
Yet balanced by the story of 1 Kgs 3, this image of stunning disregard for a child’s life is countered
with deep concern for the same.
All of the children whom we have discussed—the debt collateral children, the Shunammite
woman’s son, and sons of the cannibal mothers—are in danger as they hover on the brink of a
precarious existence. Their little lives in the text open up much larger issues. Stories generally
interpreted to extol Elisha as a wonder-worker now carry haunting overtones about children and
slavery, war, and death. What makes these tales even more troubling is the poignant relevance they
have for our modern world.15 Every day children are sold as slaves, suffer from starvation, and die
by the thousands from war and illness, but no prophet brings them back to life. Yet within the Bible
the power of prophet holds steadfast—and it grows even stronger when we take from these stories
lessons of struggle, determination, and hope.
NOTES
1. An earlier version of this chapter was presented in the “Women in the Biblical World” section at the Annual Meeting of the SBL in
San Diego on November 17, 2007. I would like to extend my thanks to those present for their thoughtful feedback.
2. For a basic introduction to children in the Hebrew Bible, see Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans.
John McHugh; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), 41-52. For discussion of family life (esp. parental roles) as it impacted the social
structure, see Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Social World of Ancient Israel 1250-587 BCE (Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1993), 7-36; Daniel I. Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel” in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World (ed.
Ken M. Campbell; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2003), 33-102; Leo G. Perdue, et al., Families in Ancient Israel (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1997). For relationships between brothers and sisters as reflected in the text, see Ingo Kottsieper, “‘We Have a
Little Sister’: Aspects of the Brother-Sister Relationship in Ancient Israel” in Families and Family Relations as Represented in Early
Judaisms and Early Christianities: Texts and Fictions (STAR 2; eds. Jan Willem van Henten and Athalya Brenner; Leiden: Deo,
2000), 49-80. For an overview of the lives of women in the ancient Near East, including Israel, and children by extension, see Hennie J.
Marsman. Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East (OtSt 49;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2003); Karel van der Toorn, From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Life of the Israelite and
the Babylonian Woman (trans. Sara J. Denning-Bolle; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994). For issues related to Jewish family life in later
periods, see Amram Tropper, “Children and Childhood in Light of the Demographics of the Jewish Family in Late Antiquity,” JSJ 37
(2006): 299-343; Shaye J. D. Cohen, ed., The Jewish Family in Antiquity (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). For discussion directly
informed by archeology, see Obed Borowski, Daily Life in Biblical Times (SBLABS 5; Atlanta: SBL, 2003); Carol Meyers,
Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988); and also by Meyers, “Everyday
Life: Women in the Period of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary (eds. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe;
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 251-59; Lawrence Stager, “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel,” BASOR 260
(1985): 1-36; Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001). Borowski
(Daily Life in Biblical Times, 109-26) and King and Stager (Life in Biblical Israel, 12-19) each include a more extensive “Day in the
Life” portrayal.
3. This involves narrative strategies that focus on often overlooked aspects of biblical stories. For discussion of the rewards of such
an endeavor as it pertains to feminist readings, see Danna Nolan Fewell and David M. Gunn, Gender, Power and Promise: The
Subject of the Bible’s First Story (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 9-21. Other helpful resources for reading strategies with narratives
include: Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981); Yairah Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary
Criticism and the Hebreiv Bible (trans. Yael Lotan; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001); Mieke Bal, On Storytelling: Essays in
Narratology (ed. David Jobling; Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1991); Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (JSOTSup 70;
Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989); Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983); and
Jan Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide (trans. Ineke Smit; Leiden: Deo, 1999).
4. Gregory C. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East (JSOT-Sup 141; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1993), 123-29.
5. In the Hebrew Bible the widow often joins the orphan and sojourner, forming an unenviable troika of oppression (e.g., Exod 22:21-
22; Deut 24:17-21, 27:19; Ps 94:6). For further textual discussion of the plight of these marginalized people, see Donald E. Gowan,
“Wealth and Poverty in the Old Testament: The Case of the Widow, the Orphan, and the Sojourner,” Int 41 (1987): 341-53. Yet the
image of a destitute widow is also a stereotype; the status of an individual widow doubtlessly hinged on various factors, including her
familial and financial resources. See Karel van der Toorn, “Torn Between Vice and Virtue: Stereotypes of the Widow in Israel and
Mesopotamia,” in Female Stereotypes in Religious Traditions (SHR 66; eds. Ria Kloppenborg and Wouter J. Hanegraaff; Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1995), 1-13.
6. F. Charles Fensham, “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient New Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature,” JNES 21 (1962):
136.
7. This social institution also kept a woman in a socially acceptable role of wife and mother. See Richard Kalmin, “Levirate Law,” n.
p., ABD on CD-ROM , Version 2.1, 1997.
8. As Chirichigno explains, “in many cases, people were not able to redeem their dependents (cf. 2 Kgs 4:1; Jer 34:8-16)” (Debt-
Slavery, 141).
9. See Chirichigno, Debt Slavery, 139-44. Chirichigno feels that this story from 2 Kings probably reflects debt slavery at its height
(Debt Slavery, 355).
10. While Exod 21:2-11 and Deut 15:12-18 legislate release for slaves after six years, Jer 34:8-16 betrays the effectiveness of such
protections. The Code of Hammurabi was kinder, stipulating a slave’s release after three years. See Fensham, “Widow, Orphan,” 131.
11. As Viviana Zelizer explains, this understanding of children as divorced from the labor economy is a relatively recent development
in western thinking, beginning around the turn of the twentieth century. See Viviana Zelizer, Pricing the Priceless Child: The Changing
Social Value of Children (New York: Basic, 1985).
12. For an engaging midrash on this story from the perspective of the mother, see Danna Nolan Fewell, “The Gift: World Alteration
and Obligation in 2 Kings 4:8-37” in A Wise and Discerning Mind: Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long (BJS 325; eds. Saul M.
Olyan and Robert C. Culley; Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), 109-23. For discussion comparing the woman in this story with
the similar account in the Elijah cycle (1 Kgs 17:8-24), see Jopie Siebert-Hommes, “The Widow of Zarephath and the Great Woman of
Shunem: A Comparative Analysis of Two Stories” in On Reading Prophetic Texts: Gender-Specific and Related Studies in Memory
of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes (eds. Bob Becking and Meindert Dijkstra; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), 231-50.
13. As Marsman notes, this is not to suggest that cannibalism was a common practice. Rather, this extreme act was a stunning
indicator of violent distress. See Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 205, 237-38.
14. Stuart Lasine offers an in depth comparison of these two stories, and views the king of 2 Kgs 6 (whom he infers is Jehoram)
more charitably. See Stuart Lasine, “Jehoram and the Cannibal Mothers (2 Kings 6:24-33): Solomon’s Judgment in An Inverted World,”
JSOT 50 (1991): 40-44.
15. On the relationship between Bible stories and contemporary children around the globe, see Danna Nolan Fewell, The Children
of Israel: Reading the Bible for the Sake of Our Children (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 19-40.
6
Refusing the Syrophoenician Woman: The
Disparate Perspectives of Jesus, Mark, and
Feminist Critiques1
Lynn B.E. Jencks
From there He set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know He was there.
Yet He could not escape notice, but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about Him, and she
came and bowed down at His feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged Him to cast the demon
out of her daughter. He said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the
dogs.” But she answered Him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” Then He said to her, “For that
saying, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.” So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon
gone.2
The story of the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7:24-30 is notoriously troublesome for modern
exegetes. The apparently exclusivist and prejudiced statement spoken by Jesus, whom many confess
as the perfect earthly representative of an all-loving God, has generated a vast and diverse array of
interpretations: some trite, some creative, some downright dangerous.
William Lane, for example, states that Jesus “put before the woman an enigmatic statement to test
her faith.”3 Vincent Taylor argues that Jesus sought solitude in Mark 7:24 in order to reflect upon the
scope of His mission. Thus, when Jesus states that the Israelite “children” must be fed first. He is
“speaking to Himself as well as to the woman.” Taylor posits that in her reply, the Syrophoenician
woman shows that she is quick to perceive Jesus’ uncertainty and challenges Him to expand His
vision.4 Hisako Kinukawa attributes Jesus’ withdrawal to frustration with His disciples, and she
argues that His rebuke and refusal was a misplaced expression of this frustration:
[Jesus] may be filled with sorrow and exasperation because He has to face the reality that the heart of the gospel has not
reached His people. Why would He accept a Gentile woman when He is so concerned about His compatriots? Or He might be
wondering how this Gentile woman could understand and accept Him while His own circle is so obtuse.... He could be taking out
His feelings on this Gentile woman, using harsh words not because of her but because of His compatriots. Seen the other way
around, Jesus could be attacking the lack of understanding and faith of His fellow Jews.5
Other scholars base their explanation of Jesus’ refusal upon their understandings of first century
Jewish culture. Ched Myers, for example, states that it was “an affront to the honor status” of a
Jewish man for a woman, unknown and unrelated to him, to invade his privacy and to seek a favor.
Therefore, Myers concludes, “a rebuff by Jesus thus is not only understandable but expected.”6 Susan
Miller argues that Jesus espoused a conventional cultural, religious, and national exclusivism, and
thus is reluctant to heal the child because “the woman and her daughter are Gentile and are thus
outside the Jewish nation.”7 Hisako Kinukawa asserts, based on her understanding of honor/shame
culture, that “Jesus was expected to defend the collective honor of His people,” and thus, His
exclusivism was a natural choice.8
Feminist scholars offer a different perspective on the passage, utilizing the combined approaches
of historical-critical analysis and feminist critique. Because the historical-critical stance on the
Syrophoenician woman’s social and economic status varies widely, and because of the diverse
ethnic, cultural, and social perspectives from which feminist scholars base their critique, it is
impossible to identify a single, overarching “feminist interpretation” of this passage. Yet feminist
scholars are in agreement on one point: Jesus’ refusal provided the female character the opportunity
to reveal her admirable, powerful, and efficacious qualities.
Miller, for example, praises the clever wit of the woman who is able to best a Jewish sage in an
argument, and who “skillfully transforms the imagery of Jesus’ parable into a saying that leaves room
for the healing of her daughter.”9 The Syrophoenician woman’s compassionate concern for life and
well-being is also highly praised. Hyunju Bae names this pericope “a tale of action for life and human
dignity,” and praises the Syrophoenician woman’s willingness to leave her comfortable home and to
risk her safety for the sake of her daughter “in order to enhance the life and human dignity of the
weak.”10 Ranjini Wickramaratne Rebera identifies this action as a source of power that allows the
Syrophoenician woman to confront and to match the power of the Rabbi Jesus. “She feels He is
wrong to claim exclusivity for His healing ministry, and she uses her strong feelings as the source of
her power to initiate a change of attitude in Him,” Rebera asserts.11
Feminist scholars laud the woman’s defiant spirit. Rebera, for instance, praises her as “the sister
who refused to take ‘No’ as the answer” and names her a “role model for courage and tenacity when
we are confronted by put-downs and derogatory remarks.”12 Joanna Dewey specifically praises her
defiance of sexism, asserting:
The woman violates the dominant view of the appropriate role for women. She is portrayed entering a house where she is not
wanted, entering the company of men where she does not belong, and speaking to a male stranger. After Jesus refuses her
request, insulting her and her child as “dogs,” the woman does not submissively withdraw, but takes up the challenge (as a male
might be expected to do) and speaks to Jesus again ... in order to get her way.13
Jane Hicks focuses not upon the Syrophoenician woman’s defiance, but upon her willingness to
engage in creative relationship and collaboration with “other.” Hicks asserts that the Syrophoenician
woman’s “willingness to engage the other, to hear Jesus’ rebuke, and to answer back on His terms, all
without relinquishing the legitimacy of her claim” offers a positive model for collaboration that
transcends barriers of difference.14 Furthermore, Hisako Kinukawa argues, through her assertive
engagement in collaborative relationship and her insistence upon inclusiveness, the Syrophoenician
woman in fact demonstrates to Jesus the true nature of His mission. By questioning Jesus when His
refusal excludes her from His table community, she challenges Him “to be consistent in giving
primacy to the marginalized wherever they are and showing an egalitarian spirit toward those who
are destitute.”15 By her clearer vision of the scope of the Kingdom of God, she instructs Jesus in the
true scope of His mission. Elaine Wainwright develops this idea, stating: “It is here, in the woman’s
refusal to be silenced and her claim on the power of the βασιλϵία, that He recognizes a more
expansive vision of that βασιλϵία.”16
The locus of feminist critique, however, prompts feminist scholars not only to extol the virtues of
the Syrophoenician woman, but also to point out the many problematic aspects of this passage that
praises of the heroine cannot mask. Sharon Ringe, for instance, asserts that the Syrophoenician
woman’s acceptance of subordination ultimately provides a deeply problematic Scriptural
justification of diverse forms of oppression and injustice. She argues that this passage implicitly
condones the harsh treatment of the weak and needy, asserting:
The crisis of her daughter’s illness that is posited as the specific occasion of this encounter establishes the woman’s absolute
need, and it moves her into a subordinate position relative to Jesus, whom she perceives as having the healing power she needs
for her daughter. Consequently, I am brought up short by her humiliation. No one, regardless of other attributes of their lives,
deserves such treatment at a time like that!17
Ringe is further troubled that the character treated so harshly is a woman, who is shown as
“winning favor by submissive behavior in the presence of a male.”18 Ringe inquires: “Read in its
canonical context as Scripture of the church, does this passage sanction the humiliation and verbal (as
well as physical) abuse of women as a legitimate test of their faith?”19 She further asserts that the
passage risks “supporting the notion that suffering and abuse is the natural—even appropriate—lot of
women.”20
Because the Syrophoenician woman can be classified as “other” not only on the basis of her
gender, but also on the basis of her religion and ethnicity, feminist scholars writing from a post-
colonial perspective criticize its use to justify racial, ethnic, and religious oppression. Leticia
Guardiola-Sáenz, for instance, a Mexican-American who grew up on the borderlands of the United
States, points out that the Syrophoenician woman is “the first fruit of the mission to the Gentile,” and
is presented as “the pagan who needs to be redeemed,” instead of an equal “with a culture and
identity of her own and who should be respected for who she is.”21 Chinese scholar Kwok Pui-Lan
follows a similar argument from the perspective of colonized peoples, elucidating how “colonized
peoples were expected to be as subservient, obedient and loyal as a ‘devoted dog’” and how the
humility of the Syrophoenician woman served as a model of obedience “to ease the spread of
colonialism and imperialism.”22 She concludes that this pericope has been ripe for appropriation to
support sexist, colonialist, and imperialist agendas, echoing Elisabeth Schüssler Florenza’s
conclusion that “this is indeed a sacred text that advocates and reinscribes kyriarchal power-relations
. . . and women’s feminine identity and submissive behavior.”23
In response to the troublesome nature of this pericope and the many legitimate concerns raised by
feminist scholars, the current paper reexamines the interaction between Jesus and the Syrophoenician
woman. It argues that the author of the Gospel of Mark, who first put the pericope into writing, altered
and embellished aspects of the event—including Jesus’ motivation for refusing the Syrophoenician
woman—in order to address His own theological concerns. In the resultant palimpsest, Jesus’
motivation for refusing the Syrophoenician was obscured by Mark’s agenda, obfuscating an already
problematic event.24 After identifying the disparate agendas of Jesus and Mark, this paper will revisit
the feminist critiques, to examine whether separating the agendas mitigates the perceived problems of
Jesus’ words and actions.
A REEXAMINATION OF MOTIVATION
When Mark wrote his gospel, there were widespread debates about including Gentiles in the Jesus
movement. Mark’s audience was a mixed Jewish and Gentile community in Syria or Northern
Palestine; thus one of his key concerns was to justify the Gentile mission to those who resisted their
inclusion in the Jesus movement. The key issue that Mark had to address in this justification was the
traditional barrier of clean and unclean between Jew and Gentile. He did so through Jesus’ assertion
that defilement was an internal issue and the resultant declaration that all foods were clean (Mark
7:14-19). This broke down the legal barrier to accepting Gentiles on their own terms: morality was
interiorized and thus open to all, regardless of external practices. The subsequent exorcism of the
Syrophoenician woman’s daughter was Mark’s demonstration that Jesus had eradicated the traditional
barrier and had extended His mission to the Gentiles. Mark followed this exorcism with a final,
broad endorsement of the Gentiles: the feeding of the 4,000 in the Gentile region of the Decapolis
(8:1-9). Thus, Mark sought in his redaction of Jesus’ actions and declarations to counter his
contemporaries’ arguments against the Gentile mission.
Mark’s placement of the Syrophoenician woman pericope in a pivotal position in his narrative
reveals a great deal about the theological significance he gave to the incident. By placing it directly
after Jesus’ declaration that all foods are clean (v. 19), and immediately following it with a
comprehensive journey through Gentile lands (v. 31), Mark clearly intended Jesus’ exorcism of the
Gentile Syrophoenician woman to demonstrate Jesus’ endorsement of the Gentile mission. Because
this incident serves a key narrative and theological role, it is a strong argument for the story being a
purely Markan creation, instead of a redaction of an historical event preserved in the oral tradition.
However, there are many troublesome aspects of the story that do not allow such a conclusion. There
are too many anomalies in this story, which at various times contradict Mark’s style, Palestinian
cultural norms, and literary conventions. Such anomalies are often clues to older, historical material
appearing in later redactions, and thus are also clues to Jesus’ original intentions.25 The following
sections focus specifically on three crucial anomalies: Jesus refuses a suppliant’s request, Jesus is
bested in an argument, and Jesus insults a suppliant.
JESUS REFUSES A SUPPLIANT’S REQUEST
Jesus’ refusal of a suppliant’s request in Mark 7:27 is indeed a surprising anomaly. This is contrary to
the conventions of Mark’s healing and exorcism stories; indeed, this pericope contains the only
occurrence of such a refusal in the Gospel of Mark. This refusal is also contrary to the historical
Jesus, who typically crossed social boundaries in order to grant requests. A careful examination of
Mark’s theology reveals a possible explanation for this surprising exception. As explained earlier,
Mark’s theological agenda in this portion of the narrative is to justify the Gentile mission. In v. 19,
Mark eliminates the legal prohibitions around ritual cleanliness. However, he still must address the
Hebrew Scripture assertion that God’s covenant is solely with the Israelites, His chosen people. One
place Mark does so is in this pericope, specifically in his wording of Jesus’ refusal: “Let the children
be fed first” (v. 27a). By stating the priority of the children, Mark expresses a theology that was
widespread in the first century communities: the Jews, as the descendants of Abraham and God’s
chosen people, enjoy the prerogative of being first to have the gospel addressed to them, while the
Gentiles can only be incorporated after Jesus is rejected by His own people.26 Mark provides an
extended illustration of this rejection in his passion narrative, which elaborately justifies the Gentile
mission and opens the possibility for the incorporation of the Gentiles into the people of God.
However, in the timeline of Mark’s narrative, Jesus’ confrontation with the Syrophoenician woman
occurs before the final rejection. Mark therefore requires Jesus to refuse the Gentile’s request
because the Jews still enjoy preeminence. Mark’s specific wording of the refusal, “Let the children
be fed first,” (v. 27a) is clever. While the word “first” asserts Jewish prerogative, it also implies a
subsequent “second,” thus retrojecting into Jesus’ mouth the promise of the mission to the Gentiles,
which comes to fruition in Mark’s passion and resurrection narrative. Therefore, if viewed through
the lens of Mark’s theology of Jewish prerogative, this anomaly of the refused suppliant is not so
surprising; in fact, it is congruent.
This congruence with Mark’s theological agenda does not preclude the historicity of Jesus’ refusal.
Mark, in his redaction of this pericope, may well have used this theology of Jewish prerogative to
incorporate a troubling anomalous detail handed down in the oral tradition. Yet it seems inconsistent
that Jesus, known to defy convention in His inclusiveness, would refuse a request for an exorcism on
the sole criterion that the suppliant was a Gentile.
Gerd Theissen’s research into the social and political dynamics of Galilee and Syria in the first
century provides a framework for explaining this anomaly. Theissen points out that in the text’s
historical context, the term ’Eλληυίζ, Hellene, refers to a woman who speaks the Greek language. He
argues that this detail, by inference, tells us a great deal about her social and economic status.27
Because of the metropolitan nature of Hellenization in this era, a Greek-speaking Syrophoenician
woman would be of the upper class, legally free, and privileged. Other word choices confirm her
status: for example, in v. 30, Mark notes that her daughter is lying on a kλίνη, a bed, not the usual
Kράββατοζ, a straw mattress used by the commoner. This introduces a whole new dynamic into the
conversation between Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman: the perennial struggle between the
privileged Syrophoenician city dwellers of Tyre and the poor Jewish farmers of Tyre’s environs and
northern Galilee.
Theissen elucidates the multiple layers of bitterness between the two classes represented in this
interaction. On the deepest level was the ancient animosity between the Phoenician trading culture
and the Galilean farm culture. The land-poor city of Tyre, which relied on imports, exacerbated this
hostility by repeatedly attempting to incorporate Galilee farmlands through peaceful or hostile means,
on several occasions seizing their property and enslaving them. In lean times, Tyre exploited even the
lands it had not seized, buying up grain with its superior finances while the Galilean farmers who
produced it went hungry. These social, political, and economic dynamics were intimately familiar to
Jesus, who ministered to the impoverished farmers in His homeland of Galilee. Viewed in this light,
the historical incident of Jesus’ refusal of the Greek Syrophoenician’s request was likely rooted in the
dynamics between privileged city-dwellers and exploited farmers, not in the dynamics between
Gentiles and Jews. A congruence surfaces: it would not be entirely out of character for Jesus,
renowned for championing the dispossessed and confronting the corrupt, to reserve His ministry for
the oppressed and to refuse the requests of those who exploited them.
Although Mark demonstrates his awareness of these dynamics through his choice of the words
“Hellene” and “bed,” the theological agenda of his narrative requires him to shift the focus to the
Gentile aspect of the woman’s culture and ethnicity. Because his primary concern is with the Gentile
and Jew dynamics between the woman and Jesus, the words “Hellene” and “bed” serve no functional
purpose in the story, and are instead unusual, peripheral details. Details of this surprising sort are
most commonly historical remnants from the oral tradition, retained by the redactor for the sake of
accurate transmission. Thus, the most convincing conclusion is that in the historical event, Jesus
refused this woman’s request for an exorcism because of her privileged status; Mark, however,
adapted the historical refusal to his theology of Jewish prerogative, and based Jesus’ refusal on the
woman being a Gentile.
JESUS IS BESTED IN AN ARGUMENT
The second surprising anomaly is that Jesus, the hero of Mark’s narrative, is bested in an argument.
This is a unique occurrence in the NT; it also goes against the conventions of any genre the story
resembles. In an apophthegm, a story told for sake of a word proclaimed, the convention requires the
hero to proclaim the final word; in a chreia, a story offering an example of a famous person’s wit and
wisdom, the last word also goes to the hero.28 However, in this pericope, Jesus is the opponent who
makes the hostile statement in v. 27, and it is the woman who proclaims the λόγος, the word that
trumps it, in v. 28 and v. 29. This defies all conventions of genre.
Although the Syrophoenician woman speaks the final word, it is important to note that her repartee
does not contradict Jesus’ basic premise. Her statement that “even the dogs under the table eat the
children’s crumbs” (v. 28) in fact upholds Jesus’ declaration that “it is not fair to take the children’s
food and throw it to the dogs” (v. 27). Mark’s basic theology of Jewish prerogative holds; the woman
merely finds a way for her personal crisis to be addressed within the restrictive religious convention.
In this passage, Mark upholds Jewish prerogative while simultaneously offering the desired precedent
for the Gentile mission through Jesus’ healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter. The key to
how he does this is the word “crumbs.”
Jesus’ initial statement is that it is not fair to “take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs” (v.
27). In the clever riposte, the woman is not seeking to partake of the food on the table, but is satisfied
with crumbs dropped by the children. She accepts a peripheral position, gleaning at the fringes. At the
end of the conversation, the Syrophoenician woman is still snatching crumbs beneath the table, but not
seated with the children and sharing their food. This is a clear qualification on her participation, a
qualification required by Mark’s theology of Jewish prerogative, since Jesus has yet to be fully
rejected by the Jews in the subsequent passion narrative. Since the Syrophoenician woman has
accepted a peripheral position, the result is a peripheral exorcism: the exorcism is implied in the
passage, but not witnessed; it is not performed on the suppliant directly; and it occurs at a distance. In
order for the “crumbs” metaphor to hold, the exorcism must occur as a “spill-over,” instead of a
direct application of Jesus’ miraculous power. This is Mark’s way of setting a precedent for Jesus
ministering to the Gentiles during His lifetime, yet upholding the Jewish prerogative. The same
applies to the subsequent mission and feeding of the 4,000 in Gentile territory. In order for the
metaphor and Mark’s theology of Jewish prerogative to hold, it cannot be a direct mission. Therefore,
Mark carefully restricts Jesus’ subsequent mission to Gentile territories such as the Decapolis and the
region of Tyre, where there were many Jewish settlements.29 Such a mission would thus still be to the
Jews in this region, yet it allows the inevitable Gentile onlookers in the crowd to receive the benefits,
or crumbs, they glean by gathering around a Jewish sage during His mission to the Jews.
The result is that Mark’s theology is upheld in the microcosm and in the macrocosm: the truth
spoken by Jesus, Mark’s hero, is upheld, but the suppliant finds a way to include her request in the
picture; simultaneously, the Jewish prerogative is upheld in Jesus’ lifetime, even while Jesus
prefigures the full Gentile mission by peripherally ministering to the Gentile. Mark thus shapes the
narrative so that every detail of the pericope and the subsequent events upholds his theology of
Jewish prerogative while simultaneously prefiguring the Gentile mission he seeks to justify to his
contemporaries.
While Mark crafts the interaction to be fully harmonious with his theological agenda, it is still
troubling that he allows Jesus to be bested in wordplay, defying his customary style and the
conventions of apophthegm and chreia. His purpose would have been equally served by a
conversation that followed conventions, such as showing the disciples objecting that “it is not fair to
take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs,” (v. 27) with Jesus delivering the punch line that
“even dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs” (v. 28). It is also puzzling that Mark described
Jesus balking at exorcizing a Gentile. Throughout the previous chapters in Mark’s gospel, Jesus defies
convention and negates Jewish purity laws; in the scene just prior to his interaction with the
Syrophoenician woman, Jesus declares all foods clean (vv. 14-23). There is no precedent or
theological consistency in Jesus now observing a conventional boundary. These striking anomalies
are indicators of material that is likely historical. Mark received from tradition the story of Jesus
being bested in argument by a Greek woman. By placing it at this crucial moment in his narrative that
justifies the Gentile mission, he finds a way to allow the surprising anomaly to further his theological
agenda.
JESUS INSULTS A SUPPLIANT
A further surprising and troubling exception in this passage occurs in the insulting tone of Jesus’
refusal. The Syrophoenician woman is likened to a scavenging dog. Although some exegetes suggest
the word Kυναρίοιζ in Mark 7:27 should be translated as “house dogs” or “pet dogs,” or that the
diminutive “often carries with it a note of endearment,” interpretative attempts at ameliorating the
harshness of the insult are unconvincing.30 Dogs were unclean and were despised. Roving in
scavenging packs, they were unclean for two reasons: they were excluded from the category of clean
animals, and they had contact with and ate things that were unclean. Throughout Scripture, including
in this particular instance, the word is clearly intended as an insult.31
Yet, it is difficult to determine a possible author for this insult. Mark seeks to justify the Gentile
mission to his mixed Jew and Gentile community. He would have no reason to invent this insult and to
place it on Jesus’ lips; it is counterproductive to his theological agenda and it casts his hero in a
negative light. Yet, attributing to Jesus a statement that likens the Syrophoenician woman to a dog
seems incongruent as well. It is one thing to acknowledge that Jesus likely refused a rich, privileged
suppliant’s request; it is quite another to assert that Jesus outright insulted her, dismissing her sort of
people as dogs. Such a categorical insult is incongruent with Jesus’ style of teaching.
There is a third, and more plausible, explanation: Jesus took a popular phrase, or some similar
cultural reference, and turned it upside down. The cultural context of this popular saying would have
been twofold: Tyrians owned land and hired Galilean tenant farmers to grow grain on it, and they also
used their superior economic resources to purchase grain from Galilean-owned farms. In both
scenarios, the Tyrians owned the grain, and they needed it to feed themselves and their children in
Tyre. Such a situation could generate a popular Tyrian phrase along these lines: it is not fair for us to
take our grain, our children’s food, and throw it to the Galilean dogs, who have no right to it.
This scenario gives a whole different connotation to Jesus’ words to the rich Syrophoenician
woman from Tyre. When she requested an exorcism for her daughter, Jesus could have said to her:
“As you Tyrians say, it is not fair to take children’s food and throw it to dogs.” In such a scenario,
Jesus would be ironically quoting back to her an insult that her fellow rich Tyrians slung at the
Galileans to whom Jesus ministered. The insult is turned upside down, and presented overturned to
its original source. This fits with Jesus’ customary style of wordplay, and with the goal of His
ministry: with a clever manipulation of a popular phrase, He overturns the established social order,
putting the Tyrians last and the impoverished Galilean farmers first.
Furthermore, by this clever manipulation of words, Jesus would be inviting, even goading the
Syrophoenician woman to enter into wordplay with Him. She, a woman of great wit, met His
challenge and countered with an equally playful and witty reply: “Yes, sir, it is as you say, yet . . .
even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” She acknowledged what He said, but, as He
had modeled, she cleverly manipulated the words in order to get exactly what she wanted.
There is no independent attestation of a popular phrase that described throwing children’s food to
dogs. Yet the phrase appears in Mark’s gospel, and since equating the Syrophoenician woman to a
dog as an outright slur is congruent neither with Jesus nor with Mark, and, in fact, goes against Mark’s
theological agenda of openness to the Gentiles, it is highly unlikely that the phrase originated with
either of these men. This is a convincing argument for the phrase existing in a different context, to
which this conversation alludes. Furthermore, Jesus’ sayings frequently overturned traditional roles
and popular notions in startling new ways.32 Attributing Jesus’ words to an overturned popular phrase
is the only convincing explanation that is congruent with Jesus and with the gospel writer. It
transforms an incongruous categorical slur into a manipulated popular phrase that overturned the
existing oppressive social order, in a style congruent to Jesus’ ministry.
THE AGENDAS SUMMARIZED
Mark, in his redaction, likely kept many of the historical details of this interaction intact. It is tenable
that a Greek Syrophoenician woman, desperate in her concern for her child’s grave condition, would
seek a Jewish sage who is rumored to work miracles. Such a scenario is a plausible interaction point
for a one-on-one incident between such socially disparate figures. Jesus may have spoken Greek, and
if so, they shared a common language. Even if Jesus did not speak Greek, a Syrophoenician woman,
speaking Phoenician, would be able to converse with a Jewish sage speaking the mutually-intelligible
Palestinian Aramaic.33 It is also historically plausible for a Greek woman to best a Jewish sage in
wordplay; the ϵ́ται̑ραι or courtesans, for example, were well-trained in clever conversation and
would have cultivated the necessary quick wit.34 Even the specific words that Mark recorded are
conceivably historical; though only if understood in the context of an ironic manipulation of a popular
saying.
The convergence between the historical and the redactional ends, however, when Mark attributes
Jesus’ refusal to the Gentile aspect of the Syrophoenician woman’s character. While Jesus’ refusal is
surprising in and of itself, and contrary to what we might expect, this woman was rich and cultured,
not a member of the dispossessed crowds that were the focus of His ministry. Her privilege was the
reason for Jesus’ initial refusal. However, Mark attributes Jesus’ refusal to the fact that the woman
was a Gentile. He carefully placed it into his narrative, and most likely inserted the phrase “let the
children be fed first,” so that it upheld his overriding agenda of prefiguring the Gentile mission in a
way that did not negate Jewish prerogative.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PERICOPE
In this new interpretation, the subtext of Jesus’ statement that “it is not fair to take the children’s food
and throw it to the dogs” is a challenge to the Syrophoenician woman’s privilege and prejudice.
When, in her daughter’s desperate illness, she approaches the reputed miracle-worker from Galilee
for aid, Jesus reminds her that the Tyrians had dismissed the Galilean farmers as “dogs” when their
own children were suffering. He is giving her a taste of her own medicine, allowing her to experience
firsthand the brutality of Tyrian disregard for the suffering Galileans. This is not Jesus hurling a
prejudicial insult at the Syrophoenician woman; instead, He is issuing to her a clever and subtle
challenge to reconsider the toll that her privilege exacts on the subjugated. He challenges her to
“imagine the other” and to comprehend the impact and implications of her attitude toward the
Galileans.
The implication for the Syrophoenician woman is that if this Galilean chose to treat this Tyrian as
Tyrians had treated Galileans, her daughter would not be healed. She is confronted with shocking
comprehension that when attitudes such as hers dictate actions in the world, beloved children die.
Furthermore, an insistent retention of her own exploitative privilege would perpetuate a scenario in
which it was acceptable that these children die. By implication, then, for her daughter to be healed,
she must be willing to relinquish her privilege.
Her “Yes, Lord” is thus her acknowledgement of the cruelty of her former injustice. Her next
statement, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs,” is a further demonstration of her
new insight into the experience of the oppressed: she apprehends that the Galileans, in spite of being
dismissed as dogs, have nonetheless managed to survive in the face of oppression by snatching
crumbs beneath the Tyrian table. Her statement also signals her recognition that she has placed herself
in a position to have her own requests denied, and that the best she has the right to expect is crumbs
beneath the table.
Jesus’ approval of this statement carries a twofold implication: participation in the βασιλϵία of
God requires relinquishing any actions and prejudices that prohibit the βασιλϵία from being
manifested; and this relinquishment occurs only when those in positions of privilege experience
firsthand what it is to “spend time under the table.” The ending of this passage, wherein the woman’s
daughter is healed only after she accepts a place under the table, affirms that the privileged must
willingly embrace the experience of “being last” as a prerequisite for the βασιλϵία to emerge.
APPLYING THE FEMINIST CRITIQUES
This new exegetical perspective prompts a reexamination of previous feminist critiques, to determine
if such an interpretation addresses the concerns raised in them. As a starting point, the previous
feminist perspectives were predicated upon an interpretation wherein Jesus’ words were a direct,
self-authored insult to the woman, bluntly interpreted: “you and your daughter are dogs.” This new
interpretation, based not upon an insult but upon an overturned popular phrase that challenged
subjugation, thus alleviates certain feminist concerns. It demonstrates, for example, that the passage
does not condone insulting the weak and needy, a critique which Ringe raised.35 Instead, it condones
challenging the privileged when they are in need, if their own unexamined prejudices and actions are
perpetuating a similar neediness amongst those they oppress. In a similar vein, this passage does not
condone the abuse of women, another critique which Ringe raised;36 instead, it confronts and puts a
halt to abuse, by challenging systems of domination and demanding the relinquishment of exploitative
privilege.
As such, this interpretation also addresses the concerns of Pui-Lon and Fiorenza, who elucidate the
ways in which colonialism, imperialism, and systems of kyriarchal power-relations have co-opted
this passage.37 This pericope would uphold a system of subordination only if the Syrophoenidan
woman belonged to a racial or cultural group deemed second class by Jesus, and she was further
humiliated on the basis of this “second class” racial or cultural standing. However, in this scenario,
her racial and cultural “otherness” places her in the class of rich Tyrians who perpetuated their
privilege through oppression of the Galileans. By challenging this privilege, Jesus, in fact, confronts
the domination system/and as such challenges prejudice of every ilk. Thus, it is in fact liberative for
women, for the colonized, for the racial “other”—in short, for all oppressed groups. Subordination to
second class is condoned only for those of unwarranted privilege, and only for the salubrious effects
of experiencing firsthand the impact of their actions and attitudes, and for the sole purpose of
transforming prejudice and thus manifesting equality and the βασιλϵία of God.
While all this may be true, it is still troubling that in the pericope, it is a woman and a racial and
religious “other” who is challenged and overturned in the scenario. This passage can claim to
universally confront systems of oppression only if it is understood that Jesus challenged a single
aspect of the Syrophoenician woman’s character: her privilege as a rich citizen of a dominant nation.
Jesus is utterly unconcerned with her gender, her religion, or her ethnicity per se; it is only her
unwarranted privilege that He challenges. This passage would have been equally effective if the
supplicant had been a rich Jewish male who was in some manner exploiting a constituency of which
Jesus was a member. Perhaps it would even have been more effective—it certainly would have been
less prone to misinterpretation—but it would not have been true to the historical event that the
redactor sought to preserve.
In this respect, it is unfortunate that the suppliant was a woman and a religious and ethnic “other,”
because in a world rife with sexism, colonialism, imperialism, and systems of domination, this
liberating passage is ripe for misappropriation. Pui-Lon and Fiorenza elucidate the ways in which
exegetes have misinterpreted Jesus’ intent and thus have used this pericope to justify the oppression of
subjugated groups.38 By doing so, the exegetes have—in a deeply ironic and disastrous act—missed
the entire point of the pericope: this oppression of “other” is exactly what Jesus was challenging in
the passage.
Mark’s choice to adapt the passage to his theological agenda exacerbated this situation. His
scenario portrays Jesus refusing the woman based on her religious alterity, and by choosing to make it
a religious issue, Mark’s Syrophoenician woman is humbled not because she was willing to
relinquish her privilege, but because she represented a religious and ethnic identity whose standing as
“second,” Mark sought to uphold. In a milieu of religious prejudice, Mark sought to appease the Jews
by upholding Jewish prerogative as God’s chosen people, and to appease the Gentiles by allowing
for their full inclusion in the communities of Jesus’ followers. He certainly did the latter well, helping
to secure a place for Gentiles in a nascent church where many sought to bar them from participation.
By tiying to appease both sides, however, his ultimate conclusion contained problematic implications
for both groups. On the one hand, it inaccurately portrayed Jesus upholding exclusivist views of
Jewish prerogative, thus asserting a second class status for the Gentile; on the other hand, his
theological requirement for Gentile incorporation in the people of God was the Jews’ complete
rejection of Jesus, which later provided a justification for anti-Semitism.
Finally, while Jesus’ words challenge privilege and its resultant domination, and while the
outcome of the interaction between Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman delineates an abusive
hierarchy overturned, in the end a hierarchical system remains. It is troublesome that in the final
analysis, the interlocutors uphold a crumb-snatching scenario as an acceptable solution. In a world
where, all too frequently, “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” retaining any form of a hierarchical
model—even an overturned one—paves the way for an eternal, deadly cycle, wherein the roles of
oppressor and oppressed are merely exchanged, ad infinitum. No one in the pericope proffers a
transformative vision, wherein all people are ultimately transformed and seated at the table as equals,
with no one relegated to snatching crumbs. There is no solution offered which would transform the
world, or even this particular situation, into a βασιλεία of God experience, wherein “firstness” and
“lastness” are abolished for good. Instead, the future is in danger of unfolding as an ever-overturning
hierarchical system, wherein beloved sons and daughters perpetually perish as the victims of
exploitative privilege.
NOTES
1. I offer my deep gratitude to Dr. Arthur Dewey at Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio, whose mentorship, conversation, and
encouragement helped inspire and develop the current work.
2. Mark 7:24-30, NRSV.
3. William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1974), 262.
4. Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes (London:
Macmillan, 1966), 350.
5. Hisako Kinukawa, Women and Jesus in Mark: A Japanese Feminist Perspective (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1994), 60.
6. Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988), 203.
7. Susan Miller, Women in Mark’s Gospel (New York: T & T Clark International, 2004), 97.
8. Kinukawa, Women and Jesus in Mark, 56, 61.
9. Miller, Women in Mark’s Gospel, 111.
10. Hyunju Bae, “Dancing Around Life: An Asian Woman’s Perspective,” Ecumenical Review 56, no. 4 (2004): 399-400.
11. Ranjini Wickramaratne Rebera, “The Syrophoenician Woman—A South Asian Perspective,” in A Feminist Companion to Mark
(Amy-Jill Levine, ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 106.
12. Rebera, “The Syrophoenician Woman,” 110.
13. Joanna Dewey, “Jesus’ Healings of Women: Conformity and Non-conformity to Dominant Cultural Values and Clues for
Historical Reconstruction,” BTB 24 (1994): 127.
14. Jane Hicks, “Moral Agency at the Borders: Rereading the Story of the Syrophoenician Woman,” WW 23, no. 1 (2003): 84.
15. Hisako Kinukawa, “De-Colonizing Ourselves as Readers: The Story of the Syro-Phoenician Woman as a Text” in Distant
Voices Drawing Near: Essays in Honor of Antoinette Clark Wire (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2004), 142.
16. Elaine Wainwright, “A Voice from the Margin: Reading Matthew 15:21-28 in an Australian Feminist Key,” in Social Location
and Biblical Interpretation in Global Perspective (vol. 2 of Reading from This Place; Fernando F. Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert,
eds.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 142.
17. Sharon Ringe, “A Gentile Woman’s Story, Revisited—Rereading Mark 7:24-31a” in A Feminist Companion to Mark (Amy-Jill
Levine, ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 97.
18. Ringe, “A Gentile Woman’s Story,” 95.
21. L.A. Guardiola-Sáenz, “Borderless Women and Borderless Texts: A Cultural Reading of Matthew 15:21-28,” in Reading the
Bible as Women: Perspectives from Africa, Asia, and Latin America (K. Doob Sakenfeld, S. Ringe, and P Bird, eds.; Semeia 78;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 70.
22. Kwok Pui-Lon, Discovering the Bible in a Non-Biblical World (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1995), 78.
23. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Search of a Round Table: Gender, Theology, & Church Leadership (Geneva: WCC, 1997),
69.
24. For the sake of convenience, in this paper the conventional name “Mark” will be used for the anonymous gospel writer.
25. For a further discussion of written versus oral evidence, see Robert Funk (ed.) and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The
Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Macmillan, 1993), 16-34.
26. This divinely ordained precedence of the Jews appears elsewhere in the NT, such as in Rom 1:16 and Acts 13:46. Mark, of
course, could not have been familiar with these passages; his gospel was written prior both to the circulation of Paul’s letters and to the
redaction of Luke/Acts. However, Paul’s (ca. 56-57 CE) and Luke’s (ca. 80-110 CE) assertions of this theology show that it would not
be anachronistic to attribute such a belief to Mark, writing at approximately 70 CE. For further discussion, see T.A. Burkill, “The
Historical Development of the Story of the Syrophoenician Woman,” NovT 9 (1967): 161-62; Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context:
Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 63; Rene Latourelle, The Miracles of
Jesus and the Theology of Miracles (Mahwah, N. J.: Paulist Press, 1988), 174; and John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the
Historical Jesus (vol. 2; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 660.
27. For a full discussion of the Syrophoenician woman’s character and the political dynamics of Galilee and Tyre, see Theissen,
Gospels in Context, 60-80.
28. For a definition of the conventions of an apophthegm, see Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. John
Marsh; New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 11; for a discussion of the chreia, see Ringe, “A Gentile Woman’s Story,” 90.
29. See Theissen, Gospels in Context, 66-68, for a discussion of the ethnicities in these areas.
30. Heidi Husted, in “When the Gospel Goes to the Dogs,” ChrCent 117, no. 23 (August 16-23 2000): 829, suggests a translation of
“house dogs,” while David Rhoads in “Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman in Mark: A Narrative-Critical Study” Journal of the
American Academy of Religion 62 (1994): 356, suggests the fond diminutive. Yet even Rhoads warns: “one should be cautious about
softening the harshness of Jesus’ rejection . . . the Markan Jesus may have referred to ‘little dogs’ simply as a parallel to the woman’s
‘little daughter’” (“Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman,” 357). This argument is also posited by Susan Miller, who points out that as
only one of a series of diminutives in this passage, “little dogs” is most like intended to strengthen the correspondence between the dogs
and the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, who is also described with a diminutive (Miller, Women in Mark Gospel, 97).
31. Throughout the Bible, the word “dog” is used to refer disparagingly to the unclean and the sinful: Deut 23:18, for example, uses
the word “dog” to indicate a male prostitute, and Rev 22:15 states: “Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers
and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.” It is used frequently as an insulting term, e.g. 1 Sam 17:43, Prov 26:11,
Isa 56:10-11, and 2 Pet 2:22. Furthermore, in Matt 7:6, Jesus states, “Do not give what is holy to dogs.” In short, and without exception, in
Jesus’ cultural and religious milieu, “dog” was an offensive and insulting term.
32. For a description of the characteristics of Jesus’ teaching style, see Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The
Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Scribner, 1993), 30-31.
33. See Theissen, Gospels in Context, 69-70, for a discussion of the languages spoken by Syrophoenicians and by Jesus.
34. For a description of the ϵ́ται̑ραι in Athens, see Sue Blundell, “Women in Classical Athens,” in Greek Civilization: An
Introduction (Brian A. Sparkes, ed.; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 1998), 243-44. Moses Hadas confirms that the ϵ́ται̑ραι were present in
Hellenistic culture (Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion; New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), 155.
35. Sharon Ringe, “A Gentile Woman’s Story, Revisited—Rereading Mark 7:24-31a” in A Feminist Companion to Mark (Amy-Jill
Levine, ed.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 97.
36. Ringe, “A Gentle Woman’s Story,” 99.
37. See Kwok Pui-Lon, Discovering the Bible in a Non-Biblical World (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1995), 78; and Elisabeth Schüssler
Fiorenza, In Search of a Round Table: Gender, Theology, & Church Leadership (Geneva: WCC, 1997), 69.
38. Kwok Pui-Lon, Discovering the Bible, 78; Fiorenza, In Search of a Round Table, 69.
7
Blessing the First Birth: A Feminist Critical
Reading of Luke 11:27-28
Victoria Phillips
INTRODUCTION
Jesus and an anonymous woman exchange blessings: she blesses His mother for she says in Luke
11:27, “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you.”1 In response Jesus
blesses “οἱ ἀκούοντϵς τὸν λόγον του̑ θϵου̑ καὶ φυλάσσοντϵς” in Luke 11:28, which can be translated
as “those who hear the word of God and do it,”2 or as “they that hear the word of God, and keep it.”3
Conceiving a feminist reading of this passage seems easy, but it will require labor.
Feminists have struggled to free women from being solely identified with their bodies’
reproductive capacities. The woman blesses not Mary, a person with a name, but the reproductive
powers that produced Jesus. She seems to be “reducing” Mary to “mere biology.” For example,
Vasiliki Limberis says, “Yet the woman does not bless Jesus Himself nor, to be precise, the mother of
Jesus. Rather, in graphic terms she praises individual organs—unique to a female—that gestate a fetus
and then sustain the child after the birth.”4 If such a reading is correct, someone with a feminist
commitment to promoting women’s moral autonomy, reason, and agency, then Jesus’ rejoinder seems
more welcome, because His blessing widens the scope for women’s work beyond “mere”
motherhood. Turid Seim proposes, “Mary’s role is converted prototypically from the conventional
right of a mother to a motherhood that is constituted exclusively by the relationship to the word. . . .
Jesus revokes and replaces the maternal honor and rights by introducing discipleship as the new form
of motherhood.”5 Barbara Reid also interprets Jesus as offering women an opportunity not based on
biology: “The emphasis is shifted from blessedness based on biological relation to Jesus to that
based on discipleship. Today it can be read by women as an affirmation of their blessedness as
disciples apart from their roles as mothers, although the sacredness of the latter is not denied.”6
Given my social location, I appreciate this reading even though I am convinced of its shortcomings
and will propose an alternative. Being the eldest daughter of a white working class family in New
England, I entered high school in the early 1970s as the women’s liberation movement was sweeping
the United States. I remember being told that I did not need to go to college—I was a woman, I would
get married and have children. I used to defend my aspirations by objecting that I was not a woman—
I was a human being. With the abstract identity of “human being” came the promise and pleasure of an
education and an intellectual life. Eventually, I began to realize that defining my identity as “human
being” over against “woman” was a false dichotomy; to be a woman is to be a human being. And
then, as Bonnie Miller McLemore so poignantly puts, I became “also a mother.”7
From its inception, feminism as a movement and as a theory has had an ambivalent and complex
regard for motherhood. On the one hand, feminists worked extremely hard to break the hold on men
and women of the belief that a woman’s natural and appropriate role was motherhood. From a
popular perspective, the key question was: “Did I grow up just to be somebody’s mother?” At the
same time, feminist thinkers have argued for the need to distinguish between the institution of
motherhood and women’s experience of mothering. As some insights from contemporary feminist
theory on mothering will make clear, mothering is not “mere biology,” but entails a woman’s
consciousness, will, and energy. Even the experience of pregnancy and birth is permeated with
consciousness and social meaning. One cannot, as interpreters do, separate Mary’s “biological
motherhood” from her “doing God’s will.” Unlike the goddess Athena, Jesus does not emerge full-
grown from His parent.
Since the particular woman blessed is Mary, readers are understandably interested in what the
exchange of blessings implies about her. At the same time, interest in Mary tends to isolate the
passage from its Lukan context, using it instead as evidence for Marian tradition. I will focus on the
Lukan context and place primary emphasis on the anonymous woman herself. She is rarely considered
as a female character in her own right with a contribution to make. Furthermore, she speaks out in the
midst of a skeptical and critical crowd. Such a “brave woman in the crowd who bursts out with
praise for Jesus’ mother” warrants feminist attention.8
Moreover, biblical scholars have not given the woman her due. There is patriarchal dismissal of
the woman’s intelligence or engagement with what Jesus is saying. Consider what Joseph A. Fitzmyer
writes about her in the Anchor Bible Commentary on Luke:
The woman calling out from the crowd extols Jesus in a typically maternal way, being charmed by His eloquence; it is
reminiscent of Prov 23:24-25. The immediately preceding episode may not adequately explain why she is charmed.... The
collocation of the episodes is Lukan, and the woman’s comment is to be understood as made on Jesus’ preaching in general....
Her comment about how wonderful a mother so eloquent a preacher-son must have had serves as a foil for Jesus’ remark about
who is truly blessed.9
Fitzmyer’s discourse assumes we know what “a typically maternal” comment is, although why
Jesus’ rhetoric concerning kingdoms at war, strong men being defeated, spoils being distributed,
waterless places, and unclean spirits invading a person’s soul en masse should “charm” a woman, is
unclear. It is also unclear why being charmed, a woman would shout about the womb from which
Jesus emerged and remind the crowd that the man with whom they have been arguing was once an
infant nuzzling at His mother’s breast.
I will argue that the woman blesses Jesus’ mother, not because Mary was fortunate to have such a
son, but because in the midst of skeptics and critics, the unknown woman endorses Jesus. She has
made a decision in response to His actions and to His words of defense. Furthermore, Jesus’ response
affirms her endorsement. His response is not a correction that indicates what true blessing is. It is an
endorsement of her speaking up to “guard” or “defend” (φυλάσσω) Jesus. For the reader, her blessing
recalls to mind that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and that Jesus exists because a woman
heard, understood, and kept the word of God. Recalling the first birth, to introduce a term I will
explain shortly, is appropriate in the context of a controversy over Jesus’ power to exorcise demons.
Jesus cannot serve Beelzebul; He is the Son of God, doing His Father’s work.
However, the woman in the crowd does not know what Mary and we readers know. What she
knows is that Jesus is being accused of serving, not opposing, Satan. Against this charge of deviancy,
she lifts her voice to exercise what social power she has to support Him.10 Jesus, I propose,
acknowledges her courage and includes her among the blessed. Interpreting the exchange of blessings
in this way embeds the passage firmly in literary context. Luke 11:27-28 become a bridge or a hinge
between the controversy and Jesus’ defense, which her loud voice interrupts, and Jesus’ subsequent
remarks about judgment on people who could not discern God at work when Jesus freed the man from
the mute demon.
There are several stages in the labor of producing this interpretation. First, I will review the
factors that make the dichotomy between what the woman says and what Jesus says so apparent as to
need no discussion. Second, I will examine the context into which the woman interjects her blessing.
Lastly, I will propose a set of necessary comments that provide a context for more accurately
understanding Luke’s meaning, if not a new translation of Jesus’ blessing in Luke 11:28.
THE NATURE OF THE EXCHANGE
Interpreting Jesus’ response as correcting the woman involves three factors: (1) He begins His
macarism with the particle μϵνου̑ν, which can indicate that the subsequent remarks are to be
understood as correcting the previous statement; (2) understanding Jesus’ blessing in the context of
His opposing the family of origin to the family of faith; and (3) an opposition that depends upon a
false dichotomy between hearing and doing the word of God in Mary’s case.
Let’s begin with the grammatical point. The particle μϵνου̑ν in and of itself is insufficient to
establish the relationship between the two statements. This particle has a range of meanings. This
particle can be rendered as affirming the previous thought—“yes, indeed”; as affirming but modifying
the previous thought—“yes, but”; or as contradicting the previous thought.11 The NRSV renders the
particle in Luke 11:28 as correcting: “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey
it!” as does the NEB: “No, happy are those who hear the word of God and keep it.” The JB renders it
as affirming but redirecting the previous thought, “Still more blessed are those ...” M. Philip Scott
proposes that the affirming translation should read, “O yes, happy indeed are they who hear the word
of God ...”12 All of these are possible translations. To decide on the appropriate meaning, translators
must make a contextual decision about the meaning of the exchange. Thus, the importance of
examining context—not only the literary context—but also the context in which interpreters frame
their investigation.
Reading the exchange in terms of Jesus’ teachings about His family of origin versus His teachings
about the family of faith is common. The woman blesses the mother who gave Him birth; Jesus
blesses those who hear the word of God and keep it. This exchange calls to mind the Markan
pericope (3:31-35), in which Jesus clearly rejects His family, and the reader knows He rejects them
correctly (for they think He is crazy). In this incident, Jesus affirms that His mother, brother, and sister
are those who do the will of God in Mark 3:35. Luke’s version of the story (8:19-21) eliminates the
element of Jesus’ family holding the wrong opinion about Him, which lessens the sense of opposition
between loyalty to family and loyalty to God. Luke’s text asserts that “His mother and His brothers
came to Him, but they could not reach Him because of the crowd.”13 “Coming to Him” can be taken in
a positive sense, because it can connote that they are coming to support Him. When Jesus learns that
His family is outside, He describes family as “those who hear the word of God and do it.”14 If Mary
and His brothers have come to support Him, then Jesus’ definition of family includes them. Luke
cannot create such a strong contrast between Jesus’ family of origin and the family of faith because of
the prominent role He has given Mary in the story of Jesus’ origins.
Referring to Luke’s representation of Mary brings me to the final factor, false dichotomy between
Mary’s being (as it is sometimes explained) as the biological mother of Jesus, which is less important
than her being an example of obedience to the word of God.
EXPOSING THE FALSE DICHOTOMY
For most readers the dichotomy is between the merely physical or merely biological reference of the
one’s blessing over against the spiritual reference of the others. Mary, however, is the person for
whom the two moments go together—she agreed to mother Jesus, to bear Him, to give birth to Him, as
well as to preserve, nurture, and train Him. This dichotomy is presented as self-evident. Underlying
the dichotomy is the construction of reproductive labor as merely biological, brute nature, or
instinctual, whereas faithful discipleship involves intelligence, decision making, and will. The
dichotomy between “mere biological motherhood” and any other kind cannot be sustained. Not only
do social scientists and psychologists tell us that the body and its practices are socially constructed, it
is also the case that patriarchal thinking has long limited the mother’s contribution to providing only
the physical substance and the space for the production of the new being. Mary O’Brien and Sara
Ruddick are two feminist philosophers whose insights into the work of mothering are useful at this
point.
O’Brien theorizes the significance of reproduction to human consciousness. Since men and women
stand in different relationships to reproductive labor, she argues that men and women have differing
consciousness of it.15 According to O’Brien, men’s experience of reproductive labor, especially in
sex-segregated cultures, ends with the contribution of sperm to creation.16 Even if patriarchal culture
claims that all of the important elements needed for the future human being are provided by the father,
men must wait to receive the outcome of the woman’s reproductive labor; hence, the tribute of old:
my wife gave me three wonderful children.
Women’s contribution and experience to reproduction is more extensive: a woman’s body changes
as the pregnancy continues, and she must undergo the reproductive labor of birthing the baby. She
materially labors—as any of you who have given birth or who have attended a birth know—and she
conceptually labors. Conceptual labor includes the act of preparing for labor, facing the risks of labor
(which historically is high), and finally managing the psychological and cognitive shifts in accepting a
baby as the outcome. A mother knows that this baby is hers because she produced it.
O’Brien sees far reaching implications in men and women’s asymmetric relationships to
reproductive labor, and she expresses these implications in terms of the first and second birth. “The
first birth” is the birth of any given human being. You and I, Jesus and Luke, are the outcome of the
reproductive labor of our mothers. The work of the first birth is not limited to gestation and birthing.
It includes the rearing of the infant and socializing it into the culture in which the future person will
have a place. Here O’Brien’s concept is usefully amplified by Ruddick’s description of the work of
the first birth as “maternal thinking.”17
Like O’Brien, Ruddick does not reduce mothering to biology or instinct, but finds that biological
aspects are subjected to and imbued with consciousness, here expressed in the actions of social
beings. “Maternal responses are complicated acts that social beings make to biological beings whose
existence is inseparable from social anticipation.”18 Ruddick lists three demands that constitute the
central work of mothering: “the demand for preservation, growth, and social acceptability ... to be a
mother is to be committed to meeting the demands by works of preservative love, nurturance, and
training.”19 “Preservation” refers to the demand to keep the child alive and safe. “Nurture” refers to
the feeding and care of the child’s well-being so that it grows into physical maturity. Nurture is
structured in relationships to the child’s needs: Is the baby warmly dressed? Should I introduce
solids? What is this rash? Or can she climb downstairs? Training is structured in response to the
social groups of which the woman is a member. “Social groups require mothers to shape their
children in acceptable ways.”20 The pressure for acceptability is not simply external—in the form of
opinions and instructions of doctors, grandmothers, and strangers—but also internal. The mother as
part of a social group internalizes certain values and ideals of the group to which she belongs. In
other words, the mother does the work of preparing the child for its second birth.
The “second birth” is the birth of any given child into the public world, which, in many respects,
remains a father’s world. Thus, active rituals exist in which a newborn is brought to its father, or in
the ancient times, the child is accepted into or rejected from the family. A male child is “born” a
second time when he is brought into relationship with the father’s realm—the network of public,
social relationships that historically have been dominated by men. Some of us, for instance, have
Doktor Vaters who facilitated our entry into the academic world.
Let’s apply the concepts of the first and the second birth to the stories of Jesus’ origin in the Gospel
of Luke. Luke devotes considerable attention to Mary’s revelation that she will become the mother of
the Son of God. Gabriel and Mary talk, she asks questions, and she voices acceptance to become the
mother of this child. In Luke 1:38, she says, “Let it be with me according to your word.” Mary clearly
has heard the word of God, understood it, and agreed to “do it”—to use the terminology of Jesus’
blessing in Luke 11:28. To do the word of God in this instance, for Mary, is to accept going through
pregnancy, bearing the child, and then rearing it. Consistent with these ideas, Luke has the only story
related to Jesus’ relationship with His parents in the canonical gospels, the story of Jesus’ visit to the
Temple when He was twelve. When Mary and Joseph realize Jesus is not in their company, they
search for Him until they find Him, an exercise of preservative love. When His mother rebukes Him
in the temple, Jesus says that He must be about His father’s business. Despite His desire to do His
father’s business and the good impression He makes, the text says that Jesus returns with His family to
Nazareth “and was obedient to them [Mary and Joseph].”21 In O’Brien’s terms, this story represents
Jesus’ premature entrance into the second birth (the realm of public life) and it underscores the need
for Jesus to remain in the family context until the proper moment. Hence, Luke 2:52 describes Jesus
as growing “in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favor” while He remains in the midst of
His family.
Jesus’ second birth properly occurs with His baptism in Luke 3:21-22. Baptism is a symbolic and
public birth, administered by a man (in this instance). Notice that it is after Jesus has been baptized
that Luke relates his genealogy of Jesus (3:23-38). This genealogy connects Jesus, not just to the
patriarchs of Israel, but back to Adam, another son of God. This is an example of the second birth—
Jesus emerges into the public world of men. It is also where He exercises His ministry.
What we learn from both of these thinkers is that one cannot legitimately separate the “merely”
biological dimension of mothering from its “cultural,” religious, or spiritual dimensions. Throughout
all of its stages, from pregnancy through childrearing, mothering is simultaneously conscious work or
activity. The synecdoche of “womb” and “breasts” represent the necessary reproductive work in
producing an incipient human being (its gestation and its birthing); its preservation (through the
provision of breast milk) as well as for the work in raising, caring, and training a child for its place
in culture. Without doing all these things, Mary could not be said to “hear the word of God” and also
to do it. For this reason, I argue that the particle μϵνούν cannot be taken to signal that Jesus is
correcting the woman for her inadequate understanding of blessedness, nor is He redirecting her to
some other dimension of true blessedness she has not grasped. Nor is it possible to oppose Mary’s
hearing the word of God to her doing it (her serving as the mother of Jesus). Luke acknowledges
Mary’s role in Jesus’ first birth, and He narrates Jesus’ second birth as well. At this moment when
Jesus is being accused of serving Satan, the woman’s blessing recalls the first birth for the reader.
Jesus is holy; therefore, He cannot serve Satan.
READING THE EXCHANGE IN CONTEXT
Alan Culpepper rightly interprets Luke 11:14-36 as an episode in which Jesus is accused of social
deviance.22 Having been accused of serving Satan rather than God, Jesus must defend Himself. The
anonymous woman offers her blessing in support of Jesus. It means she has been listening to Him, and
she has made a decision. Her voice is the only affirmative voice reported during the controversy over
the act of Jesus exorcising the demon. Consequently, Jesus endorses her insight by saying that she is
blessed because she has heard the word of God and has “defended it.” There are two issues to take
up here. One, if the woman is speaking up to support Jesus, why does she use the rhetorical strategy
she does? Second, how should the reader understand Luke’s use of the verb φυλάσσω with its object
τòν λόγον του̑ θϵου̑ in this context?
By describing the woman as raising her voice, Luke is clearly presenting her as a Wisdom figure.23
Proverbs 8:1 says, “Does not wisdom call, and does not understanding raise her voice?” If she is a
Wisdom figure, then we may be able to find a reason for her rhetorical strategy among the proverbs.
Proverbs 9:7 reads, “Whoever corrects a scoffer wins abuse; whoever rebukes the wicked gets hurt.”
The woman does not disagree with the skeptics and critics directly or challenge their understanding.
Jesus has already tried that strategy in Luke 11:17-26. The woman elects instead to declare a
blessing, a positive statement, and to direct it at Jesus, not at those contending with Him. In order to
ensure they hear what she says, their overhearing is intentional. She has indicated her disagreement
with them, but not challenged them directly.
Her blessing means that she has acknowledged that God acted in and through Jesus’ mother, just as
God acted in and through Jesus when He exorcised the demon. The fact that Jesus blesses her in
return means that He acknowledges His mother’s faith and also this woman’s faith. He recognizes that
she has moved out of the skeptical or disbelieving positions held by the crowd, and He affirms her
judgment. She is the only one who affirms Him, and the lack of other voices helps to explain why He
subsequently informs the crowd that “at the judgment” the Queen of the South and the men of Nineveh
will condemn this generation,24 because they did not respond properly to Jesus.
This brings us to the final issue: how to interpret Jesus’ blessing, particularly what it means to
“guard” (φυλάσσω) the word of God. In His macarism, Jesus uses the verb φυλάσσω in its plural
participial form. The phrase can be translated as “those who hear the word of God and do it” or as
“they that hear the word of God, and keep it.” If we look at the meanings given for φυλάσσω, then
consider the context in which Jesus is uttering His blessing, it becomes difficult to see what it could
mean to translate φυλάσσω as “keeping the word of God.”
According to the BDAG, the first meaning given for φυλάσσω is to “watch” or “guard.”25 A
second meaning is “to keep a law or commandment from being broken”; hence, it can also mean
“observe” or “follow” when the direct object is νόμος or ϵντολὴ.26 The lexicon includes Luke 11:28
as a relevant example of this usage. But it makes little sense to me. In the context, Jesus has not taught
anything in the context that concerns “doing the word of God” or “doing the will of God,” which is
the terminology used in Mark 3:35 and Luke 8:21. To the skeptics and the critics Jesus presents an
argument, or a defense, against their reading of His actions (that He serves Satan). He gives them no
command concerning an action or an attitude. His words are aimed at producing knowledge, the
recognition that the Kingdom of God has come to them.27 The subsequent parables of the strong man
who is defeated by a stronger man, and the person who cannot defend himself or herself from the
seven unclean spirits are meant to cause insight into the dangers of being against Jesus (by not being
with Him, they are against Him). Are they not with Him when they express their amazement,
skepticism, demand for proof, and criticism of His deed of casting out a demon? What would it mean
for them to hear the word of God and to keep it in this instance? Jesus even implies that the light
inside of them might be darkness, so that they cannot even see the point He is making, just as they
could not see who is the source of Jesus’ power.
My main point is that it seems that the context calls for rendering οἱ άκούοντϵς τὸν λόγον του̑ θϵου̑
καὶ φυλάσσοντϵς as “those who hear (even those who understand) the word of God and defend it.”28
Culpepper notes that Jesus’ macarism repeats the word φυλάσσω in Luke 11:21 and Luke 11:28. He
notes, “The strong man who guards his possessions may be defeated or plundered, but the faithful
disciple who guards God’s word will be blessed.”29 To my ears, guarding the word of God implies
defending the word of God. Culpepper does not notice that the woman who blessed Jesus’ first birth
does so in response to His words of self-defense, when He is accused of being unholy. In summation,
we may not be entitled to translate φυλάσσω in this context as “defend” but our comments can bring
out this connotation, which is appropriate in this case.
CONCLUSION
I have argued for a reinterpretation of the exchange of blessings between Jesus and the anonymous
woman by placing it in the context of Jesus’ defending Himself from the charge of serving Satan.
Furthermore, I have stressed that a false dichotomy exists between understanding Mary as someone
who “merely” gave birth to Jesus as opposed to understanding her as someone who commits herself
to “doing the will of God” by giving birth to and rearing Jesus. Although my rejection of the false
dichotomy has implications for how feminist readers interpret Mary’s role, in this chapter I have
stressed the importance of the Lukan context. Therefore, I want to comment on the importance of
Luke’s choosing an anonymous woman to be the sole person to defend Jesus in the midst of a
skeptical crowd.
An anonymous woman in a crowd does not have much social power at her disposal. Yet, this
woman exercises what social power she does possess, for she speaks up to bless Jesus’ mother.
Feminist reading, like feminist practices, seeks to empower women, and the power of exercising what
voice one has is significant. Few people in the world have the power of kings or leaders of
corporations, but in specific, local contexts ordinary men and women make judgments and can
exercise their social power, however limited, to make those judgments public. The woman’s blessing
does not, I admit, change the mind of the crowd, for after Jesus blesses her, He continues by
condemning the crowd for its refusal to see the truth about Him. If success is the primary value by
which one measures the worth of the woman’s blessing, then she is not much of a role model. But if
integrity, courage, and risk-taking are primary values to the people of God, then her example is worth
taking to heart.
NOTES
1. NRSV. All references will be taken from the NRSV unless otherwise indicated.
2. My translation.
3. ASV, KJV.
4. Vasiliki Limberis, “Luke 11:27-28: Woman Who Praises the Womb and Breasts of Jesus’ Mother,” in Women in Scripture: A
Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuteiocanonical Books, and the New
Testament (eds. Carol Meyers, Toni Craven, and Ross S. Kraemer; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2000), 444. Subsequently, Limberis
explains Jesus’ reply in the context of the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Thomas’ “eschatological reevaluation of what is worthwhile
in the reign of God, and what is not” (“Woman Who Praises,” 444).
5. Turid Seim, “The Virgin Mother: Mary and Ascetic Discipleship in Luke,” in A Feminist Companion to Luke (eds. Amy-Jill
Levine and Marianne Blickenstaff; New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 105.
6. Barbara Reid, Choosing the Better Parti Women in the Gospel of Luke (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996), 90.
Although Jane Schaberg states that in the Gospel of Luke and in Acts, “the emphasis on biological motherhood is replaced by an
emphasis on what might be called spiritual motherhood,” she does not interpret this as a positive outcome for women, who do not have
the same “full discipleship” as men, namely power and authority to exorcise, heal and preach (“Luke,” The Women’s Bible Commentary,
eds. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon Ringe; London: SPCK, 1992, 281).
7. Bonnie Miller-McLemore, Also A Mother: Work and Family as Theological Dilemma (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994).
8. Limberis, “Woman Who Praises,” 444.
9. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation and Notes, (Anchor Bible Commentary; New
York: Doubleday, 1981-1985), 927.
10. Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, “Jesus the Deviant: Labeling and Deviance Theory in Matthew 12” in Calling Jesus
Names: The Social Value of Labels in Matthew (FF; Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1988), 33-67. Matthew 12:25-45 is the synoptic
parallel with Luke 11:14-32.
11. R. Alan Culpepper, The Gospel of Luke (NIB 9; Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 243. For examples of the range of meanings of
μϵνου̑ν, see §89.50, 89.128 and 91.8 in Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida., eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988).
12. M. Philip Scott, “A Note on the Meaning and Translation of Luke 11:28,” ITQ 41 (1974): 248.
13. Luke 8:19.
14. Luke 8:21.
15. Mary O’Brien, The Politics of Reproduction (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981). O’Brien was a midwife in England for
twenty years before she earned her doctorate in philosophy from the University of Toronto.
16. From my brief comments one might conclude that O’Brien is guilty of biological reductionism of the grossest sort, but this is not
the case. She does assert that the gendered, culturally interpreted body makes a profound difference to a person’s experience of
parenthood, a point underscored by subsequent gender theorists.
17. Sara Ruddick, Maternal Thinking: Towards a Politics of Peace (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995).
18. Ruddick, Maternal Thinking, 181.
21. Luke 2:51.
22. Culpepper, “Gospel of Luke,” 239-41.
23. S. Κ., Sherwood, “‘Blessed is the Womb that Bore You ...’ Luke 11:22-28,” Ephemerides Mariologicae 43 (1993): 257.
24. Luke 11:31.
25. “φυλάσσω,” BDAG, 1068.
26. “φυλάσσω,” BDAG, 1068.
27. Luke 11:20.
28. My translation.
29. Culpepper, “The Gospel of Luke,” 243.
8
A Reevaluation of Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2 as
a Diakonos and Prostatis: Exposing the
Inaccuracies of English Translations
Elizabeth A. McCabe
Despite the vast amount of English translations to choose from in today’s age (consider the ASV, ESV,
KJV, NAS, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, TNIV), no substitute exists for reading the biblical text in its
original language. While English translations generally provide a satisfactory reading, some passages
are more accurate than others. In particular, verses detailing women’s roles may not provide an
accurate description of the nature of their status in antiquity, often slighting women of their function in
the early church. This paper will critically examine Phoebe as a διάκονος and a προστάτις in Rom
16:1-2 to illuminate her status in the first century.
PHOEBE: A DIAKONOS
Of all NT women, Phoebe might be the most hotly debated in terms of her role in the early church.
Phoebe is described in Rom 16:1 as a διάκονος, which is generally masked in English translations as
“servant.”1 However, διάκονος is the same word that Paul uses to describe his own ministry (1 Cor
3:5; 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23, 25), but it is unlikely that this parallel could ever be
gleaned from English translations alone.
What is more is that the title of Phoebe as a διάκονος accounts for the “first recorded ‘deacon’ in
the history of Christianity.”2 While the term διάκονος is used elsewhere in the NT, Phoebe is
recorded as a “διάκονον τη̑ς ϵ̓κκλησίας τη̑ς ϵ̓ν Κϵγχρϵαι̑ς,” thus being tied to a specific local church,
the church at Cenchrea, which makes her appointment a “local function rather than an itinerant one.”3
Furthermore, the combination of διάκονος with οὐ̑σα “points more to a recognized ministry” or
“position of responsibility within the congregation.”4 “Minister” would be an acceptable translation
in this regard, or perhaps more appropriately, “also [καì] a minister,”5 whereas “servant” would
prove inadequate.6 If Paul were simply aiming to convey a sense of service to her local church, this
“would have probably been expressed by use of διακονϵ́ω” (Rom 15:25) or “διακονία” (1 Cor
16:15).7 Such is not the case here, however.
The alternate definition for διάκονος, namely an “intermediary” or “courier” is also appropriate
here.8 Essentially, διάκονος in this regard means “one who serves as an intermediary in a
transaction.”9 In terms of Phoebe, it is appropriate to consider her as the letter carrier to the book of
Romans.10 In light of the fact that many letters did not reach their designated locations in antiquity, the
appointment of a woman as the carrier of the book of Romans is noteworthy.11 Brian Dodd regards
Phoebe as Paul’s letter carrier as “no insignificant claim” since Romans was “possibly the most
important book” of the NT.12 James Dunn argues that “it is a natural deduction” to see Phoebe as the
letter carrier of the Roman epistle “from the fact that she is named first”13 while Franz J. Leenhartdt
avers that the designation of Phoebe as the bearer of Romans was “doubtless.”14
Historical Evidence Supporting Women Diakonoi

Besides Rom 16:1 in the NT, women are credited as being διάκονοι in epigraphical evidence. A
few examples will suffice for my purposes. The first evidence for this occurrence originates late in
the first century to the beginning of the second century during the reign of Trajan (98-117 CE) as
recounted by Pliny. Pliny documents that “in Bithynia under Trajan there were female deacons.”15 In
Ep. 10.96.8, Pliny has two “maidservants” or “slaves” (ancillae) tortured “who were being called
ministers” (quae ministrae dicebantur).16 The word minister (ministra) is synonymous with the
Latin word diāconus for a diāconus can be defined as a “minister of the church, a deacon.”17
Another piece of evidence that is critical for our discussion is epigraphical evidence from
Jerusalem (Mount of Olives) that dates from the latter half of the fourth century. What is fascinating
about this writing, found on an “upper portion of a stele” are the following words located on lines 3-
4:
Σοφία, ἡ διάκονος, ἡ δϵυ)-

τϵ́ρα Φοιβη18
In this inscription, clearly a woman (evident by the feminine definite article) is being coined with
the masculine term διάκονος. If the Didascalia of the Apostles is utilized as the earliest known date
for women deaconesses,19 one could logically conclude that deaconesses came into existence in
written accounts from the “first half of the third century.”20 What is more groundbreaking is that
women are still being designated as deacons (using masculine terms) even over approximately 150
years later.
However, what is especially notable about Sophia is the description of being the “second
Phoebe.”21 Ute E. Eisen comments,
Horsley has shown that in non-Christian inscriptions the description “a second Homer” or the like
is applied to individuals who gave outstanding service to their city. For Sophia this could mean that
her title “the second Phoebe” reflects aspects of Phoebe’s activity beyond her work as a deacon (Rom
16:1-2), such as her title of προστάτις.22
To be called the “second” was an honor bestowed upon an individual. Just as grateful citizens
bestowed this “honorific title” to their leaders, this notable woman won this acclaim which may be
attributed to “benefactions provided” possibly to “her church.”23
In addition to Sophia being named a deacon, a woman named Maria also merits the same honor, in
evidence from the fourth century, the title is given to Maria of “ἡ διάκονος” in a “stele of grey
marble” erected for her tombstone.24 The exact inscription reads: “ἡ διάκονος Μαρία.”25 G.H.R.
Horsley gather’s from this inscription that “we have, then, evidence for a widow who exercised the
function of deacon in the Byzantine church.”26
One other inscription is worthy of note here. To solidify my argument, it is necessary to reduplicate
the text as seen in NewDocs 1977:
ὑπϵ̀p ϵὑ[χὴς]
τη̑ς ματ[ρώνας]
ἡ ϵὐλαβ[ϵστά-]
τη διακ[όνος]
τὴν ϵ̓ξϵ́[δραν]
ϵ̓ψήφω[σϵν]27
This can be translated as follows: “Because of a vow of the matron, the most pious deacon paved
the cloister/exedra with mosaic.”28 According to Horsley, he supplies the missing text in line four as
“διακ[όνισσα]” with his reasoning that “διακ[όνος] may be more likely if the number of letters per
line was fairly similar.”29 The problem with his view is that supplying διακ[όνος] actually fits in
much nicer with the letters per line and forms a replicating syllabic pattern. This can be demonstrated
in Table 8.1.
According to Table 8.1, διακ[όνος] would fit in better with the 8-10 letter parameter with the
supplied letters as designated by brackets (see col. 4). If, however, διακ[όνισσα] is utilized, the
pattern is broken with 12 letters, causing inconsistency in the document itself. Thus, διακ[όνος] would
prove more profitable for the author’s purposes. Also, the inscription tends to have an ABA pattern in
terms of the supplied syllables when διακ[όνος] is chosen. This makes a syllabic pattern of 4-4 (lines
one and two), 5-5 (lines three and four), and 4-4 (lines five and six). However, if διακ[όνισσα] is
utilized, the number of syllables in line four jumps to six, thus breaking the syllabic pattern (4-4, 5-5,
4-4). For these reasons, διακόνος is clearly a better fit in terms of the number of supplied letters (8-
10) and retaining the syllabic ABA pattern as well as achieving consistency with the rest of the
document.30
In conclusion, historical evidence does exist in proving that women did function as διάκονοι. The
examples of the female deacons under Trajan, διακόνος Sophia, and διακόνος Maria furnish examples
that are critical to understanding the existence of women διάκονοι in antiquity.
Discussion of Diakonoi as Women in 1 Tim 3:1131

The root of the problem of recognizing Phoebe as a διάκονος might stem from 1 Tim 3:8-13. In these
verses, the question arises of whether the author was referring to women being deacons in 1 Tim
3:11. According to Gordon Fee, “This sentence is one of the genuine puzzles in 1 Timothy.32” The
problem stems from the word γυναι̑κας, which is often interpreted as “their wives”33 or “women.”34
To better explore the meaning behind γυναι̑κας, it is necessary to examine the parallel structure that is
established between 1 Tim 3:8 and 3:11.
One key component of this structure is ὡσαύτως, which links these two verses together. Ὡσαύτως,
according to the BDAG, is “a marker of similarity that approximates identity.”35 “(In) the same (way),
similarly likewise” are appropriate ways to render this adverb.36
In this parallel structure, both 1 Tim 3:8 and 3:11 are dependent upon the same verb in 1 Tim 3:2
and 3:7: δϵι̑ (often accounted for in English translations by the word “must”). In addition, the sentence
structure for both 1 Tim 3:8 and 3:11 is almost identical. This will be diagramed in two parts below
for clarification:
The first word of each verse designates the person involved (hence διακόνους and γυναι̑κας).
Γυναι̑κας might be used here, however, because no word for διακόνοι had come into being for women
deacons.37 I. Howard Marshall writes, “No feminine form of διάκονος existed to serve as a technical
designation; in lieu of this, a generic reference to ‘women’ in the context of a discussion of deacons
would be sufficient to indicate female deacons.”38 If the author were designating the deacons’ wives,
one would expect a possessive pronoun to indicate ownership, such as αὐτω̑ν, or at least the definite
article.39 Furthermore, “The conspicuous lack of a reference to the wives of overseers makes it
unlikely that the reference here is to the wives of deacons. Why would the wives of deacons, as
opposed to overseers, need special qualifications?”40
The second and third words (ὡσαύτως σϵμνούς and ὡσαύτως σϵμνάς) are essentially identical,
the only difference being the gender of σϵμνός, meaning “worthy of respect/honor, noble, dignified,
serious.”41 Next, the phrases μὴ διλόγους (not “double-tongued”) and μὴ διαβόλους (not
“slanderers”) are both relating to sins of the mouth, essentially stating the same thing. Again, our
author is drawing a parallel with μὴ διλόγους and μὴ διαβόλους.
The second part of the Scriptures begins with “μὴ οἴνῳ πολλω προσϵ́χοντας” or “not given to
much wine” (1 Tim 3:8) and “νηφαλίους” or “unmixed with wine”42 or “sober” (1 Tim 3:11). The
next phrases, however, note more of a contrast than a comparison. “Μὴ αἰσχροκϵρδϵι̑ς” or “greedy
for material gain” and “πιστάς ϵ̓ν πα̑σιν” do contain some overlap in terms of proper behavior for
those in Christian service, but not enough to be classified as parallels. Perhaps being faithful in all
things might include not being greedy for material gain, but the author is addressing two distinct
groups of people and is tailoring the directives accordingly.
PHOEBE: A PROSTATIS
In addition to being identified as a διάκονος, Phoebe is also identified as a “προστάτις” in Rom 16:2.
Because προστάτις is a hapax legomena, translators have often been at odds to define this term, most
settling with “helper.”43 But is “helper” true to the nature of this position in antiquity? Is it significant
to coin προστάτις with διάκονος? In determining the proper definition and connotation of προστάτις,
an examination of its verb form (προΐστημι) in the NT will ensue to gain a better understanding of the
semantic range of προστάτις.
Proistēmi in the New Testament

The verb form of προστάτις, προΐστημι, occurs eight times in three different contexts in the NT. These
contexts include church leadership (Rom 12:8; 1 Thess 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17), household management (1
Tim 3:4, 5, 12), and the practice of good deeds (Titus 3:8, 14). For the purposes of this chapter, the
first context, προΐστημι in church leadership, will take priority in our analysis.44
In 1 Tim 5:17, the term οἱ προϵστω̑τϵς is used in describing the πρϵσβύτϵροι. This verse can be
translated, “Let the elders who rule [οἱ προϵστω̑τϵς] well be counted worthy of double honor,
especially those who labor in the Word and in teaching.”45 Οἱ προϵστω̑τϵς is translated by different
nuances in translations, including “rule” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NAS, NKJV, NRSV), “direct the affairs of
the church” (NIV, TNIV), “do their work” (NLT), and “well-leading” (YLT). In whatever fashion,
προΐστημι is utilized, however, a leadership capacity is being conveyed. Some type of leadership
position is in order, for προΐστημι can be defined as “to exercise a position of leadership, rule,
direct, be at the head (of),”46 which are all perfectly appropriate here. All English translations
surveyed reflect the leadership qualities in προΐστημι.
Romans 12:8 is another Scripture where a form of προΐστημι, ὁ προϊστάμϵνος, is used in
describing the different gifts that are bestowed upon members of the body of Christ. It reads, “the one
who exhorts, in exhortation, the one who gives, in liberality, the one who leads [ὁ προϊστάμϵνος], in
diligence, the one who shows mercy, in cheerfulness.”47 Every English translation surveyed conveys
the idea of leadership for ὁ προϊστάμϵνος: “he that ruleth” (ASV, KJV), “he who leads” (NAS,
NKJV), “the one who leads” (ESV), “the leader” (NRSV), “leadership” (NIV),48 “to lead” (TNIV),
“leadership ability” (NLT), and “he who is leading” (YLT).
In a similar fashion, 1 Thess 5:12 communicates the idea of one in some type of position of
authority with the words τοὺς προϊσταμϵ́νους. In this verse, the genitive of person is also used with
ύμω̑ν immediately following our participle. English translations have recognized τοὑς
προϊσταμϵ́νους ὑμω̑ν as some sort of leadership function as evident from their translations: “are over
you” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NIV, NKJV), “have charge over you” (NAS), “have charge of you” (NRSV),
“care for you” (TNIV), “your leaders” (NLT), and “leading you” (YLT). The ὑμω̑ν is noteworthy in 1
Thess 5:12 because ὑμω̑ν is genitive of the person “over which one presides,”49 essentially
highlighting the significance of the τοὺς προϊσταμϵ́νους.
In surveying the semantic domain of προστάτις in regard to church leadership positions, one can
see that the semantic range of meanings for προΐστημι differs from the rendering of προστάτις in
English translations in Rom 16:2. Even if the other contexts are considered besides church leadership
positions, i.e. household management and practicing good deeds, a bias is still evident. According to
the TDNT, in surveying the eight occurrences of προΐστημι in the NT (as noted above), the majority of
these instances have the sense of “to lead.”50 However, English translations do not take this factor
into account in their rendering of Rom 16:2 or the fact that προστάτις in its proper sense means “a
woman set over others.”51 However, instead of seeing Phoebe in a leadership capacity, which is
perfectly appropriate considering that she is also a διάκονος, English translations account for Phoebe
as a “helper” (ASV, NAS, NKJV), a “succourer” (KJV), a “great help” (NIV), or as “helpful” (NLT).
The YLT, however, in sticking with the most literal rendering of προστάτις, renders this term as
“leader.” Douglas Moo argues that if the cognate verb προΐστημι is considered in determining the
meaning for προστάτις, Paul might be characterizing “Phoebe as a ‘leader’ of the church.”52 If one
were reading most English translations, no resemblance of the cognate root would even be accounted
for in the English. But is not consistency in translation, whenever possible, an aim in translating
ancient texts?
In summation, the only discernable difference in Rom 16:1-2 and the other Scriptures chosen (1
Tim 5:17, Rom 12:8, and 1 Thess 5:12) is the marked reference to a woman. To what degree the
difference of gender impacted translation committees is essentially evident in their translations,
choosing a word like “helper” when cognate terms of the same root are translated in verb forms with
“rule,”53 “lead,”54 “leadership,”55 or “leaders”56 in different passages. If Paul wanted to describe
Phoebe strictly as a helper, he likely would have chosen other Greek words which address this
nuance more, such as βοηθὸς (helper) or ὑπηρϵ́την (“one who functions as a helper, freq. [frequently]
in a subordinate capacity, helper, assistant”).57
While one does not want to commit the illegitimate totality transfer in rendering προστάτις in Rom
16:2, excluding the semantic domain of προστάτις is not acceptable either. While it is impossible for
“any one instance of a word” to bear “all possible meanings,” a survey of the etymology of a word is
essential in determining its NT usage.58 When cognate terms of the same root describe church leaders,
one wonders why Phoebe herself was excluded.
Classical Usage of Prostatis and Prostatēs

Besides the translation of προστάτις as “helper” being inconsistent with NT usage, a translation of
“helper” is also inconsistent with classical usage of προστάτης.59 According to the LSJ, a
“προστάτης” can be described as “one who stands before, front-rank man.”60 Προστάτης can thus be
translated as “leader, chief,” a “ruler,” or “president or presiding officer.”61 Other translations exist
for προστάτης, such as “one who stands before and protects, guardian, champion.”62 To what degree
these roles can be assumed of προστάτις is unknown, but one thing is certain: no translation of
“helper” exists. Ray R. Schulz asserts, “In the classical period this meaning [of helper] is difficult, if
not impossible, to find when a check is made of the various words from the prostat- and prostas-
stems.”63 Instead of a helper, a word with this root designates one who is either “in authority or
exercising authority over others.”64
Examination of the Context Used to Describe Phoebe
In addition for “helper” being inconsistent with classical usage of προστάτις, helper is also
inappropriate for the context being used to describe Phoebe. To understand the context used to
describe Phoebe, it is necessary to consider the high regard that Paul has for Phoebe, which sets the
stage for what follows. Using a letter of recommendation with the particular request formula
(συνίστημι) that Paul employs here “expresses nothing more than the intention of the writer to
recommend the bearer of the letter strongly.”65 Essentially, Paul’s construction in Rom 16:1-2 serves
as a template, demonstrating “how a letter of recommendation would have been written in the early
church.”66 Following the συνίστημι construction is a clause expressing “general assistance” to be
given to the one recommended (i.e. Phoebe), which is preceded by καì as seen in Rom 16:2, “καì
παραστη̑τϵ αὐτη̡̑ ϵ̓v ᾡ̑ ἂν ὑμω̑ν χρῄζῃ πράγματι.”67 Paul’s appeal as specified here may be indicative
of Phoebe’s honor or status in antiquity.68
Of note, also, is the other term used in description of Phoebe, τὴν ἀδϵλφὴν ἡμω̑ν, which illustrates
how Paul utilizes the Christian faith as a touchstone between otherwise strangers, reassuring the
Romans that Phoebe is no way an “impostor.”69 C.F. Whelan sees other significance in the term
ἀδϵλφὴν, writing that while “wealthy women were often patrons to professional associations, but
rarely, if ever, were they members. Paul may be reminding them that Phoebe is an exceptional case:
not only is she a patron to the church, but she is one of them, ‘their sister,’ as well.”70
In short, the word “helper” used to translate προστάτις has found to be problematic on several
grounds: NT usage of its cognate verb form (προΐστημι), classical usage of προστάτις and προστάτης,
and the context used to describe Phoebe. The question can be raised: If “helper” is an unacceptable
translation for προστάτις, where did this form originate? Such a question needs to be answered to
unravel the mystery behind this word in our English translations.
Possible Origins for Prostatis as “Helper”

One possible origin for “helper” in reading προστάτις is from the “far inferior reading” in F and G.71
F and G were ninth century manuscripts, penned centuries after the original reading. The credibility to
regard these readings as authoritative is lacking. Horsley reasons that these readings might have
originated “presumably in recognition of the discomfort which προστάτις caused.”72
On the other hand, Horsley postulates that F and G’s origin in reading “helper” into the text may
also have stemmed from the Vulgate, particularly the word adstitit in the reading “ipsa quoque
adstitit multis et mihi ipsi”73 or “she herself has assisted many, and myself.”74 Obviously, those who
translated the Greek into the Vulgate are picking an inaccurate rendering of the Greek προστάτις (lit.
“to stand before or stand at the head of”) as adstitit (lit. “to stand near or at one’s side”), thus
confusing a leadership role with one of proximity. The stakes are high for one is essentially confusing
a superior position with an inferior or subservient position. But when linguistically analyzed, this
error never should have occurred. The preposition “προ” means “before” or “in front of” and is
derived from the Latin, as is στάτις, from the Latin (“stŌ, stāre, stetī, statum”), meaning “stand.” From
the fourth principal part, one can easily see the origin of στάτις in the English.
Another possible origin for “helper” as a meaning for προστάτις might have occurred when Walter
Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen
urchristlichen Literatur (Greek-German Dictionary of the Writings of the NT and Remaining
Christian Literature) was “translated” into English. In his lexicon, the word “helper” did not even
appear as a definition for προστάτις but only “Beschützerin” (defender or protector) and “Patronin”
(patron).75 Rather, when his work was translated into the English by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur
Gingrich in the BAG, the word “helper” as a translation for προστάτις came into existence.76
Although “little or no evidence for the addition” of helper is mentioned, this “added word is the one
seized upon by English translators.”77 A similar occurrence took place in Gingrich’s Shorter Lexicon
of the Greek New Testament, where while the word “protector” and “patron” appear for suitable
meanings for “προστάτις,” Phoebe can only be described as a “helper,” with the supporting evidence
limited to Rom 16:2.78
Besides F and G’s inferior reading, the Vulgate’s reading, and the insertion of “helper” by Arndt
and Gingrich, another possibility as to why “helper” was chosen in English translation is because of
the outdated information provided in The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament which states that
“we can supply no instance of the fem. προστάτις” as given in Rom 16:2 “from our sources” as
“protectress” or “patroness.”79 Because this work has not been updated and does not yield the most
current information on epigraphical evidence, one must look at other avenues to reconcile the
definition of προστάτις. The consequences of Moulton’s and Miligan’s work has been felt for years,
likely giving way to the fallacy that the masculine term προστάτης is not equivalent in meaning to
προστάτις, despite the fact that Horsley argues that the feminine form προστάτις is “to be equated
with the masculine form [προστάτης]” through epigraphical evidence by “analogy with words like
μύστης / μύστις, ϵὐϵργϵ́της / ϵὐϵ́ργϵ́τις” and so forth.80
Furthermore, the word “helper” might be in place in English translations today solely because of
the inability to reconcile with a woman functioning as a προστάτις in the Roman world. Whether this
role was known to those writing lexicographical evidence is uncertain, but this historical evidence
must be taken into consideration.
Women Functioned as Prostatides in Antiquity

In New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri
Published in 1979, Horsley argues that “there is an entirely reasonable case for considering that the
word [prostatēs] could be used of women no less than men.”81 A few examples will suffice for my
purposes.82
In “Una Donna ‘Prostatis’ del Figlio Minorenne in un Papiro del II,” O. Montevecchi cites recent
evidence from P. Med. Bar. 1, dating from 142 BCE of documentation of a woman προστάτις.83 This
document takes the form of a petition coming from the “office of a civil employee of the military
administration.”84 The term προστάτις “indicata la funzione della madre di Herakleides” or
“indicated the function of the mother of Herakleides” to her son, who is described as fatherless.85 The
document itself reads, “μϵτὰ προστάτιδος . . . τη̑ς αὐτοὐ μητρὸς Θαΐδος.”86
Another instance of the use of προστάτις is found in PGM II 336.338 which reads, “ἡ προστάτις
του̑᾿A᾽ούβϵωζ.”87In this papyri, “Zmyrna (Myrrh) is invoked as the π. [προστάτις] of the god
Anoubis.”88 While this may bear no immediate relation to Phoebe in Rom 16:2, it is striking that a
woman was named a προστάτις in antiquity.
In addition to papyrological evidence, N.G.L. Hammond also offers documentation for a woman
functioning as a προστάτης in antiquity.89 In his article, “Some Macedonian Offices c. 336-309
BCE,” Hammond describes the office of προστάτης as a senior civic official, existing in the
Macedonian state and in various tribal states, such as Chaonia and Molossia.90 This office ranked as
“the very first in the eyes of the Macedonians” and entailed a number of responsibilities, especially in
the absence of the king.91
What is truly groundbreaking is that a woman held the role of προστάτης before 334 BCE.
Hammond avers, “of all the adult members of the royal house resident in Macedonia in 334 BCE
there was only one person available, Olympias, widow of Philip II and mother of the absent king,
Alexander,” who held the office of “ἡ προστασία τη̑ς βασιλϵίας” or the “president or chieftain of the
kingdom,”92 thus making her a προστάτης. This role was a weighty position, especially in the absence
of the king. Hammond comments that “during Alexander’s absence Olympias was the official
representative of the Macedonian state” in four main areas: security, the dedication of spoils, the
supply of food, and religion.93
Recognition of Phoebe by Church Fathers

The role of women in the early Christian church was recognized by Church Fathers. For instance, in
his commentary on Rom 16:2, the early Church Father Hatto of Vercelli stated, “tunc non solum viri,
sed etiam feminae praeerant Ecclesiis”94 which can be translated “at that time not only men, but
also women presided over (were at the head of/were in charge of/ruled over/superintended/have the
command of churches”).95 Origen also comments, “Et hic locus apostolica auctoritate docet etiam
feminas in ministerio Ecclesiae constitui”96 or “this passage teaches by apostolic authority that also
(even) women were appointed (selected for) the ministry of the church.”97
In Origen’s commentary on Rom 16:2, he uses the phrase: “Et hic locus apostolica auctoritate
docet etiam feminas in ministerio Ecclesiae constitui.”98 The word constitui is especially
appropriate here because it corresponds to the Greek word ϵ̓γϵνήθη in Rom 16:2 from γίνομαι and
makes a case for γίνομαι being translated as “appoint.” In this manner, Phoebe would be appointed to
the position of a προστάτις. In favor of the argument for ϵ̓γϵνήθη being translated as “appoint,” to
translate ϵ̓γϵνήθη in this fashion is “in line with the usage of this form of the word elsewhere in the
NT to connote appointment to an office.”99 For instance, in Col 1:23, ϵ̓γϵνόμην ϵ̓γὼ Παυ̑λος διάκονος
would be translated “I, Paul, was appointed a minister.”100 Schulz favors this rendering of ϵ̓γϵνόμην,
saying that “the variant readings of Col 1:23 ‘... the gospel... of which I, Paul, have become a herald
and apostle and minister’ brings out the ‘appointment’ meaning of this common verb.”101 In this
fashion, Rom 16:2 would be translated as follows: “for she [Phoebe] has been appointed a
προστάτις.”102
Furthermore, in considering the BDAG’s definitions for γίνομαι, the case for “appoint” as an
appropriate rendering for ϵ̓γϵνήθη gains considerable ground. Γίνομαι is seen in the NT to
“experience a change in nature and so indicate entry to a new condition” or become something.103 In
other words, a previous status that was otherwise unknown to the individual is bestowed upon that
person. For example, Bauer translates the phrase “ὅπως γϵ́νησθϵ υἱοὶ του̑ πατρός ὑμω̑ν” in Matt 5:45
as “that you may become sons of your father.”104 The change in existence is also evident in the
translation provided for Mark 1:17: “I will turn you into fishers of people” for “ποιήσω ὑμα̑ς
γϵνϵ́σθαι ἁλιϵΐς ἀνθρώπων.”105 This occurrence might be designated as commonplace in the NT,
given the copious examples provided by the BDAG: “a traitor” (Luke 6:16), “friends” (Luke 23:12),
“children of God” (John 1:12), “children of light” (John 12:36), “a father” (Rom 4:18), “a fool” (1
Cor 3:18), “a man, an adult” (1 Cor 13:11).106 In a very similar fashion, Phoebe is experiencing a
change in her status and is appointed to a new position, a προστάτις.
CONCLUSION
While English translations definitely have their place in today’s age, they serve as no substitute for
reading the original text. As evident from the above research, the roles of Phoebe as a διάκονος and a
προστάτις in Rom 16:1-2 have often been slighted in English translations, being rendered as
“servant” and “helper” respectively. However, διάκονος should be more suitably translated as
“deacon” or “courier.” As for the question of women serving as διάκονοι, historical evidence in
antiquity from Pliny’s Epistulae, epigraphical evidence naming Sophia as a διάκονος, a tombstone
commemorating Maria as a διάκονος, as well as additional epigraphical evidence of the “most pious
deacon” all support the fact of women held these roles in antiquity.107 Considerable discussion was
also given to the biblical passage of 1 Tim 3:8-13 in allowing for women διάκονοι, noting the striking
parallels between 1 Tim 3:8 and 1 Tim 3:11.
Phoebe has also been designated as a προστάτις in Rom 16:2. Because this word is a hapax
legomena, problems have resulted in translating this word in Rom 16:2. To reconcile this dilemma,
an examination of its verb form προΐστημι was launched throughout the NT. Based upon the evidence
found in 1 Tim 5:17, Rom 12:8, and 1 Thess 5:12 in the context of church leadership positions, the
semantic domain of προστάτις was found largely different (taking the idea of leading in some
capacity) than what has been expressed in English translations in Rom 16:2 as “helper.”
The word “helper” for προστάτις has been found to be problematic based on several grounds: NT
usage of its cognate verb form (προΐστημι), classical usage of προστάτης, and the context used to
describe Phoebe. To resolve from where the word “helper” originated as an acceptable translation
for Phoebe’s status, a number of possibilities were detailed: the reading in F and G, the Vulgate’s
translation, the insertion of “helper” by Arndt and Gingrich when Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches
Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur was
“translated” from the German, and MM’s failure to find sources of the documentation of προστάτιδϵς
in antiquity. Nevertheless, women did function as προστάτιδϵς in antiquity based upon epigraphical
evidence,108 which was coupled with the witness of Phoebe’s role in leadership by the early Church
Fathers Origen and Hatto.
“A Reexamination of Phoebe as a Diakonos and Prostatis: Exposing the Inaccuracies of English
Translations” has served as a preliminary investigatory launch into the role of Phoebe in antiquity.
Historical evidence has served as a means to bridge the gap from today’s modern era into the life of
the early church. While this quest is by no means complete, it will hopefully serve as a catalyst to
open the door to further discussion concerning leading NT women and their rightful roles in antiquity.
NOTES
1. See NAS, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ESV, ASV. Oddly enough, the NLT translates διάκονος as “ministrant” as does the YLT which will
be used as a standard of comparison to illustrate the most literal rendering of the Greek.
2. James D.G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (WBC 38; Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 887.
3. F.M. Gillman, “Phoebe,” ABD 5:349; cf. Franz J. Leenhardt, The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary (London: Lutterworth,
1957) who describes Phoebe’s function as an “office, an established function having οὐ̑σαν as a participle and τη̑ς ϵ̓κκλησίας as its
genitive” (379, citing Otto Michel, Der Brief an Die Romer; Gottingen, 1966, 340).
4. Dunn, Romans, 886-87.
5. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33; 1st ed.; New York: Doubleday,
1993), 729.
6. Dunn, Romans, 886-87.
7. Dunn, Romans, 886.
8. “διάκονος,” BDAG, 230.
9. “διάκονος,” BDAG, 230.
10. See Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 913; cp. Bart D. Ehrman, The New
Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (3rd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 396.
11. See Calvin J. Roetzel, Paul: The Man and the Myth (Studies on Personalities in the New Testament; ed. D. Moody Smith;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 71. Roetzel comments those who sent letters were often forced to make ad hoc arrangements for delivery
and concludes “we do not know what percentage of the letters was stolen and read, was undeliverable, or was simply discarded.”
Therefore, “other letter writers wrote out and sent a duplicate letter by alternate means hoping that the success rate of delivery would be
at least fifty percent” (Roetzel, Paul, 71).
12. Brian J. Dodd, Problem with Paul (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1996), 23.
14. Leenhardt, Romans, 379. Given the nature of scrolls in antiquity (that the end of the epistle would be visible, i.e. Rom 16), the
letter of recommendation here would have been visible to die recipients of the letter, arguably highlighting Phoebe’s role as letter carrier.
15. G.H.R. Horsley, ed., NewDocs: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1979 (North Hyde, N.S.W.:
The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1987), 122.
16. Plin., Ep. 10.96.8, my translation.
17. See E.A. Andrews, ed., Harpers’ Latin Dictionary: A New Latin Dictionary Founded on the Translation of Freund’s Latin-
German Lexicon (revised, enlarged and in great part rewritten by Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short; New York: American Book
Company, 1907), “diāconus,” 568; “ministra,” 1146.
18. Horsley, NewDocs 1979: 239.
19. See Aimé Georges Martimort’s extensive research in Deaconesses: An Historical Study (trans. K.D. Whitehead; San
Francisco: Ignatius, 1986), which supports the premise that deaconesses in the east of the Roman Empire were the first to come into
existence, for written evidence for other deaconesses does not come into existence until later (cf. “There Were No Deaconesses in the
Latin Church during the First Five Centuries,” 187-96; “Deaconesses in the Churches in the East of the Roman Empire: Third to Seventh
Centuries, 35-58; “Deaconesses in the Other Churches of the Greek-Speaking and Eastern Regions of the Roman Empire: End of Fourth
to Sixth Centuries, 101-19, 120-45).
20. Martimort, Deaconesses, 36.
21. NewDocs 1979: 122, emphasis added. Patristic and hagiographic literature utilized the term “the second” dating from the fourth
century (Ute E. Eisen, Women Officeholders in Early Christianity: Epigraphical and Literary Studies; trans. Linda M. Maloney;
Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2000), 159, commenting on Horsley’s evidence here.
22. Eisen, Women Officeholders in Early Christianity, 160.
23. NewDocs 1979: 241.
24. G.H.R. Horsley, NewDocs 1977: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1977 (North Hyde, N.S.W.:
The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1982), 109.
27. Horsley, NewDocs 1977: 109, my alterations to the bracketed text in the fourth line. Horsley’s original said “διακ[όνισσα]”
(NewDocs 1977: 109).
28. My translation.
30. What is interesting is that Horsley prefaces his inscription with his thought that this is “another female deacon,” despite his efforts
to dissuade his readers into believing that she is nothing more than a “deaconess” (NewDocs 1977: 109).
31. Before launching into this discussion concerning the word γυναίκας, a number of factors should be taken into consideration.
In the Greek text of 1 Tim 3:8, the qualifications of the διάκονοι do not have to be taken as specifically limited to men. (While one
may argue that the adjectives σϵμνούς and διλόγους are masculine, it can be contended that they are simply agreeing in gender
with διακόνους as does the participle αἰσχροκϵρδϵι̑ς.) Even though the NAS and NIV both insert “men” in their translations in 1 Tim
3:8, it should be noted that no masculine noun (like ἄνδρϵς) occurs in the Greek text. Furthermore, despite the directive in 1 Tim 3:12 for
“διάκονοι ϵ̓ ́στωσαν μια̑ς γυναικὸς ἄνδρϵς,” this can be seen after the allowance of the possibility for women deacons, as “something of
an afterthought” (Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, 89), but not as designating all deacons as men.
Even in 1 Tim 3:10, the author uses the demonstrative pronoun οὐ̑τοι in referring to the διάκονοι. (The majority of the translations
surveyed—ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NLT, YLT—do not designate οὐ̑τοι as referring to men; rather only the NAS and NIV insert the
word “men” in their translation. The insertion of “men” in the NIV, however, may have formed the basis of their rationale for translating
γυναίκας as “their wives.”) Οὐ̑τοι in 1 Tim 3:10 can be seen as gender inclusive (thus not excluding the possibility of male and female
deacons). What is most important though, is that the author did not use the word ἄνδρϵς which could potentially bar the possibility of
women deacons. However, even if we render οὐ̑τοι as “these men,” thus limiting the indefinite pronoun to designate men, the insertion of
ὡσαύτως in 1 Tim 3:11 sets up a parallel structure between men and γυναι̑κας.
32. Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (NIBC 13; NTS; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988), 88.
33. See ESV, KJV, NIV, NKJV, NLT.
34. See ASV, NAS, TNIV, YLT.
35. “ὡσαύτως,” BDAG, 1106.
36. “ὡσαύτως,” BDAG, 1106.
37. Thus, γυναι̑κας may be the closest word from which the author had to choose. In this manner, γυναι̑κας is simply a substitute for
διακόνους, differentiating in form (being feminine) but not in function.
38. I. Howard Marshall in collaboration with Philip H. Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles
(ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 493. In surveying the word διάκονοι in the NT, it is noteworthy that when the term διάκονοι is used
in the gospel accounts, it can also be used inclusively of women as well as men (see Matt 20:26, 23:11; Mark 10:43; cf. “διάκονος,”
BDAG, 230).
39. Marshall with Towner, Pastoral Epistles, 493.
40. Marshall with Towner, Pastoral Epistles, 493.
41. “σϵμνός,” BDAG, 919.
42. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, “νηφαλιους,” LSJ, 1175.
43. Scripture verses will be discussed in terms of significance rather than chronological order.
44. See ASV, NKJV, NAS. The NIV translates προστάτις as “a great help,” while the NLT translates it as “helpful.” The KJV uses
the word “succourer” in translating προστάτις, which essentially is the same as a “helper.” On a more promising note, the ESV
appropriately translates προστάτις as “patron.” However, the YLT differs from all English translations with “leader,” probably trying to
reflect consistency with other cognate terms in the NT (namely προΐστημι).
45. My translation.
46. “προΐστημι,” BDAG, 870.
47. My translation.
48. The NIV actually reads, “if it is leadership, let him govern diligently.” The insertion of govern here also reflects upon the
perceived meaning of ὁ προϊστάμϵνος. The NLT takes a similar stance on ὁ προϊστάμϵνος, tying in the sense of responsibility. Their
translation reads, “If God has given you leadership ability, take the responsibility seriously.”
49. Joseph Henry Thayer, “προστάτις,” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 549.
50. B. Reicke, “προΐστημι,” TDNT 6:701.
51. Thayer, “προΐστημι,” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 539.
52. Moo, Romans, 916.
53. See ASV, ESV, KJV, NAS for οἱ προϵστω̑τϵς in 1 Tim 5:17; cf. ASV and KJV for ὁ προϊστάμϵνος in Rom 12:8.
54. See ESV and NAS for ὁ προϊστάμϵνος in Rom 12:8.
55. See NIV for ὁ προϊστάμϵνος in Rom 12:8.
56. See NLT for προϊσταμϵ́ϵνους ὑμω̑ν in 1 Thess 5:12.
57. “ὑπηρϵ́την,” BDAG, 1035.
58. Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meanings: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (rev. and expanded ed.; Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 25.
59. Προστάτης will be discussed here as a standard of comparison because much similarity exists between προστάτης and its
cognate verb form προΐστημι.
60. “προστάτης,” LSJ, 1526.
63. Ray R. Schulz, “A Case for ‘President’ Phoebe in Romans 16:2,” LTJ 24 (1990): 124.
64. Schulz, “Phoebe,” 124.
65. Chan-Hie Kim, The Familiar Letter of Recommendation (SBL Dissertation Series 4; Missoula, Mont.: SBL for the Seminar on
Paul, 1972), 70-71.
66. Fitzmyer, Romans, 728.
67. Kim, Letter of Recommendation, 71.
68. C.F. Whelan, “Amica Pauli: The Role of Phoebe in the Early Church,” JSNT 49 (1993): 79. What the word πράγματι
(“deed” or “matter”) is in reference to is also of consideration. Fitzmyer comments, “The noun pragma, ”deed, matter, affair, business”
is per se not specific, but it occurs in 1 Cor 6:1 in the sense of ‘lawsuit,’ and may have that connotation here.” In this regard, then,
“Phoebe was going to Rome as a litigant” (Romans, 731). Dunn confers with Fitzmyer, saying, that “She [Phoebe] had business in
Rome, quite probably a lawsuit.” Phoebe was no ordinary woman, rather “she was a lady of some stature who had acted as patron or
protector for many, that is presumably mostly, but not necessarily exclusively Christians, including Paul himself”(Dunn, Romans, 889).
69. Fitzmyer, Romans,729.
73. Rom 16:2 in vol. 2 of Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem (Tertia Emendata ed.; Bonifatius Fischer et al., eds.; rec. et
brevi apparatu instruxit by Robert Weber; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983), col. 1767.
74. My translation.
75. See “προστάτις,” Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen
urchristlichen Literatur (5th ed., Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1963), col. 1425.
76. “προστάτις,” BAG, 726.
77. Schulz, “Phoebe,” 124.
78. “προστάτις,” Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 172. Furthermore, while the latest edition of BDAG only has the
words “patron” and “benefactor” as acceptable renderings for προστάτις (“προστάτις,” BDAG, 885), which is preceded by the
description of “a woman in a supportive role” (possibly hinting at “helper” here), the unfortunate effects have already left their mark in
our English translations. English reference works, such as Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, also depict a gender
bias when discussing προστάτις. While the etymology of similar words, such as πρωτοστάτης is noted as being derived from προτος
(“first”) and ἵστημι (“to stand”), or one who stands first or “metaphorically, a leader,” the etymology of προστάτις is neglected (προ “in
front of or before” + ἵστημι “to stand”), perhaps because of the potential problems it would create when compared with English
translations (“προστάτης,” Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 971; cf. “προστάτις,” Vine’s Expository
Dictionary, 1101-102). Rather, προστάτις is listed under the English meaning “succourer” (“προστάτις,” Vine’s Expository Dictionary,
1101).
79. “προστάτις,” MM, 551. This reference book was first published in 1930 and even the 1997 version is nothing more than a reprint
of this antiquated edition. Needless to say, the incorporation of discovered archaeological and epigraphical evidence found since 1930 is
not even mentioned.
82. For other instances of women functioning as προστάτιδϵς, see N.G.L. Hammond, “Some Macedonian Offices c. 336-309 BC,”
in JHS 105 (1985): 156-60; and a discussion of Tullia (originally found in I.Eph. IV. 1063 as cited by Horsley, NewDocs 1979: 242)
functioning as a προστάτις (see Horsley, NewDocs 1979: 242).
83. O. Montevechhi, “Una Donna ‘Prostatis’ del Figlio Minorenne in un Papiro del II”, Aeg. 61 (1981): 103.
84. Montevechhi, “Una Donna ‘Prostatis,’” 103, my translation.
85. Montevechhi, “Una Donna ‘Prostatis,’” 103, my translation.
86. Montevechhi, “Una Donna ‘Prostatis,’” 103.
87. PGM II.36.338.
89. See N.G.L. Hammond, “Some Macedonian Offices c. 336-309 BC,” in JHS 105 (1985): 158. The masculine form προστάτης is
intended here.
90. Hammond, “Some Macedonian Offices,” 156.
91. Hammond, “Some Macedonian Offices,” 156-57. For instance, when King Arrhidaeus was in Asia, Craterus, his προστασία,
undertook all civic responsibilities that were entrusted to the king. Thus die προστασία “undertook the conduct of sacrifices and festivals
in honour of the gods, the administration of the royal processions (mint at Pella, gold and silver mines, fine timber, parklands for hunting
and various estates), the receipt of certain taxes, and the disbursement of large sums of money” as well as accompanying the
Macedonian army (Hammond, “Some Macedonian Offices,” 156-57).
92. My translation.
93. Hammond, “Some Macedonian Offices,” 158.
94. Hatto, Expositio Epistolas Pauli. —In Epistola ad Romanos (PL 134:281).
95. My translation. Praesum has a number of different definitions which I have illustrated here. See “praesum,” Harpers’ Latin
Dictionary, 1432-33.
96. Origen, Comm. Rom. (PG 14:1278).
97. My translation. Constitūo has various meanings that would all be applicable here as demonstrated. See “constitūo,” Harper’s
Latin Dictionary, 437-38.
98. Origen, Comm. Rom. (PG 14:1278).
99. Esther Yue L. Ng, “Phoebe as Prostatis,” TRINJ 25NS (2004): 4-5.
100. My translation.
101. Schulz, Phoebe, 126. Another example is Heb 5:5 which reads, “οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς οὐχ ϵ̓αυτὸν ϵ̓δόξασϵν γϵνηθη̑ναι
ἀρχιϵρϵ́α” or “so also Christ did not glorify himself to be appointed a chief priest.”
102. My translation.
103. “γίνομαι,” BDAG, 198.
107. See “Historical Evidence Supporting Women Diakonoi” for more detail.
108. See “Women Functioned as Prostatides in Antiquity,” and n. 82.
9
Junia: Woman and Apostle
Hope Stephenson
The controversy surrounding Junia and her apostleship has plagued biblical scholarship for centuries.
Scholars have debated whether or not this person was a man (Junias) or a woman (Junia), an
outstanding apostle, or well known only to the apostles, and these topics continue to be discussed
today. Even current English New Testaments are divided on the issues.1 One might ask what reasons
scholars have to debate Junia’s womanhood and apostolic status. As Bernadette Brooten notes, “The
answer is simple: a woman could not have been an apostle. Because a woman could not have been an
apostle, the woman who is here called apostle could not have been a woman.”2 In order to shed light
on this controversy and to expose prejudice where it may be found, it will be necessary to thoroughly
examine the text. In Rom 16, Paul writes to the congregation in Rome to greet not only male leaders of
the church, but women as well. Junia is given special attention. In Rom 16:7, Paul writes, “Greet
Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the
apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.”3 Is it possible that Paul, who told the Corinthians that
women should remain silent in church, could have recognized a woman as an apostle and a prominent
one as well?4 If so, why is Junia so unfamiliar to most readers of the Bible and why have we not
heard about the leadership positions held by women in the early Christian church before?
Romans 16:7 has a long history of convoluted interpretation, often reflecting gender
discrimination.5 Recently, NT scholars such as John Thorley, Linda Belleville, Eldon Jay Epp,
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Ray R. Schulz, and others have studied ancient use
of the Greek language in manuscripts as well as interpretation from the last 600 years to answer those
questions. Once all of the evidence for the case of Junia’s femininity and apostleship is sifted through,
it can be concluded that Junia was the first and only woman to be called an apostle in the NT.
However, the road to Junia’s recovery is a long and complex one. In order to ensure an arrival at
the conclusion that Junia was a woman apostle, one must first examine the linguistic data. An
examination of the evidentiary support for both the feminine and masculine forms will show that
‘Ioυνιαν is best translated as “Junia,” a woman.6 Second, the views of Greek and Latin Church
father’s will be explored. This segment will show who in the early church held that Junia was a
woman apostle, who was the first to say she was not, and when this transition took place and why.
Third, the history of interpretation of Rom 16:7 will be investigated. This section will show what is
presented in Greek and English New Testaments (“Junia” or “Junias”) and the contemporary
scholarly consensus of today. Fourth, the recent argument which holds that the two persons listed in
Rom 16:7 are better described as “well known to the apostles” as opposed to “outstanding among the
apostles” will be considered.7 Once this reasoning is deconstructed, the most accurate translation of
the verse, showing that Junia and Andronicus were prominent members of the apostolic community,
will be maintained. Fifth, the definition of “apostle” as used by Paul will be explored and the
following questions will be answered: What were the qualifications for apostleship? In what ways
did apostles function and serve the Christian church? Were there apostles outside of the twelve
apostles of Jesus? In conclusion, the impact of Junia’s femininity and apostleship on the Christian
community today will be considered. This one woman, briefly mentioned at the end of Paul’s letter to
the Romans, should not be forgotten or ignored, but remembered and praised for her prominent
leadership position within the early Christian church.
LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE
Thorley, Schulz, Belleville, and Richard Cervin explore the linguistic grounds for believing that Paul
is writing about a woman, Junia, and not a man, Junias, in Rom 16:7. They complete philological
studies of ancient texts including Greek, Coptic, Syriac, and Latin to see their presentations of the
Greek transcribed Latin name Junia(s) and how it is represented linguistically.8 The name as it
appears in Greek texts is ‘Ioυνιαν. Both the name Junia (’Ioυνία) and its male counterpart, Junias
(᾿Ioυνια̑ς) are written as ᾿Ioυνια̑ς when in the accusative singular form. The difficulty in determining
the gender of the name lies in one key factor—the accent—which is the crux of the linguistic gender
debate. The feminine form carries an acute accent over the iota and the masculine form carries a
circumflex over the alpha.9 Thorley, Schulz, Belleville, and Cervin agree that the feminine form
(’Ioυνία) is the best translation.10
These scholars explain that the male form, “Junias,” was not a common Roman name and has not
been located elsewhere in other ancient texts.11 Thorley and Cervin discuss the probability of the
name, ‘Ioυνιαν, being translated as masculine. Out of the 26 masculine names in the NT that end in -
αζ, only two (’Aγρίππαζ or “Agrippa,” and ‘AKύλαζ or “Aquila”) are Latin names.12 These names
are taken from common Roman cognomina (family names), but for the form Iunia, there is no
common Roman cognomen, and it is unlikely that any were present since Iunias was a common
nomen (the name of the clan).13 Therefore, Thorley finds that the name translated as ’Ioυνία could not
be designated as masculine.14 Also, Cervin shows that Latin clan names ending in -ius were
transcribed in Greek with -ιος endings and the feminine forms of Latin clan names (ending in -ia) are
transcribed in Greek with -ία endings.15 Therefore, Iunia (or Iunius) would be rendered into Greek
as ‘Ioυνία (or ‘Ioύνιoζ) and in the Greek accusative form, the names would certainly be ‘Ioυνίαν (or
‘Ioυνιον). According to Cervin, the standard method for transcribing Latin names into Greek supports
the feminine form of the name.16
The prominent “contracted-name theory” supports the claim that “Junias” is the correct translation,
but it rests on the unfounded belief that “Junias” could be a shortened form (called a hypocorism) or a
nickname of several alleged names, “Junianus,” “Junianius,” or “Junilius.”17 However, this theory is
easily dismissed for the following three reasons. First, Belleville and Schulz explain that although
Greek nicknames were shortened forms of the original name (e.g. Epaphras for Epaphroditus), Latin
nicknames were usually lengthened (e.g. Priscilla for Prisca).18 So Junias would not have been a
nickname for any of the longer Latin names. Second, Thorley shows that when masculine nicknames
are formed from stems ending in -ι the “ι” is dropped and the -α̑ς is added after the consonant. The
shortened form of Junianus would be ᾿Ioυνα̑ς and not ᾿Ioυνια̑ς.19 Third, in Paul’s letters, he does not
prefer to use nicknames or shortened forms of longer names, so it is unlikely that he would have used
a nickname or hypocorism in Rom 16:7.20 In conclusion, it must be acknowledged that it has never
been clearly demonstrated that Junianus has been shortened to Junias.21 Given that there is no
empirical evidence supporting the contracted-name theory, it should not be presumed that the
nickname, Junias, existed at all since it has not been located elsewhere in other ancient texts. It is
much more practical to translate the name as the common feminine name, Junia.
Furthermore, Junia was a common name for Roman women during the time of Paul.22 Peter Lampe
explains that Junia was born a Jew and that her name came from the last name of the gens (or clan)
Junia, as many women were not often called by their family name, but by their clan.23 Those who
carried the gens Junia were either noble women of the gens, or the freed women of the gens and
their descendants.24 It is even possible that Junia was a freed slave of the gens Junia, became a
Roman citizen, and inherited her name through manumission.25 Belleville and Cervin cite numerous
examples of the feminine name, Junia, in ancient texts. In non-literary sources, “Junia” first appears in
ancient inscriptions (including tombstones) in the first century from places such as Ephesus, Didyma,
Lydia, Troas, Bithynia, and Rome.26 In literary sources, the gens Junia and the nomen Junias appear
frequently. Ancient writers such as Tacitus, Livy, Cornelius Nepos, Catullus, Suetonius, Pliny,
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, and Polybius all report these names.27 Even
Marcus Iunias Brutus, one of the murderers of Julius Caesar, had a sister named Iunia Tertia.28 Since
any woman born into the gens Junia would be named “Junia,” there is a large body of textual
evidence that supports the commonality of the name during the first century CE.
Although it has been found that all existing early translations of the NT use the name in the
feminine accusative form in Rom 16:7, it is still important to examine these texts and the grammar of
the ancient languages to see where ambiguity could arise.29 First, the Vulgate uses the spelling Iuniam
which is feminine. Although it is possible to translate Iuniam as a masculine noun in the accusative
case, the common practice of transcribing this Greek name into Latin renders the masculine name as
Iunian.30 Thorley finds that the Coptic texts also prefer the feminine form written as *IOYNIA. Greek
male names in Coptic have special transcriptions in order to designate them as masculine; however,
the name *IOYNIA, is nominative and logically feminine.31 In Syriac texts, there is little evidence for
the feminine form, Junia, but there is no support for the masculine form.32 Thorley holds that the
strongest probability here is that the translators did take *IOYNIA to be a feminine name.33 The main
issue with Greek texts is that they did not contain accents until the seventh century CE and the only
difference between the feminine and the masculine name is an accent.34 However, when Greek
writers began employing accents in manuscripts, they overwhelmingly identified the name as
feminine.35 The minuscule 33 from the ninth century (what Thorley refers to as the “Queen of the
minuscules”) utilized ’Ioυνία with an acute accent and set the precedent for all other Greek New
Testaments to follow.36 In fact, the shift in use of the feminine name to the masculine name in Greek
texts occurs after roughly three centuries of “Junia” interpretation in the early modern period.
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE
Of equal importance to the presentation of “Junia” in ancient texts is patristic evidence. Belleville,
Fitzmyer, and Epp provide impressive lists of Greek and Latin Church Father’s who all believed that
Junia was a woman apostle.37 Greek Father’s include: Origen,38 John Chrysostom,39 Theodoret of
Cyrrhus,40 Oecumenius,41 John of Damascus,42 and Theophylact.43 Latin Church Fathers include:
Ambrose,44 Jerome,45 Primasius,46 Rabanus Maurus,47 Haymo of Halberstadt,48 Sedulius-Scotus,49
Hatto of Vercilli,50 Lanfranc of Bec,51 Bruno the Carthusian,52 Peter Abelard,53 Guillelmus Abbas,54
Herveus Burgidolensis,55 and Peter Lombard.56 Of these Church Fathers, Chrysostom’s (344-407)
recognition of Junia as a woman apostle has been the most significant. In reference to Rom 16:7 he
writes:
To be an apostle is something great But to be outstanding among the apostles—just think what a wonderful song of praise that is!
They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have
been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.57
Then, roughly one hundred years later, Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-458) wrote similar praise of
Junia, “Then to be called ‘of note’ not only among the disciples but also among the teachers, and not
just among the teachers but even among the apostles.”58 John of Damascus (675-749) also repeats
Chrysostom’s accolade, “And to be called ‘apostles’ is a great thing . . . but to be even amongst these
of note, just consider what a great econium this is.”59 The importance of this accreditation cannot be
overlooked. Most of the Church Fathers had no difficulty in recognizing a woman as an apostle (and
an outstanding one as well). It seems as though Junia’s gender and vocation coexisted peacefully in
the earliest years of Christianity.
However, there were some Church Fathers who did not share Chrysostom’s sentiments and held
that the persons listed in Rom 16:7 were men. Origen (185-254 CE) has sometimes been credited
with being the first to refer to the apostle as the man Junias in his commentary, Epistle to the Romans,
but scholars have recently found that this was due to a mistake made by Rufinus in his Latin
translation of the work.60 In Origen’s commentary on Rom 16:7, he uses the feminine form, while the
masculine form only appears as a variant in later manuscripts.61 The fourth century Greek Church
Father, Epiphanius, held that Andronicus’ partner was a man named Junias in his Index
Discipulorum.62 However, he also translated another prominent Christian woman, Prisca, as
“Priscas” making her a man as well.63 These erroneous beliefs call the reliability of his entire
position into question. Origen and Epiphanius provide the only two examples of Junia being
presented as a man, Junias, in late antiquity and both are exceedingly suspect.64
The first solid identification of Junia as a male comes from Aegidius (or Giles) of Rome (1245-
1316 CE) in the late Middle Ages when he refers to the two apostles in Rom 16:7 simply as “these
honorable men (viri).”65 Bernadette Brooten believes that Aegidius’ remarks were influenced by the
idea that apostles must be men, a belief that would soon become a trend in Biblical interpretation.
Martin Luther, Father of the Reformation and author of Das Neue Testament Deutzsh (in which a
masculine article introduces Junia), relied heavily on a commentary of Romans written by Faber
Stapulensis in the early sixteenth century in which the correct translation was taken to be Junias and
masculine.66 In one of Luther’s lectures on Romans, he writes, “Greet Andronicus, the manly one, and
Junias, of the Junian family . . . who are men of note among the apostles.”67 Although scholars
Johannes Drusius, Christen Wilhelm Bose, John Locke, and M.J. Lagrange protested against the
Junias hypothesis, Luther’s interpretation set the standard of a masculine reading of the two names in
Rom 16:7 which began in the Middle Ages and continues today.68
HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION
Although the patristic commentaries on Rom 16:7 are insightful, one should also consider how Junia
is presented in NT translations. In his recently published book, Junia: The First Woman Apostle, Epp
discusses the history of interpretation of this ambiguous name. From 1516 (Erasmus edition) to 1923
(Erwin Nestle edition), Greek New Testaments all had the feminine name, “Junia,” printed in Rom
16:7 with only one exception, the Alford Edition (1844-1857 and 1887) in the nineteenth century.69
Then the masculine name became the norm in 1927 with the updated Erwin Nestle edition, and the
feminine form did not appear again until 1998, again with one exception—the Hodges-Farstad
Edition printed in 1982.70 Currently, both the UBS (1998 corrected edition) and Nestle-Aland
(Jubilee 1998 edition) standard critical Greek New Testaments contain ’Ioυνίαν in Rom 16:7 without
the variant masculine reading in the apparatus.71 After seven decades of printing the masculine
’Ioυνιαν, these current Greek New Testaments completely support the feminine accentuation of the
name.
The same trend (the switch to the masculine name from the feminine name) appeared in English
New Testament translations, although current editions are still divided on the issue. From 1525 until
1833, Junia was printed in Rom 16:7 of the following editions: Tyndale (1525 and 1534), Cranmer
(1539), Cromwell “Great Bible” (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops’ Bible (1568), Rheims
(1582), and the Authorized King James Version: KJV (1611).72 For two centuries (1600-1800), the
Rheims and KJV were the staples of NT scholarship.
Then, from 1833 until 1970, the masculine form dominated English texts. These texts were:
Dickinson’s Productions (1833 and 1837), Rotherham Emphasized Bible (1872, 1878, and 1893),
RV (1881), Rheims American Edition (1899), ASV (1901), Goodspeed (1902), Goodspeed
American Translation (1923 and 1948), Fenton Complete Bible (1903), Modern Readers Bible
(1907), Moffatt (1913 and 1922), Ronald Knox (1945), RSV (1946), Phillips (1947-1958),
Amplified New Testament (1958), NEB (1961), NNT (1961), NASB (1963), JB (1966), and the
GNB (1966). The three exceptions (which print “Junia”) at this time are the Variorum NT (1876 and
1888), Weymouth (1903 and 1929), and Lamsa ΝΓ (1940).73
Since 1970, there has been a back and forth “tug-of-war” between use of “Junia” and “Junias” in
Rom 16:7. “Junias” is printed in the LB (1971), NIV (1973), NJB (1985), MSG (1993), and the CEV
(1995); while “Junia” is printed in the NAB (1970), NKJV (1979), NCV (1987), New American
Bible: Revised NT (1987), REB (1989), NRSV (1989), Oxford Inclusive Version (1995), and the
NLT (1996).74
Although there is no tangible cause to the linguistic fluxes since the nineteenth century, most
scholars are in agreement that they are based on gender bias and not scholarly research.75 Thorley
believes that the masculine interpretation of the apostle’s name is a result of “conventual prejudice—
the prejudice presumably being that apostles must be men.”76 Epp attempts to describe this mood by
writing what he believes would have been the reasoning developed by the “Junias” supporters:
With the feminine presumably in the Greek text of Rom 16:7 for 365 years (with only one exception), what would prompt a
committee of eminent scholars to render it as masculine in English? The answer would appear to reside in [the] context: The two
persons in Rom 16:7 were “outstanding among the apostles,” so it must be a man, Junias, and this person’s maleness could be
predicated on the (specious) ground that “Junias” was a shortened name for “Junianus.” Hence, the shift that we observed from
“Junia” to “Junias” in the RV of 1881 was hardly occasioned by noble, scholarly reasons.77
Elizabeth Castelli, a feminist theologian, also believes that gender bias has played a large role in
the exegesis of Rom 16:7. She writes:
The reference to Junia the άπόστολος in [Rom] 16:7 has inspired remarkable interpretive contortions, resulting ultimately in a sex-
change-by-translation ... the argument is a circular syllogism: since by definition, women cannot be apostles, when a woman is
called an apostle, she is either not an apostle or she is not a woman.78
Translators at the time of each respective “shift” felt that since Andronicus and Junia(s) were
listed as apostles and therefore, leaders of the church, it was impossible for the name to be feminine.
Women were not allowed to preside over the church as leaders or have any kind of authority.
Schulz examines the concurrent church history parallel to the linguistic changes in translations to
discover what prompted the revision in Rom 16:7 in his article, “Junia Reinstated: Her Sisters Still
Waiting.” He shows that the debate over the gender of Junia coincides with the debate over women’s
ordination. In 1859, Catherine Booth, wife of William Booth and founder of the Salvation Army,
wrote a pamphlet titled, Women’s Ministry: Woman’s Right to Preach, in which she used Junias
apostleship to support her claim that women should be allowed to become ordained clergy. In the
early twentieth century, some churches began to allow women to preach and become ministers, but it
was not until after World War II that the debate escalated.79 At this time, most Greek New Testaments
had removed Junia from Rom 16:7 in favor of Junias. It would seem that these NT editions were
undermining the leadership of women in early Christianity in an attempt to subvert the women’s
ordination movement. Schulz agrees that at this time, “the orthodox change Scripture to strengthen
their own position and to weaken or negate the opposing view.”80 Here, our suspicions—that the shift
in use of “Junia” to “Junias” in Greek and English New Testaments was most likely a result of gender
prejudice—are confirmed by historical evidence.
CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARSHIP: WAS JUNIA AN
APOSTLE?
Junia’s femininity is not the only controversial issue present within Rom 16:7. A recent article written
by Michael H. Burer and Daniel B. Wallace entitled, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-
examination of Romans 16:7,” attests that “Junia” is the correct translation of the name and that it is
indeed feminine. However, Burer and Wallace ask the question of whether or not Junia was an
apostle. They find the translation of “ϵ̓πίσημοι ϵ̓ν τοι̑ς άποστόλοις” as “outstanding among the
apostles” to be problematic and feel that “well known to the apostles” is more accurate to what Paul
intended to write.81 Their argument centers on whether or not the grammar in Rom 16:7 expresses
inclusiveness (of or belonging to the group of apostles) or exclusiveness (existing outside the group
of apostles) in regard to Andronicus and Junia. Burer and Wallace contend that the inclusive view is
best represented by ϵ̓πίσημοι with a genitive personal adjunct and the exclusive view is best
portrayed by ϵ̓πίσημοι with ϵ̓ν and the personal dative (the grammar found in Rom 16:7).82 The
authors delve into an array of ancient texts, ranging from the eighth century BCE to the fifteenth
century CE (including biblical and patristic Greek, papyri, inscriptions, and classical and Hellenistic
literary sources), examining phrases that are parallel to Paul’s grammar in Rom 16:7. They use
contextual analysis to argue that:
To say that [ϵ̓πίσημοι ϵ̓ν τοι̑ς ἀποστόλοις] can only mean “noteworthy among the apostles” is simply not true. It would be more
accurate to say that [ϵ̓πίσημοι ϵ̓ν τοι̑ς ἀποστόλοις] almost certainly means “well known to the apostles.” Thus, Junia, along with
Andronicus, is recognized by Paul as well known to the apostles, not as an outstanding member of the apostolic band.83
Burer and Wallace believe that had Paul intended to write that Junia was “outstanding among the
apostles,” he would have used explicitly inclusive language for the sake of clarity. They also make
the statement, “If Andronicus and Junia were well-known apostles, it is remarkable that Scripture is
otherwise completely silent about them.”84
To support their thesis, Burer and Wallace discuss three issues. First, they explain that ϵ̓ίσημοι,
which means “well known, prominent, outstanding, famous, notable, or notorious,” can either be
translated as “prominent or outstanding among” in the implied comparative sense, or as “famous or
well known to/by” in an elative sense.85 They find that the latter is the best translation of the phrase in
Rom 16:7. Second, the authors draw from the context of the verse. They explain that since nouns in
the genitive form are generally used with comparative adjectives, then the implied comparison of the
inclusive sense should be no different. Therefore, if the inclusive sense was intended, the genitive
(τών άποστόλων) would have been used to convey that Junia and Andronicus were among the
apostles.86 However, since Junia and Andronicus were merely “well known to the apostles” as Burer
and Wallace argue, ϵ̓v with the dative illustrates that no comparison was made (the elative sense) as
seen here. Finally, Burer and Wallace feel that the substantival adjunct (the genitive noun or the object
of €ν) should be personal as opposed to being part of an impersonal construction.87 After these three
principles are set forth, Burer and Wallace examine the 25 examples of data they have collected from
the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) database and other standard collections. They find that every
occurrence of ϵ̓ίσημοι with €ν and the personal dative is used in the exclusive sense, meaning that the
subject of the sentence is to be understood as “well known to X.”88 However, the authors discover
one exception to this rule: Lucian’s On Salaried Posts in Great Houses from the second century
CE.89 In one instance in this text, Lucian uses ϵ̓πίσημοι with ϵ̓ν plus the dative in an inclusive sense.
Burer and Wallace believe that “this is the first parallel to Rom 16:7 we have seen that could offer
real comfort to inclusivists. It is unmistakable, it is personal, and it is rare.”90 However, they feel that
this one exception is not enough to derail their original thesis.
Heath R. Curtis believes that Burer and Wallace are mistaken in their translation of Lucian. He
holds that this example from Lucian agrees with the rest of the Greek texts in that the occurrence of
ϵ̓πίσημοι with ϵ̓ν and the dative is also in the exclusive sense.91 The complication arises with the
original translation from the LCL in which the English translation (erroneously) reads in an inclusive
sense, according to Curtis.92 Burer and Wallace’s argument is therefore bolstered by Curtis’
reexamination of the Lucian text.
Although it now seems that Junia has lost her apostleship in the final round against Curtis coupled
with Burer and Wallace, many scholars are not yet ready to relinquish her apostolic status. Belleville,
Cervin, Epp, Fitzmyer, James Dunn, and Douglas Moo believe that Junia is an apostle.93 Fitzmyer
writes that the prepositional phrase found in Rom 16:7 can mean either “those of mark among the
apostles” or “those held in esteem by the apostles,” but he holds to the inclusive understanding since
most of the patristic interpreters held the inclusive view.94 He also cites eleven other sources that
follow the inclusive view as opposed to only two that follow the exclusive view.95 Dunn holds that
the straightforward mention of the apostles along with the following clause “together strongly suggest
that Andronicus and Junia belonged to the large group ... of those appointed apostles by the risen
Christ.”96 Both Moo and Cervin argue that although ϵ̓πίσημοι ϵ̓ν τοι̑ς ἀποστόλοις can be taken as
exclusively rather than inclusively, it is most natural to understand the phrase as “esteemed among the
apostles” since the exclusive understanding would best be conveyed by the use of a simple dative or
ὑπÒ with the genitive (making the phrase: ϵ̓πίσημοι ὑπÒ τω̑ν ἀάποστόλων).97 It should be noted that
Moo also lists several other scholars in addition to Fitzmyer’s two scholars who support an exclusive
view of Rom 16:7.98
Belleville, Epp, and Richard Bauckham provide the most comprehensive analyses of Burer and
Wallace’s study. They go into great detail to show that the examples Burer and Wallace use to support
their thesis are flawed. Bauckham writes that Burer and Wallace use misleading examples of Greek
texts and that the method they employ has “serious defects.”99 He, Epp, and Belleville interpret all of
their evidence (except for Euripides’ Hippolytus) to be entirely inclusive, while Burer and Wallace
had found them all to be exclusive.100 Belleville even notes that the Hippolytus text was written five
centuries before the other examples and that ϵ̓πίσημοι had not yet developed a comparative sense at
that time.101 Epp concludes by relating that “in fact, whether inclusiveness is expressed by ϵ̓πίσημος
with the genitive or with ϵ̓ν plus the dative is virtually, if not literally, a toss-up on the basis of the
evidence presented.”102 Belleville goes into a lengthy discussion which focuses on four main
problems with Burer and Wallace’s argument: (1) The standard Greek lexicons do not support the
exclusive meaning; (2) the standard grammars do not support the exclusive reading either; (3) Burer
and Wallace assume a conclusion that is not sufficiently supported by their evidence; and (4) the pool
of data used by Burer and Wallace is too limited to support their comprehensive conclusion that
“every instance of ϵ̓ν plus personal nouns supported the exclusive view.”103 Belleville even
introduces a text that negates Burer and Wallace’s claim, Lucian’s Dialogues of the Dead (a close
grammatical parallel to Rom 16:7):
Lucian, Dialogues of the Dead 438:

ϵν αὐτοι̑ς δϵ̀ ϵ̓πίσημοι ᾿Iσμηνόδωρός . . .
“Most distinguished among whom were Ismenodorus ...”
Rom 16:7
οἳτοιϵ́ς ϵίσιν ϵὐπίσηοι ϵ̓ν τοι̑ς άποστολοις
“They are most distinguished among the apostles”104
Although Curtis shows that another Lucian text expresses the exclusive sense, it is obvious here
that Lucian uses ϵ̓πίσημοι with ϵ́ν plus the dative in an inclusive and personal sense. This example
shows great support for the conclusion drawn by Epp, Bauckham, and Belleville, in that Andronicus
and Junia were indeed outstanding among the apostles.
Furthermore, the fact that all the Church Father’s understood ϵπίσηοι ϵ̓ι άποστολοις in the inclusive
sense also supports Junia’s apostleship. Belleville asserts that
the simple fact is that if native, educated speakers of Greek understood the phrase to be inclusive and Iουνιαν to be feminine, the
burden of proof lies with those who would claim otherwise. Indeed, the burden of proof has not been met. Not even reasonable
doubt has been established, for all the extra-biblical parallels adduced [by Burer and Wallace] support an inclusive
understanding.105
Epp also mentions that it is surprising that Burer and Wallace never mention Chrysostom or his
praise of Junia, despite the fact that his name appears twice in material they cited from other scholars
in footnotes.106 Even with the harsh critique that Burer and Wallaces article has received, it is a
substantial addition to this field of biblical studies. They enliven an important discussion and remind
us to be cautious when translating ancient Greek. Burer and Wallace treat opposing opinions fairly
and their work deserves the appreciation of all NT scholars.
DEFINITION OF APOSTLESHIP
Now that Junia’s apostleship has been secured, it is important to look at what Paul means when he
used the term “apostle.” Paul’s definition and understanding of apostleship is at the center of this
debate since he is the one who gives Junia such an extraordinary title. There are four main
components to Paul’s meaning of “apostle.” First, “apostle” is a much broader term, encompassing
more than just the twelve apostles of Jesus. Paul uses the phrase “apostle of Jesus Christ” to denote
the original twelve apostles (1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Col 1:1).107 “Apostle” also means “messenger,
missionary preacher, or itinerant missionary” and is used to describe other church leaders as well.108
Barnabus (Acts 14:4, 14; 1 Cor 9:5-6), Apollos (1 Cor 4:6,9), Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25), Silvanus
and Timothy (1 Thess 1:1, 2:7), Titus (2 Cor 8:23), and Paul himself (1 Thess 2:7; Gal 1:17-19) are
also called apostles in the NT.109 In Rom 16:7, Paul most likely means that Andronicus and Junia are
itinerant missionaries, which is important since God appoints apostles first to the Church (1 Cor
12:28; Eph 4:11). Junia and her partner would have been involved in evangelism and planting new
churches as traveling apostles.110
Second, Paul thinks so highly of his office of apostleship that he frequently feels the need to defend
his own status as an apostle. In 2 Cor 12:11-12, he guards himself against the criticisms of those who
would say that he is inferior to other “super-apostles.” He reminds the Corinthians of the mighty
works he has performed as signs of his authentic apostleship. Therefore, Paul would certainly not use
the term “apostle” carelessly since he takes such great effort in maintaining the integrity of his own
apostleship.111
Third, in defending his apostleship, Paul discusses several necessary conditions. The first
requirement to be an apostle is that one must have encountered the risen Christ (1 Cor 9:1; Gal 1:1,
15-17) and received a commission to teach the good news of the gospels (Rom 1:1-5; 1 Cor 1:1; Gal
1:1, 15-17).112 This post-resurrection experience was crucial to the continuation of the apostolic
tradition.113 Although Rudolpf Schnackenburg holds that not all the NT apostles shared in the
appearance of Christ after His death, Fiorenza and Peter Richardson contend that this necessity was
met by the presence of the Spirit in missionary success.114 Fitzmyer agrees and holds the position that
Andronicus and Junia were apostles even though they probably never met the risen Christ.115 The
second condition requires one to endure the true test of apostleship involving “the conscious
acceptance and endurance of the labors and sufferings connected with missionary work.”116 The third
requirement is that the results of such trials are revealed as divine signs, mighty deeds, and wondrous
miracles (1 Cor 15:9-10; 2 Cor 12:11-12).117 Andronicus and Junia prove their apostleship by
enduring imprisonment, possibly with Paul in Ephesus or Antioch, and by performing works in the
Church that would make them worthy of being called “outstanding among the apostles.”118
Andronicus and Junia, as apostles and itinerant missionaries, traveled around the Hellenistic
world introducing others to the gospels and Christianity, but what can be known of the relationship
between these two partners? Paul says in Rom 16:7 that they were “in Christ before I was” meaning
that they were Christians before Paul was. Thus, Andronicus and Junia would have been Jewish
Christians and most likely among the Jerusalem Hellenists (Acts 6-8) who were preaching the gospel
before Paul’s conversion.119 On a personal level, most scholars (who believe that Andronicus’
partner was a woman) think that Andronicus and Junia were a missionary couple and most likely
husband and wife.120 Mary Rose D’Angelo comments that Paul thought it was good for an apostle to
“bring along a sister as wife, that is, to be accompanied by a wife who is also supported as a
missionary.”121 In fact, in Rom 16, Paul also greets three other (presumed married) missionary
couples: Prisca and Aquila (16:3), Philologus and Julia (16:15), and Nereas and his “sister” (16:15).
Although missionary pairs in early Christianity were not always married (like Rufus and his mother in
Rom 16:13), they were the standard in missionary work.122
CONCLUSION
Although other books in the NT contain passages that seem to oppress women and deny them
leadership positions within the church (e.g. 1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2:9-15; Eph 5:22-24; Col 3:18), it
is important not to overlook Junia, the female apostle in Rom 16:7. This is the mission of
contemporary feminist biblical scholarship: overcoming the androcentric nature of the biblical text
and examining the historical context in order to reconstruct the real stories of women that have been
written out of history.123 We have seen the attempts to conceal Junia and her leadership within the
Church by making her a man or negating her apostleship. We have even seen that gender
discrimination can act powerfully within biblical hermeneutics. Fiorenza believes that in Rom 16,
“references to early Christian women . . . should be read as the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ indicating what is
submerged in grammatically masculine language and how much historical information is lost to us
forever.”124 However, the androcentric and patriarchal waters subside when women like Junia are
remembered. Junia, although often forgotten or ignored, is a valiant heroine who deserves not only
our acknowledgment, but also our praise. With Junia and her apostleship comes the knowledge that
the ministry of the early Christian church was composed of both female and male leaders.125 Also,
that these leadership positions were not sex-specific; both men and women could be apostles.126
After examining linguistic study, patristic evidence, the history of interpretation, the definition of
apostleship, and Paul’s own considerations, it can be concluded that Junia is indeed a woman and an
apostle of the early Christian church.
NOTES
1. Since 1960, “Junias,” appears in ten translations (CEV, GNB, JB, LB, MSG, NASB, NEB, NIV, NJB, NNT) while “Junia”
appears in eight translations (NAB, NCV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, Oxford Inclusive Version, REB, RNAB). See Epp, Eldon Jay, Junia: The
First Woman Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 66.
2. Bernadette J. Brooten, “‘Junia . . . Outstanding Among the Apostles’ (Romans 16:7),” in Women Priests: A Catholic
Commentary of the Vatican Declaration (eds. L. S. and A. Swindler; New York: Paulist Press, 1977), 142.
3. Rom 16:7, NRSV. All Scripture verses will be taken from the NRSV unless otherwise indicated.
4. 1 Cor 14:34-35.
5. Brooten, “Junia,” 142; John Thorley, “Junia, A Woman Apostle,” NovT 38 (1996): 28; James Dunn, Romans 9-16, WBC 38
(Dallas: World Book, 1988), 894.
6. Some ancient texts (Old Latin, Bohairic Coptic, Ethiopic) have a feminine variation, Ιουλίαν or “Julia,” but the majority of Greek
manuscripts read Ίουνίαν or “Junia,” (Thorley, “Junia,” 19-20). This study will focus upon “Junia.”
7. Michael H. Burer and Daniel B. Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Romans 16:7,” NTS 47 (2001): 76-
91.
8. Thorley, “Junia,” 20-21; Ray R. Schulz, “Romans 16:7: Junia or Junias?” ExpTim 98 no. 4 (1987): 108-10; Linda Belleville,
“Ίουνιαν . . . ϵ́πίσημοι ϵ́ν τοι̑ς άποστόλοις: A Re-examination of Romans 16:7 in Light of Primary Source Materials,” NTS 51 (2005):
231-49; Richard S. Cervin, “A Note Regarding the Name ‘Junia(s)’ in Romans 16:7,” NTS 40 (1994): 464-70.
9. Cervin, “Junia(s),” 464.
10. Thorley, “Junia,” 19; Schulz, “Romans 16:7,” 110; Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 231; Cervin, “Junia(s),” 464.
11. Thorley, “Junia,” 18, 20; Schulz, “Romans 16:7,” 109; Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 239; Cervin, “Junia(s),” 466.
12. Thorley, “Junia,” 24; Cervin, “Junia(s),” 469.
13. Thorley, Junia,” 24; Cervin, “Junia(s),” 467-68.
14. Thorley, “Junia,” 24.
17. Epp, Junia, 40; Schulz, “Romans 16:7,” 109; Thorley, “Junia,” 25; Cervin, “Junia(s),” 467; Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 239.
18. Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 239; Schulz, “Romans 16:7,” 109.
20. Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 239; Schulz, “Romans 16:7,” 110. For examples of Paul using the name Silvanus (instead of Silas), see
2 Cor 1:19, 1 Thess 1:1, and 2 Thess 1:1. For examples of Prisca (instead of Priscilla), see Rom 16:3, 1 Cor 16:19, and 2 Tim 4:19.
21. Cervin, “Junia(s),” 467; Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 240.
22. Peter Lampe, “Junias,” ABD (ed. David Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 3:1127; Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 240;
Cervin, “Junia(s),” 467-68.
23. Lampe, “Junias,” 1127.
24. Lampe, “Junias,” 1127.
25. Lampe, “Junias,1127 “.
26. Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 241.
29. Thorley, “Junia,” 20. Thorley provides the most comprehensive analysis of this material so his article will be heavily relied upon in
this section.
30. Greek masculine names in the accusative case which are longer than two syllables and end in -α̑v are commonly transcribed
with an -an ending in Latin. The accusative of Greek masculine names with only two syllables and ending in -av is written with an -
am ending in Latin (Epp, Junia, 36-38; Thorley, “Junia,” 21-22).
32. Thorley, “Junia,” 23 .
37. Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 232, n. 1; Epp, Junia, 32; Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary; AB (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 737-38.
38. Origen, Comm. Rom. (PG 14:1279-80, 1289-90).
39. Chrysostom, Horn. Rom. (PG 60:669).
40. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Interpretatio Ep. ad Rom. 16.7 (PG 82:219-20).
41. Oecumenius, Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. 16 (PG 118:629-32).
42. John of Damascus, In Ep. ad Rom. 16.7 (PG 95:565).
43. Theophylact, Expositio in Ep. ad Rom. 114 (PG 124:551-52).
44. Ambrose, Comm, in Ep. ad Rom. 16.7 (PL 17:179).
45. Jerome, B. Pauli Apostoloi Incipit Epistola ad Romanos (PL 29:744); Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. (PL 30:715).
46. Primasius, Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. 16.7 (PL 68:505).
47. Rabanus Maurus, Expositio in Ep. ad Rom. (PL 111:1607).
48. Haymo of Halberstadt, Expositio in Ep. ad Rom. 16.7 (PL 117:505).
49. Sedulius-Scotus, In Ep. ad Rom. (PL 103:128).
50. Hatto of Vercilli, In Ep. ad Rom. 16 (PL 134:282).
51. Lanfranc of Bee, Ep. ad Rom. (PL 150:153-54).
52. Bruno the Carthusian, In Ep. ad Rom. 16 (PL 153:119-20).
53. Peter Abelard, Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. (PL 178:973).
54. Guillelmus Abbas, Expositio in Ep. ad Rom. (PL 180:691).
55. Herveus Burgidolensis, Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. (PL 181:807).
56. Peter Lombard, In Ep. ad Rom. (PL 191:1527-28).
57. Chrysostom, Horn. Rom. (PG 60:669-70); Brooten, “Junia,” 141.
58. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Interpretatio Ep. ad Rom. 16.7 (PG 82:219-20); Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 235.
59. John of Damascus, In Epist. ad Rom. 16.7 (PG 95:565); Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 235.
60. Origen, Comm. Rom. (PG 14:1089); Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 235; Epp, Junia, 33.
61. Origen, Comm. Rom. (PG 14:1279-80); Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 235; Epp, Junia, 33.
62. Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 235; Douglas Moo, Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 922.
63. Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 235; Moo, Romans, 922.
64. Epp, Junia, 34.
65. Brooten, “Junia,” 141, citing Opera Exegetica Opuscula I (facsimile reprint of the Rome, 1554-1555 edition: Frankfurt, 1968),
97.
66. Brooten, “Junia,” 142; Ray R. Schulz, “Junia Reinstated: Her Sisters Still Waiting,” LTJ [Australia] 38 (2004): 131.
67. Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans in Luther’s Works 25 (ed. Hilton C. Oswald; St. Louis: Concordia, 1972), 129; Epp, Junia,
38.
68. Brooten, “Junia,” 142; Epp, Junia, 38.
69. Epp, Junia, 62-63.
70. Epp, Junia, 63.
71. Epp, Junia, 47.
72. Epp, Junia, 66. The lists of English New Testaments are adapted from Table 3 in Epp’s book (Junia, 66).
73. Epp, Junia, 66, see Table 3.
74. Epp, Junia, 66, see Table 3.
75. Thorley, “Junia,” 28; Brooten, “Junia,” 142; Dunn, Romans, 894; Epp, Junia, 67.
77. Epp, Junia, 67.
78. Elizabeth A. Castelli, “Romans” in vol. 2 of Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Commentary (ed. Elisabeth Schüssler
Fiorenza, New York: Crossroad, 1994), 279-80.
79. Schulz, “Junia Reinstated,” 134.
80. Schulz, “Junia Reinstated,” 134.
81. Burer and Wallace, “Junia,” 80.
88. Heath R. Curtis, “A Female Apostle?: A Note Regarding the Work of Burer and Wallace Concerning ϵ̓πίσημοι with ϵ̓v and the
Dative,” Concordia Journal 28 no. 4 (2002): 438.
89. Lucian, On Salaried Posts in Great Houses, Merc. cond. 28, 3:460-461 (A.M. Harmon, LCL); Burer and Wallace, “Junia,”
89; Curtis, “Female Apostle,” 438.
91. Curtis, “Female Apostle,” 438.
92. Curtis, “Female Apostle,” 439.
93. Fitzmyer, Romans, 739; Dunn, Romans, 894; Cervin, “Romans,” 470; Douglas Moo, Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996), 923; Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 242-47; Epp, Junia, 77.
95. Fitzmyer, Romans, 739; Fitzmyer lists “inclusive” supporters: C.K. Barrett, C.E.B. Cranfield, M.J. Lagrange, H. Lietzmann, O.
Michel, K. Rengstorf, A. Schlatter, H. Schlier, R. Schnackenburg, D. Zeller, and BAGD. The “exclusive” supporters are B. Comely and
T. Zahn.
97. Cervin, “Romans,” 470; Moo, Romans, 923.
98. Moo, Romans, 923; Moo lists T. Zahn, H. A. Meyer, E. H. Gifford, C. Hodge, R.C.H. Lenski, and J. Murray as supporters of an
exclusive view of Rom 16:7.
99. Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 174; Epp,
Junia, 76.
100. Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 247; Epp, Junia, 77; Bauckham, Gospel Women, 174.
102. Epp, Junia, 77.
103. Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 242-46, citing Burer and Wallace, “Junia,” 87.
104. Lucian, Dialogues of the Dead, Dial Mort. 438, 7:124-27 (M. D. Macleod, LCL); Belleville, “Romans 16:7,” 246.
106. Epp, Junia, 79; Burer and Wallace, “Junia,” 76, n. 2; 77, n. 6.
107. Ben Witherington III, Women in the Earliest Churches (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 115.
108. Epp, Junia, 69; Witherington, Women, 115.
109. Epp, Junia, 69; R.T. France, “From Romans to the Real World: Biblical Principles and Cultural Change in Relation to
Homosexuality and the Ministry of Women,” in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the
Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (eds. Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 241; Rudolpf
Schnackenburg, “Apostles before and During Paul’s Time,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays
Presented to F. F. Bruce on His Sixtieth Birthday (eds. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 290;
Witherington, Women, 115.
110. Witherington, Women, 115-16.
111. Epp, Junia, 69-70.
112. Epp, Junia, 70; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “The Apostleship of Women in Early Christianity,” in Women Priests: A Catholic
Commentary of the Vatican Declaration (ed. L.S. and A. Swindler; New York: Paulist Press, 1977), 136.
113. Schnackenburg, “Apostles,” 291. It should also be noted that both Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and Ute E. Eisen hold that since
Mary Magdalene was the first to witness the risen Christ, she is also a member of the apostolic band. (Ute E. Eisen, Women Office
Holders in Early Christianity, Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000, 47; Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Apostleship of Women,” 136).
114. Fiorenza, “Apostleship of Women,” 136; Peter Richardson, “From Apostles to Virgins: Romans 16 and the Roles of Women in
the Early Church,” TJT 2 (1986): 258; Schnackenburg, “Apostles,” 294.
116. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Missionaries, Apostles, Coworkers: Romans 16 and the Reconstruction of Women’s Early
Christian History,” WW 6 (1986): 430-31.
117. Epp, Junia, 70.
118. Fiorenza, “Missionaries,” 431; Schnackenburg, “Apostles,” 293.
119. Dunn, Romans 9-16, 895; Fitzmyer, Romans, 739; Schnackenburg, “Apostles,” 294.
120. Mary Rose D’Angelo, “Women Partners in the New Testament,” JFSR 6 (1990): 73; Fiorenza, “Missionaries,” 430.
121. D’Angelo, “Women Partners,” 73.
122. D’Angelo, “Women Partners,” 74.
123. Fiorenza, “Missionaries,” 421.
124. Fiorenza, “Missionaries,” 423.
125. Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “Romans,” in Women’s Bible Commentary (expanded ed., eds. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H.
Ringe, Louisville: Westminister John Knox, 1998), 410.
126. Richardson, “Apostles to Virgins,” 243.
10
In Search of the Voice of Women in the
Churches:Revisiting the Command to Silence
Women in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Lee A. Johnson
As a reader of biblical texts vis-à-vis the lens of feminist hermeneutics in Latin America, Elsa Tamez
relates the challenge for Latinas who read the Bible as a word of liberation for themselves. Tamez
notes the conundrum these women readers face: on the one hand, they stand confident in their
assumption that the Bible does consistently relate God’s value of the poor, and they envision God as a
liberator of those who are rejected by society, but on the other hand, they are less confident of God’s
support, specifically for women. For instance, Tamez notes, Latina readers do not know how to
respond to passages that seemingly isolate and devalue women such as 1 Tim 2:11-15 and 1 Cor
14:34-35. The biblical authority that supports the subjugation of women is a persistent challenge to
readers who envision the Bible as a document of liberation.1
As a professor at a Protestant seminary where the majority of our students seeking ordination are
women, I am frequently reminded that the exegetical conundrum that Tamez has observed in her Latin
American context is also a live issue for my students in their rural charges. Even though the notion of
the subjugation of women is roundly rejected by my students, they are often at a loss to respond to the
challenge of “women should be silent in the churches” in 1 Cor 14:34.2 As a case in point, as recently
as 1991, Walter A. Maier concludes his exegetical study of this passage with the following remarks:
This instruction included the requirement that the women keep silent in the worship assembly (in the manner explained above)
with the evident implication of excluding them from the pastoral office. While the Pauline directive relating to certain features of
the Corinthian worship services have no pertinence to the manner in which Lutheran worship services are conducted today, since
prophesying and speaking in tongues are not a part of these services, the prohibition of speaking by women during public worship
(again, in the manner previously explained) still has applicability in our day; and those who fear and love the Lord in our churches
will seek to observe His will in this matter as in all others. By the grace of God there has never been a woman pastor in the
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.3
In contrast to the 1 Tim 2:11-15 passage for which Pauline authorship has been rejected by the
majority of scholars, having been dated near the end of the first century, the 1 Cor 14:34-35 passage
is particularly vexing because it arises from the undisputed Paul letters. Therefore, the 1 Cor 14
passage, as part of a letter from the mid-50s, is the single best evidence of the subjugation of women
in the early Jesus groups. In addition, these two verses seem to contradict Paul’s generally egalitarian
instructions in other places in 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 7 and 1 Cor 11) and in the baptismal creed of Gal
3:28. Indeed, Richard Hays argues that the best evidence to reject Pauline authorship of 1 Cor 14:34-
35 is that they stand “in glaring contradiction” to Paul’s inclusion of women in all aspects of his
mission.4
Hays’ conclusion is not a radical one, because in addition to the internal inconsistencies that 1 Cor
14:34-35 poses in Pauline writings, there are variant manuscript readings that suggest the possibility
that these two verses constitute an interpolation—that is, a passage that has been inserted into the
original text at a later date—and thus, this passage has been hotly disputed for centuries. Indeed, the
confusion that exists among readers of the Bible in Latin America and in rural North American
churches is also apparent among biblical scholars. Therefore, the point of this essay is to bring some
clarity to the interpretation of this passage for today’s preachers, teachers, and readers of Paul’s
letters. This essay will summarize the evidence that brings 1 Cor 14:34-35 into question, delineate
the history of interpretation of these verses by summarizing the various camps in which interpreters
find themselves, and analyze the advantages and shortcomings of these interpretations. Finally, I will
argue that the recent evidence from the Fuldensis and Vaticanus manuscripts make the interpolation
hypothesis the most plausible solution to the problem of 1 Cor 14:34-35.
The passage under question extends beyond vv. 34-35. The Greek text (UBS) is reproduced first,
followed by the NRSV translation:
(33) οὐ γάρ ϵ̓στιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ θϵÒς ἀλλὰ ϵἰρήνης. Ὡς ϵ̓ν πάσαις ται̑ς ϵ̓κκλƞσίαις τω̑ν ἁγίων (34) αἱ γυναι̑κἵς ϵ̓ν ται̑ς
ϵ̓κκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν˙ οὐ γάρ ϵ̓πιτρϵ́πϵται αὐται̑ς λαλϵι̑ν, ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσϵ́σθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λϵ́γϵι (35) ϵἰ δϵ́ τι
μαθϵι̑ν θϵ́λουσιν, ϵ̓v οἴκῳ τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας ϵ̓πϵρωτάτωσαν˙ αἰσχρÒν γάρ ϵ̓στιν γυναικὶ λαλϵι̑ν ϵ̓ν ϵ̓κκλησίᾳ. (36) ἤ ἀφ᾿
ὑμω̑ν ὁ λόγος του̑ θϵου̑ ϵ̓ξη̑λθϵν, ἤ ϵἰς ὑμα̑ς μόνους κατήντησϵν;
(33) For God is a God not of disorder but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, (34) women should be silent in the
churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. (35) If there is anything they
desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (36) Or did the word of
God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?
ISSUES THAT BRING THE AUTHENTICITY OF 1
CORINTHIANS 14:34-35 INTO QUESTION
It is the apparent disjunction of Paul’s charge to silence women in 1 Cor 14:34-35 with his prior
assumption in 1 Cor 11 that women will be praying and prophesying in the assembly (v. 5) that
initiated the question of the authenticity of these two verses. Jouette Bassler states the obvious
contradiction: “How can women exercise their acknowledged right to pray and prophesy (ch. 11) if
they must keep absolute silence?”5 It is true that Paul seeks to devise rules of comportment for women
in 1 Cor 11 either through the imposition of head coverings or for plaited hairstyles,6 but it is clear
that Paul assumes that women will be active and vocal participants in the worship gatherings.7
The restrictions in 1 Cor 14:34-35 similarly clash with the reciprocal tone of 1 Cor 7, where Paul
makes such surprisingly egalitarian statements (given his social context) as, “For the wife does not
have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority
over his own body, but the wife does” (v. 4). Paul takes great pains to balance his instruction to both
males and females in 1 Cor 7:1-16; therefore Paul’s selective and harsh restrictions on women in ch.
14 of the same letter are difficult to reconcile.
In addition, Paul’s most egalitarian claim in Gal 3:28, “there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no
longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus,” is
strikingly discordant with the charge, “women should be silent in the churches” in 1 Cor 14:34.8
Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza’s claim that the Gal 3:28 passage was a creedal formulation that
Pauline community members recited at their baptism has gained widespread acceptance.9 If Paul had
brought the Corinthians into the community under the aegis of this egalitarian statement, his restrictive
charge to the women in 1 Cor 14:34-35 is even more difficult to reconcile with the rest of his
message.10
Having noted the problematic nature of Paul’s words in 1 Cor 14:34-35 with the rest of his
message to the Corinthians, scholars then began to scrutinize these two verses in their immediate
context (vv. 33-36) and noted further incongruities. First, some of the language in these verses is not
used anywhere else in the undisputed Pauline letters, but does appear in the secondary Pauline
writings, thus drawing a direct connection with the post-Pauline tradition. The verb ϵ̓πιτρϵ́πϵσθαι (“to
be permitted”), used in 1 Cor 14:34 occurs elsewhere in this sense in the NT only in 1 Tim 2:12,
which is notably one of the passages directed towards the subjugation of women. Another verbal
anomaly in the 1 Cor 14 passage is ύποτάσσϵσθαι (“to be subordinate”), which appears in sections of
Colossians and Ephesians, both letters of disputed Pauline authorship. The verb ύποτάσσϵσθαι is a
common command in the Haustafeln of both Colossians (3:18) and Ephesians (5:22), which also
charge women to accept a subordinate role to their husband’s.11 Those biblical scholars who had
already questioned the authenticity of 1 Cor 14:34-35 because of the seeming contradictions with
Paul’s instructions to women and his corresponding views in the rest of his writings see these verbal
links with the post-Pauline writings (which do not advocate equality between males and females) as
evidence of a later writer who held views more in common with the authors of Colossians,
Ephesians, and 1 Timothy than with Paul.12
The phrase “as the law also says” (καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λϵ́γϵι) has also provoked questions from
biblical scholars. Gordon Fee’s discussion summarizes the problem well:
When Paul elsewhere appeals to “the law,” he always cites the text (e.g., [1 Cor] 9:8, 14:21), usually to support a point he himself
is making. Nowhere else does he appeal to the law in this absolute way as binding on Christian behavior. More difficult yet is the
fact that the law does not say any such thing. Genesis 3:16 is often appealed to, but that text does not say what is here argued. If
that were the case, then one must admit that Paul is appealing not to the written Torah itself but to an oral understanding of Torah
such as is found in rabbinic Judaism.13
Because the issue of the law and its bearing upon Gentiles is of major concern to Paul, his
argument for the Corinthian women’s compliance based upon obedience to the law seems out of
character entirely.14
Those who question the Pauline authorship of 1 Cor 14:34-35 also note that these verses seem to
be an abrupt intrusion into the flow of discussion, and that when they are omitted, the passage reads
more smoothly. The previous verses in ch. 14 contain instructions for the use of tongues and prophecy
in the assembly; therefore, the command for silence of women seems to appear out of context.15 As
Fee notes, vv. 34-35 focus upon persons only, whereas the prior passage is instructive to the
community as a whole.16 An additional problem is the use of the masculine plural ending in the
adjective μόνους (“only ones”) in v. 36, obviously not allowing for an exclusively feminine audience.
In vv. 34-35, women are the ones commanded to silence, but the ironic query in v. 36 (“or are you the
only ones it has reached?”) must include some males.17 As a result, many scholars would argue that
vv. 34-35 are out of place in this passage. The following construction of 1 Cor 14:33-40 that excises
vv. 34-35 demonstrates the continuity in thought that the “original” passage would have:
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Or did the word of God originate with you? Or
are you the only ones it has reached? Anyone who claims to be a prophet or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that
what I write to you is a command of the Lord. Anyone who does not recognize this is not to be recognized. So, my friends, be
eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; but all things should be done decently and in order.18
All of the questions posed about the authenticity of 1 Cor 14:34-35 in the previous section fall
under the category of “internal evidence” as defined by the rules of textual criticism. Interpolations
are very rarely successfully argued on the ground of internal evidence alone, however.19 Generally, it
is the “external evidence” which is comprised of variants in ancient manuscripts that makes the
strongest case for an interpolated passage. Before examining the external evidence for 1 Cor 14:34-
35, a brief summary of the textual critical process is necessary.20
The value of the manuscript evidence (external evidence) is determined primarily through two
criteria: 1) the date and quality of the manuscripts and 2) the variety of the type of the manuscripts.21
More than 5,000 manuscripts have been recovered to date, ranging in date from the end of the first to
the fourteenth centuries; the earliest witnesses are printed on papyri, but the majority appear in codex
(or book) form.22 Dating of the manuscripts is determined through the writing style of the text.
Because the number of people trained as scribes in antiquity was very limited, the style of the writing
is remarkably uniform, thus allowing fairly accurate dating (usually within 75 years) by means of the
style of the letters and the form of the document.23 For instance, all early writing appears in lower
case letters (miniscule manuscripts), without spacing between words, and without punctuation. For
clarification, in later documents innovations such as spacing between words, punctuation, and the use
of capital and lower case letters were introduced into the scribal style.
Determining the text type of the manuscripts is a very complex undertaking. An extraordinary
amount of effort has gone into tracing the relationships between these manuscript witnesses. By means
of source criticism, the manuscripts have been put into groups that indicate a literary dependency
based upon shared variants between them. Although there is some debate on the matter, scholars
generally group the texts into four text types, of which the Alexandrian is believed to be the most
reliable. Another type, the Western, is considered to contain many of the oldest manuscripts, but has
been discredited for its wild variations (some passages are included in this group that appear
nowhere else). Both of these text types have a bearing upon 1 Cor 14:34-35. It should be noted that
the sheer numbers of manuscripts that contain a particular reading of a passage are irrelevant due to
the fact that certain manuscripts were used most often as the text from which new manuscripts were
copied.
In the process of textual criticism, the external evidence is examined first and a determination is
made as to which manuscript variant arises from the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. It is only
after all the manuscripts have been analyzed that the internal evidence is examined. Some of the
evidence for the passage in question (1 Cor 14:34-35) has been outlined above. In addition, there are
several other criteria that are weighed in determining the validity of a manuscript variant, three of
which pertain to the problematic Corinthians passage. First, the shorter reading (lectio brevior) is
thought to be more original. Scribes were much more likely to add to than omit from documents.
Second, the more difficult or problematic reading (lectio difficilior) is thought to be more original.
This criterion is based upon the assumption that scribes were more likely to correct errors or smooth
over problematic passages, rather than introduce inaccuracies or problems into the text. Finally, a
general criterion is used that the more original text most readily explains how the other variants
arose. In most deliberations of textual variants not all of the criteria will be applicable; in the case of
1 Cor 14:34-35 the first and last are appealed to most often.
In the process of textual criticism the internal criteria are weighed along-side the external criteria
and a determination is made as to which textual variant is the most original. Hundreds of thousands of
these textual choices are made in the process of assembling a NT Greek text and the debates over the
choices made are revisited with new manuscript discoveries and further scholarly discussion. The
fact that the UBS Greek text is in its fifth edition reveals the ongoing nature of these textual debates.
First Corinthians 14:34-35 does have manuscript variants that invite debate about its authenticity,
but the question is not whether these verses appear in each of the manuscripts, but where they belong
in the larger passage. The majority of manuscripts include vv. 34-35 between vv. 33 and 36, including
the well-respected Siniaiticus (‫ )א‬and Vaticanus (B), along with an early papyrus (P46).24 However,
the entire Western tradition of manuscripts locates these verses after 1 Cor 14:40 along with two non-
Western manuscripts, most notably a Greek manuscript from the twelfth century (88*).
On the basis of external evidence alone, the variant location of vv. 34-35 is not attested well
enough to convince many scholars that their original location was at the end of ch. 14. However,
when the dissenting manuscript evidence is examined in conjunction with the internal problems of
these verses as summarized above, a lively debate about the authenticity of vv. 34-35 has ensued.
Those who argue that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is an interpolation have relied upon the variant location of
these verses in some manuscripts as evidence of uncertainty among early copyists as to their
authenticity. The explanation for the differing location of these verses in ch. 14 would be as follows:
at a very early stage in the life of the original manuscript a marginal note consisting of vv. 34-35 was
added, thus creating a dilemma for future scribes. They had to decide if they would include the textual
gloss and if so, where to include it. Thus, the interpolation theory explains the variant location of vv.
34-35 after v. 40.
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC
INTERPRETATIONS OF 1 CORINTHIANS 14:34-35
Exegetes of 1 Cor 14:34-35 fall into four basic camps: 1) Paul wrote these verses specifically to
restrict the participation of women in the worship gatherings; 2) Paul wrote these verses but they are
to be read contextually and are therefore not universally restrictive; 3) Paul quotes in these verses a
group of males at Corinth who sought to silence the women in worship, and Paul immediately refutes
their claim in v. 36; and 4) Paul did not write these verses; they constitute an interpolation that was
incorporated into the original text at a very early stage of its transmission. These four options will be
summarized, and their strengths and weaknesses will be exposed.
1. Paul Intended to Restrict Women’s Participation in Worship

Two significant scholars who read 1 Cor 14:34-35 as a purposeful restriction by Paul upon women
are Hans Lietzmann and Antoinette Clark Wire.25 Wire builds upon Lietzmann’s argument that 1 Cor
14:34-35 reveals Paul’s true beliefs concerning the proper place of women in the Corinthian worship
services—that is, in subordination to men and in silence. Wire argues that at the time of the
composition of 1 Corinthians, Paul finds himself at odds with a group of powerful women prophets at
Corinth who have become a potent force in the community. The fact that these community leaders are
women is fundamentally troublesome to Paul, and his letter seeks to unseat their position of authority.
Both Wire and Lietzmann take note of the seeming contradiction that exists between Paul’s instruction
to women in 1 Cor 11 and in 1 Cor 14, stating that ch. 11 was a concession, and Paul’s true view of
women is expressed in ch. 14. Wire concludes, “Paul’s forcing a spiritual vote of confidence at
exactly this point shows that the women’s silencing is not a parenthetical matter but the turning point
in his argument concerning the spiritual.”26
Whereas Wire and Lietzmann attempt to reconcile the different instruction to women within 1
Corinthians, other writers such as Maier comment upon 1 Cor 14:34-35 without consideration for the
larger context. Maier’s agenda against women’s leadership in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
has clearly guided his exegesis in isolation from the rest of the Pauline corpus.27 It is the larger
context of Paul’s letters, both within the Corinthian correspondence and also within Paul’s larger
body of letters that makes this hardline view of Paul towards women largely unaccepted by biblical
scholars.28 Even the most conservative scholars have to acknowledge that Paul includes women in his
ministry. Romans 16 is notable for the number of women mentioned by name and the significant roles
that they play in the promotion of the gospel. Paul writes a letter of recommendation for Phoebe, a
“deacon” (διάκονος) and “benefactor” (προστάτις), he greets Prisca as a “worker” (συνϵργός) with
him, and he bestows the title of “aposde” (άποστόλος) on Junia (Rom 16:1-7).29 Furthermore,
evidence of powerful women in Paul’s communities is revealed in his instructions to Euodia and
Syntyche in Phil 4:2-3 and in his recognition of Chloe in 1 Cor 1:11. Paul’s consistent record of
welcoming women in authoritative roles, combined with the evidence in 1 Corinthians and the
baptismal formula in Gal 3:28, places the onus upon those who claim that Paul sought to restrict
women in Corinth to prove what seems to be an anomaly in the undisputed Pauline letters.30 As a
result, this interpretation of 1 Cor 14:34-35 has been met with little acceptance. While it does
eliminate the problematic issue of an interpolation theory, it creates more problems than it solves.
The reader is left with an image of a capricious Paul whose commands to the Corinthian women in 1
Cor 14:34-35 are nearly irreconcilable with the remainder of his writings.
2. Paul’s Restrictions upon Women Have a Contextually Limited

Scope31
Pauline interpreters with this perspective seek to explain Paul’s words with particular attention to
linguistic issues in 1 Cor 14:34-35, defining the limits of the restrictions through the investigation of
such words as γυναι̑κϵς (“women”), λαλϵι̑ν (“to speak”), and μαθϵι̑ν (“to learn”). Those who focus
upon γυναι̑κϵς correctly point out that an equally appropriate translation is “wives”; thus, at issue is
the “conduct of a wife vis-à-vis her husband.... In this context the co-participation of his wife, which
may involve her publicly ‘testing’ (διακρίνϵιν, 1 Cor 14:29) her husband’s message, is considered to
be a disgraceful (αἰσχρÒν) disregard of him, of accepted proprieties, and of her own wifely role.”32
Grant Osborne notes that Paul’s reference to “the law” in v. 34 is referencing the “Biblical norm
(subjection of the wife) [as] the accepted application of his day.”33 At stake, according to this
interpretation, was the risk of shame for a husband in the ancient culture whose wife was too vocal in
public.
Fiorenza explains Paul’s restriction upon the wives in Corinth in light of his ascription of “a
special holiness to the unmarried woman and virgin” in 1 Cor 7.34 These holy virgins are qualified
for active participation in the worship service due to their ascetic existence.35 Therefore, Paul made
special allowances for women who were holy “in body and spirit” (1 Cor 7:34) at Corinth, but he
remained traditional in his beliefs that wives should be subordinate to husband’s. Robert W. Allison
is correct in his rebuttal of Fiorenza’s argument, noting that Paul makes no claim for spiritual
hierarchy in 1 Cor 7; rather he argues that “marriage serves to preserve holiness.”36 The advantage
that the unmarried have is the ability to devote themselves single-mindedly to the matters of the
Lord.37
Other contextually-limited interpretations focus upon the words λαλϵι̑ν and μαθϵι̑ν, and thus, it is
the manner of participation that is questioned. Hans Windisch suggested that the verb λαλϵι̑ν indicates
idle chatter as opposed to the constructive prayer, prophecy, or tongue-speaking that 1 Cor 11-14
assumes of women.38 His reading of the Corinthian congregation, as described in 1 Cor 14:34-35,
envisions women chattering away, disturbing the worship service. Also, somewhat misogynistic is
Keener’s interpretation that “rude, inappropriate or unlearned” questions were being asked in
worship and that it was possible that “women were more apt to ask unlearned questions.”39 Ben
Witherington focuses on λαλϵι̑ν, as well, but he argues that it is necessary to consider Paul’s
prohibition on women’s “speech” in conjunction with the charge that they are “to be in submission”
(ὑποτασσϵ́σθωσαν).40 Viewing these two commands together, Witherington concludes that the
problem was the women who were questioning the men’s prophecies in the Corinthian worship:
“[This interpretation] in no way negates a woman’s right to pray or prophesy in church, but only
restricts her from judging prophecy in some manner so as to lord it over either her husband or men in
general.”41 D.A. Carson concludes similarly that women may prophesy, but may not “participate in
the oral weighing of such prophecies.”42 Paul’s concern, therefore, is that women in 1 Cor 14:34-35
were sitting in judgment over men, which they would not be doing in their prayers or prophecies (1
Cor 11:5).43 Finally, Ann Jervis’ more nuanced interpretation notes that Paul’s use of λαλϵι̑ν in 1 Cor
14:34 is peculiarly unqualified in this particular usage. With one exception, Paul uses this common
verb “to speak” in 1 Cor 11-14 with qualifying phrases related to revelation, knowledge, prophecy,
teaching, and interpreting tongues. Therefore, Jervis assumes that the speech mentioned in v. 34 is
“unspiritual and uninspired” and thus deserves Paul’s censure.44
These varying interpretations that focus upon the manner of women’s speech in the Corinthian
worship do manage to avoid the problem of universalizing Paul’s charge in 1 Cor 14:34-35, and thus
do not create a conflict with Paul’s more egalitarian message in his letters. However, the
contextually-limited interpretations remain unconvincing because: 1) it seems unlikely that Paul
would permit breeches of cultural custom by allowing unmarried women to speak but forbidding
wives to do so; all women would have been under the custody of a male, whether married or single,
and married women had more social status than did unmarried women. Furthermore, it is difficult to
imagine that Paul would attempt to assert such a restriction on either Prisca (of Priscilla and Aquila)
or on Junia (of Andronicus and Junia). 2) If Paul were worried about a particular kind of talking in
worship, such as inappropriate questions, or speech that is uninspired, it is inexplicable why he used
a very general verb (λαλϵι̑ν) that covers any kind of speech. If Paul wanted boundaries on this
silence, would not he have described them in 1 Cor 14? Since he was not there in person to explain
his position, would not his charge here be interpreted as a blanket prohibition on women’s speech?
3. Paul’s Words in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Echo a Slogan of Men in

Corinth that He Refutes in 1 Corinthians 14:36
In 1981, Neal Flanagan and Edwina Snyder coauthored a short excursus on 1 Cor 14:34-36 that
offered a solution to the conundrum of Paul’s command for women’s silence in the churches.45 They
trace evidence of male opposition throughout 1 Corinthians to the active participation of women in
their community. The voice of these males can be observed, they argue, in various slogans throughout
the letter (1:12; 2:15; 6:12-13; 7:1; 8:1, 4, 8; 11:2; 15:2). These slogans do not represent Paul’s
perspective, but are repeated by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians and immediately qualified or
refuted. Flanagan and Snyder suggest that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is another example of these oppositional
male voices which Paul cites, only to refute directly afterwards in v. 36. Paul’s use of the male
adjective “only [ones]” (μόνονς) in v. 36 is evidence that he directs his words against a different
group in v. 36 than in vv. 34-35. The NRSV translation, Flanagan and Snyder argue, does not capture
the strongly adversative particle ἤ (commonly translated as “or”); rather, their translation is: “What!
Did the word of God originate with you, or are you [men] the only ones it has reached?”46 Following
Flanagan and Snyder, David Odell-Scott embarked on a lengthy campaign to argue the slogan theory
by means of the initial particle ἤ (v. 36), holding with Flanagan and Snyder that the more disjunctive
“what!” is the more accurate translation.47 Odell-Scott reads a parallel adversative construction in 1
Cor 11:20-22 where Paul chastises the eating practices of the community, which can be translated as
follows:
When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one
is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and
humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.48
Also, holding to the slogan hypothesis, Allison argues that the origin of this opposition to women
was rabbinic because of the reference to the law in v. 34. Some males in Corinth had adopted this
authoritarian saying in an attempt to make the Corinthian women conform to traditional synagogical
customs.49 Paul’s reaction in v. 36 then was a “sarcastic rebuttal” to the males (μόνους) who were
trying to squelch the women. His questions, “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the
only ones it has reached?” are a reference to the women in Corinth who were obviously confirmed in
their prophetic voice by the spirit (1 Cor 11:5).50 Allison has identified the oppositional voice that
was vaguely described in Odell-Scott’s exposition. However, they both agree that vv. 34-35 must be
read in contrast to Paul’s perspective that is voiced in v. 36.
This refutation reading was adopted by several scholars during the 1980s-1990s.51 The popularity
of this interpretation undoubtedly arose from its preservation of both the Pauline authorship of vv. 34-
35 and Paul’s larger egalitarian vision. In addition, this reading accounts for the use of the masculine
plural adjective in v. 36, which clearly addresses more than just the women from vv. 34-35. However
tidy this reading is, it has failed to persuade the majority of scholars, primarily because the so-called
slogan of male opponents in 1 Cor 14:34-35 is not clearly designated as an alternative voice, as is the
case in the other slogan refutations in 1 Corinthians. Nor does this proposed slogan display the same
concise format as the others in this letter. For instance, 1 Cor 7:1 reads, “It is well for a man not to
touch a woman,” and 1 Cor 8:1 reads, “All of us possess knowledge.” In both of these cases, Paul
immediately qualifies the statement: “But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should
have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (7:2) and “Knowledge puffs up, but love
builds up” (8:1). This sort of clarity both in voice and counter voice is lacking in 1 Cor 14:34-36. In
addition, as Fee has convincingly argued, this view assumes that there is a strong contingent in
Corinth that opposes women’s speech, to which nearly all the evidence in 1 Corinthians declares just
the opposite (5:1-8; 7; 11:2-16).52
4. First Corinthians 14:34-35 Is a Non-Pauline Interpolation

Suspicion about the authenticity of 1 Cor 14:34-35 is not a recent development in biblical studies;
scholars have argued that these two verses are a non-Pauline interpolation for centuries. However, it
is only in recent history that the interpolation theory has moved from a minority view to a majority
view. This swing in opinion can be traced to the pivotal works of two scholars: Gordon Fee and
Phillip Payne.
Fee’s expansive commentary on 1 Corinthians includes an exposition on 1 Cor 14:34-35 that
argues against the Pauline authorship of these two verses primarily based upon one internal textual
critical criterion—“the form of the text is more likely the original which best explains the emergence
of all the others.”53 Written in 1987, Fee’s commentary made an immediate and lasting impact upon
this textual problem. By means of a thorough explication of this one textual critical criterion, Fee
provided a compelling case for interpolated vv. 34-35 based upon an established textual critical
principle.
Based upon the manuscript evidence, there are three options for 1 Cor 14:34-35: 1) Paul wrote
these verses in this position and they were then transposed to the end of ch. 14 by a later scribe; 2)
these verses were located at the end of ch. 14 originally and then transposed after v. 33; and 3) they
were not part of Paul’s original letter, but were a very early marginal gloss that was then incorporated
into the text at two different places.54 Fee correctly notes that the explanations previously given for
the dual location of vv. 34-35 are largely uncompelling. Option 1 is by far the most accepted by those
who argue for Pauline authorship of vv. 34-35, but the most common explanation of why these verses
appear in some manuscripts after v. 40 is unpersuasive. As the explanation goes—apparently, some
copyist relocated these verses because they seemed out of place after v. 33. Therefore, the copyist
had attempted to clean up Paul’s disjointed instructions to the Corinthians. Fee’s challenge to this
theory is apt—there is no other evidence of copyist relocations of this kind in the NT; and, finally, the
relocation does nothing to improve the integrity of Paul’s instructions.55
It is rather option 3, Fee argues, that best explains how the manuscript variants came into
existence:
One the whole, therefore, the case against these verses is so strong, and finding a viable solution to their meaning so difficult, that
it seems best to view them as an interpolation. If so, then one must assume that the words were first written as a gloss in the
margin by someone who, probably in light of 1 Tim 2:9-15, felt the need to qualify Paul’s instructions even further. Since the
phenomenon of glosses making their way into the biblical text is so well documented elsewhere in the NT (e.g., John 5:3b-4; 1
John 5:7), there is no good historical reason to reject the possibility here. The fact that it occurs in all extant witnesses only means
that the double interpolation had taken place before the time of our present textual tradition, and could easily have happened
before the turn of the first century.56
Fee’s well developed argument based upon the internal criteria leg of textual criticism had an
immediate and lasting impact upon the interpretation of vv. 34-35, but many Pauline scholars were
still reticent to name 1 Cor 14:34-35 as a non-Pauline interpolation because no extant manuscripts
excluded the verses altogether.57
In 1995, Philip Payne uncovered evidence based upon examination of manuscripts—thus, external
evidence—that speaks to the concerns of scholars who remain uncommitted to Fee’s argument based
primarily on internal evidence. Payne was able to view the Codex Fuldensis (F), dated 546 at the
hand of its editor Victor, a scholar whose extant commentaries on biblical books reveal his
erudition.58 Familiar to Payne was Bruce Metzger’s notation on the Fuldensis’ curious repetition of
vv. 34-35. Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, considered as the authority
on textual issues, comments that the Fuldensis (F) manuscript, along with the rest of the Western texts,
includes 1 Cor 14:34-35 at the end of ch. 14; however the F manuscript also includes vv. 34-35 in the
margin after 1 Cor 14:33.59 It was this oddity in the F manuscript that Payne wanted to see. The
surprise that Payne uncovered when he viewed this manuscript was that Metzger’s information about
the marginal note was incorrect. Rather than replicating vv. 34-35 in both of the locations that survive
in manuscripts of 1 Cor 14 (after v. 33 and after v. 40), the verses appear only in the text after v. 33.
The marginal note is at the bottom (not the margin as Metzger had claimed) and contains only vv. 36-
40. A symbol is also placed in the manuscript after v. 33 to show where to begin reading the marginal
notation at the bottom. In other words, Victor, the editor, had designated a replacement text for the one
presented by the first copyist that included vv. 34-35 after v. 33. Victor’s note indicated that the
bottom marginal note should be read after v. 33, which means that vv. 34-35 should be omitted
altogether.60
Payne recounts showing a copy of the F manuscript to Metzger, who then acknowledged that he had
never seen the Fuldensis, but had written his textual commentary based upon a report rather than his
own viewing.61 As a result of seeing a print of the F manuscript, Metzger was persuaded that the
marginal note was in the same hand as the primary text and that the note was intended as a
replacement for what was written above. The most likely scenario, then, is that the learned Victor
required the copyist to print the passage 1 Cor 14:36-40 in the bottom margin without vv. 34-35.62
For those scholars who had adhered to the authenticity of 1 Cor 14:34-35, Payne’s findings were
the missing link in manuscript evidence that might persuade them that the interpolation theory was the
most likely answer to the conundrum of this passage. Even though the internal evidence was
compelling—this command to silence does not reconcile with the majority of Paul’s other directives
towards women in the Corinthian letters and in his larger letter corpus—without external manuscript
evidence that would reveal an early variant that did not contain these two verses at all, they had
remained committed to the Pauline authorship of these verses. Payne’s evidence reveals that the
scribe Victor, who would have had access to the most ancient manuscripts in his day, was aware of a
text of 1 Cor 14 that did not include vv. 34-35. Not only that, but Victor was compelled by the value
of this alternative manuscript to the extent that he required the copyist to replace the section of 1 Cor
14:34-40 in the bottom margin without vv. 34-35. Indeed, Payne’s discovery provoked a new
conclusion from Metzger, one of the premier textual experts, when he viewed the prints of the
Fuldensis manuscript: “that Victor believed that 34-35 was an interpolation.”63
Payne’s findings also included evidence of distinctive markings (named “umlaut sigla”) in the
authoritative Codex Vaticanus (dated from the fourth century) that designate vv. 34-35 as a textual
problem very early in the scribal tradition. Payne studied hundreds of such manuscript markings with
the assistance of a professor of paleography from the Vatican, using a high-powered lighted
magnifying glass that matched these sigla to the hand of the original Vaticanus scribe.64 Verses 34-35
in 1 Cor 14 are marked with sigla that are used throughout this manuscript to identify passages with
textual problems. Therefore, Payne argues, the questionable nature of vv. 34-35 is indicated in an
early and reputable manuscript, in addition to the remarkable omission of these verses in the
“replacement text” in the F manuscript.65
The combination of Fee’s convincing use of the internal criteria to discredit the authenticity of 1
Cor 14:34-35 with Payne’s Fuldensis and Vaticanus external manuscript evidence has produced a
shift of opinion about this passage in the scholarly world. Payne’s discoveries present compelling
evidence of early, reliable manuscripts that either do not contain vv. 34-35 or include them with
designations that mark their authenticity as questionable, which in turn place a burden of proof on
those scholars who affirm the Pauline authorship of vv. 34-35. By as early as the fourth century, these
verses were marked as of questionable origin, and a textual scholar in the mid-sixth century was
aware of at least one reliable manuscript that did not include vv. 34-35. These two findings in
combination with the relocation of vv. 34-35 to the end of ch. 14 in the Western textual tradition build
a much stronger case upon which to claim vv. 34-35 are not originally in Paul’s letter to the
Corinthians. In short, to include vv. 34-35 in 1 Cor 14 creates more problems than it solves.
Taking into account the range of evidence about 1 Cor 14:33-40, my reconstruction of events that
would explain the variant manuscript readings is as follows:
1) Paul composed 1 Corinthians without 14:34-35 in the early to mid 50s.

2) Early in the transmission of the manuscript, a scribe, whose view of women’s participation was
more in line with that expressed in 1 Timothy than in 1 Corinthians, inserted these two verses
into the margin in his copy of the letter.
3) Later copyists chose not to include the marginal note (those in the Western text tradition, the
manuscript that Victor had at his disposal in the creation of the F manuscript, and in manuscript
88); some chose to include the notation at the end of ch. 14; and some chose to include it into the
text after v. 33—most likely the verse adjacent to the first marginal notation. Included in this last
group is Vaticanus, in which the sigla mark the questionable nature of vv. 34-35.
4) The manuscripts that contained vv. 34-35 after v. 33 were disseminated most widely, therefore
the majority of extant manuscripts contain these verses in this location in ch. 14.
5) Because vv. 34-35 affirm the limitation of women’s participation in the church gatherings,
which matches the historical and ecclesial trajectory of the fate of women beginning in the late
first century and continuing through the centuries, it is reasonable to assume that, when given a
choice, copyists and scribes would include the verses that subordinate women.
CONCLUSION
What is then gained by relegating 1 Cor 14:34-35 to interpolation status? As Ann Jervis correctly
notes, “authorial authenticity and biblical authority are [not] synonymous.”66 Twenty-first century
readers must still grapple with the voices in the biblical texts that support the subjugation of women.
First Timothy 2:11-15 is not erased because 1 Cor 14:34-35 is attributed to a later hand than Paul’s,
nor can today’s readers ignore the fact that a scribe in the early Christian movement wrote these
words onto a manuscript and his words were accepted as authentically Pauline. However, something
significant does arise from removing these words from Paul’s writings. There remains, arguably, an
era in the history of Jesus’ believers in which women’s voices matched those of men in the worship
gatherings, when women served in leadership roles and were called by the same titles as men in the
Pauline community, and when the egalitarian vision expressed in Gal 3:28 was recited by initiates
and sometimes actualized in the various communities.
These two verses, if not composed by Paul, are relegated to a later era, around the time of the
Pastoral Epistles (90-120 CE), in which factions of the now-Christian church struggled to form an
identity apart from Judaism that would not project an anti-imperial ideology. It is around the turn of
the second century that many of these Christian factions sought to curtail women’s roles; a fledgling
group whose membership only included women in subordinate roles would be more in line with
conservative imperial ideals. Partially out of a need for self-preservation, the egalitarian vision of the
Pauline groups in the 50s was supplanted in many instances by a more socially conservative model,
in which women were silent in the gatherings and were subordinate to the male leadership.
In short, the voice that dictated “women should be silent in the churches” was most likely not
Paul’s. To be sure, that voice and many others like it established the order in worship services for
centuries in the church. But that voice no longer stifles women’s participation, and it seems that Paul
would be pleased about this turn of events.
NOTES
1. Elsa Tamez, “Women’s Rereading of the Bible,” in Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World (ed. R.S.
Sugirtharajah; Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis/SPCK), 49-50.
2. All references will be taken from the NRSV unless otherwise indicated.
3. Walter A. Meier, “An Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 14:33b-38,” CTQ 55 (1991): 100-101.
4. Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1997), 246.
5. Jouette M. Bassler, “I Corinthians” in The Women’s Bible Commentary, eds. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon Ringe (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1998), 327.
6. For a detailed discussion of the translation problems of the Greek words ἀkαταkαλύπτῳ, kατὰ kϵφαλη̑ς as used in 1 Cor 11:2-16
see Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Early Christian Beginnings (New
York: Crossroad, 1983), 226-31. Fiorenza argues that Paul’s concern is that the prophesying women in Corinth do so with their hair
plaited against the head rather than loosened, which was typical for prophetic women in other cultic traditions.
7. Robert W. Allison, “Let Women Be Silent in the Churches (1 Corinthians 14:33b-36): What Did Paul Really Say, and What Did It
Mean?” JSNT 32 (1988): 32.
8. For a fine summary of Paul’s favorable view of women see Richard B. Hays, “Paul on the Relation between Men and Women,”
in A Feminist Companion to Paul, ed. Amy-Jill Levine (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2004), 143-44.
9. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 208-18; cf. Hans Dieter Betz, “Spirit, Freedom and Law: Paul’s Message to the Galatian
Churches,” Svensk exegetisk arsbok 39 (1974): 145-60.
10. Paul also cites this creed in 1 Cor 12:13, but with the pair of male and female omitted.
11. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 246.
12. For further discussion on the Household Codes in the New Testament and their relationship to the Pauline writings see David L.
Balch, “Household Codes,” in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament, ed. David E. Aune (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).
13. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 707; cf. Graydon F. Snyder, First
Corinthians: A Faith Community Commentary (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1992), 186; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor,
“Interpolations in 1 Corinthians,” CBQ 48 (1986): 91.
14. Daniel C. Arichea, Jr., “The Silence of Women in the Church: Theology and Translation in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36,” BT46
(1995): 108-109.
15. Hays, First Corinthians, 246; E. Earle Ellis, “The Silenced Wives of Corinth (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)” in New Testament
Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, eds. Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 213.
16. Fee, First Epistle, 701-2.
17. Murphy-O’Connor, “Interpolations,” 90; cf. David W. Odell-Scott, “Let the Women Speak in Church: An Egalitarian
Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36,” BTB 18 (1987): 91; James Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women?: A
Consideration of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36,” WTJ 35 (1973): 218.
18. There is considerable debate as to whether the interpolation includes v. 33b and v. 36. Hans Conzelmann (1 Corinthians, 246)
delineated the interpolation as 14:33b-36, generally on the grounds that these verses comprise a cohesive unit. However, neither 14:33b
nor 14:36 are disputed in the manuscript variants (see the following paragraphs for discussion), so I concur with Richard Hays that the
most persuasive argument for an interpolation only includes vv. 34-35 (First Corinthians, 246).
19. See, however, Murphy-O’Connor (“Interpolations”) who argues thusly with several passages in 1 Corinthians.
20. The task of textual criticism is a complicated process, the details of which will not be reviewed in this essay. For more discussion
see Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1992); Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the
Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2nd ed., trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989).
21. Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 209-10.
22. For further discussion, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (New York:
American Bible Society, 1994), especially the introduction.
23. Brent Nongbri, “The Use and Abuse of P 52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel,” HTR 98 (Jan 2005): 23-
48.
24. For more detailed discussion on the manuscript evidence see Fee, First Epistle, 699-700; Philip B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for
Variants in Vaticanus, and in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,” NTS 41 (1995): 240-42; and Joël Delobel, “Textual Criticism and Exegesis:
Siamese Twins?” in New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History: A Discussion of Methods, eds. Barbara
Aland and Joël Delobel (New Delhi: Pharos, 1994), 98-117.
25. Hans Lietzmann, An die Korinther, HNT 9 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1949), 75; Antoinette Clark Wire, The Corinthian
Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 149-58, 229-32.
26. Wire, Women Prophets, 155.
27. Maier, “Exegetical Study.”
28. In order to address the conflict between 1 Cor 11 and 1 Cor 14, some scholars have proposed that 1 Corinthians is a composite
letter and that these two chapters are derived from different letters written by Paul to Corinth. However, this solution only relegates the
issue of Paul’s inconsistency to different correspondences that would likely have been composed within a short period of time; therefore,
the conundrum in Paul’s thought remains, if not quite as glaringly apparent. For advocates of the letter partition theory, see Johannes
Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), 41-42; and Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971), 243-45. For a summary discussion of letter partition theory, see Allison, “Let Women Be Silent,” 32.
29. For an excellent argument for the apostleship of Junia see Eldon Jay Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2005).
30. To be sure, scholars such as Maier accept Pauline authorship of Colossians, Ephesians, and 1 Timothy, all of which use much
more restrictive language towards women. The harshest of these charges is in 1 Timothy (2:11-15), for which Pauline authorship has
been rejected by a large majority of biblical scholars.
31. Some scholars account for the obvious difference in Paul’s view of women’s participation in the gatherings in 1 Cor 11 and 1 Cor
14 by claiming that 1 Corinthians is a composite document containing letters from different times that addressed different issues (Allison,
“Let Women Be Silent,” 28). However, the majority of scholars accept the unity of 1 Corinthians, and therefore this theory has few
advocates.
32. Ellis, “Silenced Wives,” 218; cf. Luise Schotroff, Let the Oppressed Go Free: Feminist Perspectives on the New Testament,
trans. Annemarie S. Kidder (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 50-51.
33. Grant R. Osborne, “Hermeneutics and Women in the Church,” JETS 20 (1977): 345; cf. Craig S. Keener, 1-2 Corinthians
(Cambridge: University Press, 2005), 118.
34. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 231.
35. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 231.
36. Allison, “Let Women Be Silent,” 40.
38. Hans Windisch, “Sinn und Geltung des apostolischen Mulier taceat in ecclesia,” Die Christliche Welt 44 (1930): 420.
39. Craig Keener, 1-2 Corinthians, 119.
40. Ben Witherington, Women in the Earliest Churches (Cambridge: University Press, 1988), 100.
41. Witherington, Earliest Churches, 102.
42. D.A. Carson, “‘Silent in the Churches’: On the Role of Women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood
and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, eds. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991), 151.
43. So Hurley, “Did Paul Require Veils?” 217.
44. L. Ann Jervis, “1 Corinthians 14:34-35: A Reconsideration of Paul’s Limitation of the Free Speech of Some Corinthian Women,”
JSNT 58 (1995): 61.
45. Neal M. Flanagan and Edwina H. Snyder, “Did Paul Put Down Women in First Corinthians 14:34-36?” BTB 11 (1981): 10-12.
46. Flanagan and Snyder, “Did Paul Put Down Women?” 218-19.
47. David W. Odell-Scott published three articles in on this passage between 1983-2000: “Let the Women Speak” (see n. 17); “In
Defense of an Egalitarian Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-36: A Reply to Murphy-O’Conner’s Critique,” BTB 17 (1987): 100-103;
“Editorial Dilemma: The Interpolation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 in the Western Manuscripts of D, G and 88,” BTB 30 (2000): 68-74.
48. Odell-Scott, “Let the Women Speak,” 91.
50. Allison, “Let the Women Be Silent,” 49.
51. Some of these scholars include: Charles H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 and
2 Corinthians (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 90-93; Daniel C. Arichea, Jr., “The Silence of Women”; and Michel Gourgues, “Who Is
Misogynist: Paul or Certain Corinthians?” in Women Also Journeyed with Him, ed. Gérald Caron et al. (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical
Press, 2000), 117-24.
52. Fee, Corinthians, 704-5.
53. This is the fourth criterion listed under the internal evidence in textual criticism discussion above, but Fee names this as Bengel’s
first principle of textual criticism (Corinthians, 699).
54. Fee, Corinthians, 699.
57. Carson correctly notes that Fee’s argument from internal criticism ignores the criterion of lectio difficilior (the difficult reading);
it is unquestionably “difficult” to include vv. 34-35 in 1 Cor 14 (“Silent in the Churches,” 143).
58. Philip B. Payne, “Fuldensis,” 241.
59. Bruce M. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 565—but this notation occurs in the 1971 edition.
60. Payne, “Fuldensis,” 241-42.
61. Payne, “Fuldensis,” 242.
62. Payne, “Fuldensis,” 242. It is notable that Metzger’s second edition of A Textual Commentary on the New Testament (1994)
does correct the record from the 1971 edition on 1 Cor 14:34-35 (Textual Commentary, 499-500).
63. See the account of Metzger’s reaction to this evidence in Payne’s “Fuldensis,” 243-45.
64. Eldon Jay Epp (Junia, 14-20) lays out the manuscript evidence for the interpolation theory. Payne’s original article from 1995
spawned a scholarly discussion about his findings. An additional argument—that manuscript 88 provides evidence of another ancient
manuscript that did not contain vv. 34-35—is not included in the above discussion. To follow some voices in this discussion, see Peter F.
Lockwood, “Does 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Exclude Women from the Pastoral Office?” LTJ 30 (1996): 30-38; David W. Bryce, “‘As in
All the Churches of the Saints’: A Text-Critical Study of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,” LTJ 31 (1997): 31-39; Curt Niccum, “The Voice of the
Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,” NTS 43 (1997): 242-55; Philip B. Payne,
“Ms. 88 as Evidence for a Text Without 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,” NTS 44 (1998): 152-58; Ray Schulz, “Another Look at the Text of 1
Corinthians 14:33-35,” LTJ 32 (1998): 128-31; J. Edward Miller, “Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in
Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,” JSNT 26 no. 2 (2003): 217-36; and Philip B. Payne, “The Text-Critical
Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: A Response to J. Edward Miller,” JSNT 27 no. 1
(2004): 105-12.
65. Payne, “Fuldensis,” 250-60.
66. Jervis, “1 Corinthians 14:34-35,” 51, n. 1.
11
Bad Girls or Good Ascetics? The Gynaikaria of
the Pastoral Epistles
Gail P.C. Streete
In the Pastoral Epistles, piety (ϵὐσϵ́βϵια, θϵοσϵ́βϵια), faithfulness or trustworthiness (πίστις),

especially in respect to teaching, self-control (σωφροσύνη), and peacefulness (ϵἰρήνη, ἡσυχία) are
indisputable prime values. As Mary R. D’Angelo has pointed out, moreover, these values, especially
ϵὐσϵ́βϵια and ϵἰρήνη, in their Roman translation as pietas and concordia, attributes of Roman
imperial women, reflect the Pastorals’ absorption of “Roman sexual politics.”1 The author of the
Pastorals (whom I assume to be one and the same and shall hereafter be referred to as the “Author”
and “he”)2 does not challenge the values of the Roman social order, but adopts the structure in which
they function—the household (or οἰκία)—to incorporate and transform them into a Christian shape.
The Christian οἰκία is a microcosm of the church as the “household of God,” an edifying model for
κόσμος in its two senses of “world” and “order,” practicing a divinely-given οἰκονομία (1 Tim 1:4).
Any destabilizing of this model by those who should be its members and the guarantors of its future
hopes betrays the community into the hands of its detractors, the chief of whom is the abusive and
deceptive Satan (1 Tim 5:14-15).
Among the offenders who behave in this chaotic and subversive manner—refusing to stay put,
allying themselves with the lawless (ἄνομοι), the mutinous (ἀνυπότακτοι; 1 Tim 1:9; Titus 1:10), and
the contrarian ἀντιλϵ́γοντϵς (Titus 1:9) are (no surprise) women, characterized here as unruly sexual
beings, whose independent action, described as “behaving wantonly” (σπαταλω̑σα, 1 Tim 5:6) opens
the way for their deception, portrayed as seduction (2 Tim 3:6) and the collapse of the community as
οἰκία, together with the soiling of its collective reputation. For the Pastorals, female sexuality should
be channeled productively towards a heterosexual marriage and the creation of a stable household
(οἰκία), the Christian version of which is an edifying model for “the world” (cf. 2 Tim 2:20-26). I
need to make three observations about this model οἰκία. First, as is implied by strictures against
“Jewish myths” and commandments about “purity” in Titus 1:14-15 and to a lesser degree by the
stringent criticism of those who “abstain from foods that God has established” in 1 Tim 4:1-3, the
οἰκία is not envisioned, like a kosher household, to be a “sanctuary” that preserves an internal
counter-tradition against an outwardly dominant one.3 Second, as the rules for women’s adornment of
1 Tim 2:9-10 (cf. 6:17-19) make clear, the socioeconomic situation of the Christians to whom these
letters were addressed, is one in which, as Jouette Bassler puts it, “elaborate hairstyles and
expensive jewelry were a real. . . possibility” as was the ability to have, let alone run, a household.4
A community to which such status markers matter is one whose leaders are likely visible in the
surrounding society and whose deportment (and that of their wives as the traditional repositories of
their honor) is important. Finally, in describing these households, I am avoiding use of the term
“patriarchal” where possible, because it seems to me that at least some of the households described
in the Pastorals, may be headed by women (e.g. 1 Tim 5:16).
Although the enemies to this “good order” come in both genders, the primary offenders are the
younger women, the νϵώτϵραι (1 Tim 5:2, 11, 14; Titus 2:4-5).5 Throughout the letters, they serve to
embody the “youthful passions” (νϵωτϵρικὰς ϵ̓πιθυμίας) that have been rejected by the Author and that
he advises his young pastors to avoid (2 Tim 2:22; Titus 3:3). The characterization of these female
youthful offenders is couched in terminology reminiscent of similar “socially conservative”
portrayals in the scriptural heritage of the Author and his audience and in contemporary Greco-Roman
moral philosophy. The chief offense of these women, moreover, seems to be refusal or failure to “stay
put” within or to exercise reverence toward τòν ἴδιον οἶκον —their own “proper” households (1 Tim
5:4),6 with their own proper husband’s (τοîς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, Titus 2:5). Instead, they abstain from
marriage altogether (1 Tim 4:3) and either visit other households or allow “invaders” into their own
(2 Tim 3:6; Titus 1:11). The οἰκία is thus rhetorically transformed into a sexual battleground, in which
unmarried women, whether virgins or widows, become “wantons” and wives adulteresses. Female
benefactors, married or widowed, however, are curiously absent in this rhetoric.
First Timothy 5:3-15 characterizes young widows as “fakes” who are really adulteresses whose
sensual desires alienate them from a quasi-marriage to Christ. Second Timothy 3:6-9 also refers to
young women (γυναικάρια), seduced by their desires to learn from the teachers who penetrate
households and, it is clearly implied, by the teachers themselves. The term “γυναικάρια” (2 Tim 3:6)
is a diminutive that is used here in a patronizingly reductive sense, one that is pejorative rather than
affectionate, although endearments and “pet names” may themselves be put-downs.7 Several
translations have attempted to convey both of these meanings—“weak women” and “silly little
women”—for example. Like the independent and unveiled women in 1 Cor 11:10-13, these women
also provide an “opening” for abuse by the one who “lies in wait against them” (ἀντικϵιμϵ́νῳ; 1 Tim
5:14), implying the original “deceiver,” Satan, and his seductive powers.
Modern biblical scholarship has almost universally assumed that the group or groups opposed by
the Pastorals, whether belonging to the New Prophecy, Gnosticism or another group, shared a
worldview that included the practice of a kind of asceticism, and that in criticizing these opponents
the Pastorals are therefore anti-ascetic.8 While we could and certainly should nuance this claim, at the
moment let us accept it at face value. After all, 1 Tim 4:1-3 warns against those who “forbid marrying
and abstain from foods that God has established” as people who listen to “wandering spirits” and the
“teaching of demons.” So we might expect any strictures against opponents would include criticizing
ascetic behavior as anti-οἰκία. We might also expect this criticism to include, if not to be leveled
primarily at, the γυναîκϵς and γυναικϵρια of the Pastoral communities. As we shall see, however,
while indicting the opponents’ behavior, especially that of the women, as tantamount to sexual
betrayal, the Author does so in terms that suggest truly ascetic behavior lies in the redirection of
sexual energies toward building up a stable and pious household.
The “deviant” women of the Pastorals who follow Satan include women either without households
or whose households lack a male “head”—the widows. A long passage in the first epistle to Timothy
(1 Tim 5:11-16) attempts to distinguish “real” from “fake” widows. The “fake” widows are those
who are not, like true widows, elderly and “left alone” or deserted. The term for deserted,
μϵμονωμϵ́νη, literally, “left alone,” may be a subtle dig at the false widow, herself μόνη (“alone”) by
choice, but not for long, since such widows themselves desert “their first πίστις” (in the double
meaning of “faith” and “truth”) to Christ when they “desire to marry” (1 Tim 5:11-12). But, one might
ask, isn’t that the point? Aren’t these younger women (νϵωτϵ́ρας) supposed to marry, as 1 Tim 5:14
insists—let alone demands? As Elizabeth Clark has shown, both John Chrysostom and Jerome caught
the “self-contradictory” advice in 1 Tim 5.9 They and many interpreters since have attempted to
reconcile the contradictions by understanding the term, χήρα, to mean not simply a woman whose
husband is dead, but “one who is living without a husband.”10 Does this then mean that younger
widows are considered “married” to Christ and therefore “virgins,” as the father’s interpreted this
passage? While it is difficult to arrive at a definitive conclusion, the point I think is not whether these
women have never been married or are recently “unmarried.” The language, echoing perhaps the
language of 1 Cor 11:3, suggests that these women are out of control because they have no “authority
over their heads,” whether an earthly husband or heavenly “head” Christ.11 Indeed, the Author
describes the false widow as “σπαταλω̑σα,” one who “runs riot” and as “rioting from” or “becoming
wanton towards” (καταστρηνιάσωσιν) Christ.12 Thus all women, married or not, have a proper
“head” to whom they should submit (1 Tim 2:11-12). If any do not so submit, they betray a spouse and
so their behavior is considered adulterous.
It is also clear that the Author wants these young women to be “contained” within their “own”
households (τòν ἴδιον οἶκον, 1 Tim 5:4): marrying, bearing children (for that is women’s “salvation,”
1 Tim 2:15), managing their households, and taking care of their own “widows” so as not to burden
the church (1 Tim 5:14-16). This approved activity he contrasts with the activity of the νϵώτϵραι, who
are having none of it. Chrysostom, who interpreted 1 Tim 5 via 1 Cor 7, assuming that Paul of course
wrote both, says succinctly here, “The younger widows refuse.”13 The possibility that they were
following the advice given in 1 Cor 7:25-38, eschewing marriage to concentrate on the “affairs of the
Lord” did not occur to Chrysostom or other patristic interpreters, because 1 Timothy makes it clear
that the ναώταραι eschew marriage in order to follow their own private inclinations, which are
depicted as both foolish and satanic. First Timothy 5:13 deplores their behavior in a series of
criticisms that are again contradictory: on the one hand, they are “idle” (ἀργαὶ), but they also “go the
rounds of households” and are “busybodies” (πϵρίϵργοι); they talk foolishness (φλύαροι) but they
also “say (or chatter) what is not proper.” Their behavior has led to “railing” (λοιδορία) against the
community and some have already turned aside to follow Satan (1 Tim 5:15). The phrase, ἀργαὶ
μανθάνουσιν (1 Tim 5:13), usually translated, “they learn to be idle,” I believe can also be
understood as “being idle, they learn”: in other words, they have enough leisure to pursue knowledge,
much as aristocratic young men do with their own σχολή (spare time or leisure). Although he
dismisses their learning as “nonsense,” the Author implies that young women should have enough to
do without learning things, and worse, discussing them. To be “idle” in Roman society, moreover,
was not only unthinkable for women (even upper-class and imperial matrons were customarily
spoken of as “keeping house, spinning wool”),14 but allowed desire to have free rein. As the Roman
poet Catullus poignantly observed, had he not had too much free time (ōtium), he would not have
indulged his adulterous passion for Lesbia: “Idleness has ruined kings and prosperous cities.”15
Moreover, the behavior that 1 Timothy describes as “meddlesome” may also be translated as
“curious” or “superstitious,”16 raising the question of whether these young women may be using their
leisure to inquire into “other” doctrines, superstitio (false religion or ἀσϵ́βϵια) rather than religio
(true religion or ϵὐσϵ́βϵια), things “not proper” to learn or talk about.
Second Timothy levels similar criticisms against young women who may or may not be unmarried.
In this epistle, the Author urges Timothy to flee “youthful passions”17 and call upon the Lord “with a
pure heart” (καθαρὰ καρδία, 2 Tim 2:22). This call to what seems like a type of ascetic piety is
balanced by invective against those who “have the form of piety” (ϵὐσϵ́βϵια) but, like the young
widows of 1 Tim 5, are actually fakes. These “evil people” (πονηροὶ ἄνθρωποι) actually attack the
household structure: they “enter households” and they take the γυναικάρια as prisoners who are
“overwhelmed with their sins, led by all kinds of desires” (2 Tim 3:6). These appear less assertive
than 1 Timothy’s rioting women. Here, the Author describes them in the passive voice (σϵσωρϵυμϵ́να,
ἀγόμϵνα); rather than rebelling, they are taken prisoner by the invaders. There is, however, one active
thing the “naughty little women” do. Like the young women of 1 Timothy, they are always learning
something—something that in the Author’s view (while once more he derides it) disrupts households
and is linked to deception. Indeed, he implies that, like Eve and her daughters in 1 Tim 2:15, these
women are “deceived” in the sense of “seduced.”18 But since their sins are already “heaped up,” they
merely add one more—adultery—to the pile. Perhaps they have found “teachers after their own
desires” (2 Tim 4:3), desires understood in the sexual sense.
Although less pointedly against young women, the epistle to Titus rails against all persons who are
“turning entire households upside down,” (Titus 1:11), who are “unruly” (ἀνυπότακτοι),
“disobedient” (ἀπαθβîς), “false” in a profession of purity (Titus 1:16) that relies on “Jewish myths”
and “commandments of those who reject the truth” (Titus 1:14). Claiming to be “pure” (καθαροί) they
are actually “soiled” (μϵμιάμμϵνοι). Bassler connects this passage from Titus 1:15 to similar “anti-
ascetic” passages in 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy with their message that the “truly” pure are “not those
who follow an ascetic regimen.”19 Titus, however, outlines a “true” regimen of ascetic self-restraint
(σωφροσύνη) for both men and women, but especially for young women (νϵ́ας), who are to be taught
σωφροσύνη by older women, in the form of loving husband’s, loving children, being chaste, good,
homemakers (οἰκουργοὺς), and submissive to their own husbands (Titus 2:5). Being “mindless,
disobedient, deceived, and slaves to all sorts of passions and desires” is, or should be, a thing of the
past for the entire community (Titus 3:3). Those who pretend outward “purity” are instead opening the
doors for a return to moral laxity.
In summary, the “bad girls” of the Pastorals are generally younger women—married, marriageable,
or widowed—who have refused to support or be supported by their “own” households. They live so
wantonly and riotously (σπαταλώσα) that they are “dead while they live.” Lacking self-control and
out of control, they are faithless to their first allegiance to Christ. With too much leisure time, they
either run around to others’ households or admit “invaders” to their own households; restless and
curious for “learning,” they nevertheless are foolish; they say improper things; they lie (because they
are incapable of knowing the “truth”); they are easily deceived by plausible outsiders. In time, they
are “heaped up in their sins” and “led by passions of all kinds.”
The portrait above contains many tropes from the Author’s scriptural and philosophical Umwelt.
Part of the scriptural heritage of the Pastorals, the book of Proverbs describes a similar woman: “She
is bustling and restive; she is never at home.” Decked out “like a harlot,” she is also wealthy (Prov
7:6-20). This “stranger woman” is also described in self-contradictory terms: eloquent in speech, yet
also “foolish” and loud; “boisterous” yet also apparently idle (Prov 9:10-17). As Michael V. Fox
notes in his commentary on Prov 7-9, “The underlying picture [of the ‘woman of folly’] may reflect
the deportment of a prostitute.”20 In Proverbs, “Folly,” personified as an adulterous woman, leaves
her proper husband and entices silly young men away from Wisdom, the good wife, into strange (and
foolish) teaching that leads away from the truth. The young women of the Pastorals do not lead, but
are “led” into sin and false teaching, and are seduced more than seductive. Nevertheless, here, as
elsewhere in the Pauline literature, according to D’Angelo, “seduction, deception and bad thinking
are linked.”21
Similar connections in Greco-Roman moral teaching are only too well known.22 Like the older
female “good teachers” of the Pastorals (Titus 2:3-5) Pythagorean moral philosophers adopt the guise
of women to instruct other women on the necessity of orderly, self-controlled behavior, particularly in
the greatest womanly virtue, chastity. A moral epistle written in the name of Phintys, “a female
member of the Pythagorean community in southern Italy,” advises that chastity is secured, among other
things, by a woman’s “cherishing her own particular husband,” and her attention to the careful and
decorous “manner in which she chooses to leave her house”—never alone, at night, or to celebrate
foreign rites.23 The first century Stoic moral philosopher Musonius Rufus, who humanely argued that
women should be allowed to study philosophy, justified his claim by reasoning that “a woman must
be a good housekeeper,” and “above all, be chaste and self-controlled ... [that is] pure in respect of
unlawful love.”24 To sum it up, then, according to the traditional “received wisdom” and the moral
philosophical background of the Pastorals, women of an age to be sexually active and therefore prone
to volatilility should be married, chaste, and above all, not leave the house or they may meddle in
strange and seductive religions. They may learn and study only what is “proper” to the maintenance of
their chastity and the good order of their households. Those who do otherwise are no better than
whores: worse, they are adulteresses, spiritual strumpets.
Let us take another, more positive look at the γυναικάρια. They are generally younger women—
married, marriageable, or widowed who are not dependent on the church or upon a husband for
support. They probably have money of their own or come from wealthy households, which they have
left temporarily or permanently, perhaps to become itinerant, at the very least disrupting their
οἰκονομία. (If the church is also recognized as a “household,” they may have left that as well.) They
do not submit to the authority of a husband, refuse to marry or remarry, refuse to have or bring up
children, abstain from certain foods (and perhaps marital sexual relations). They apparently also
refuse to be silent. They have both the leisure and the capacity to learn and to discuss openly what
they have learned.
A positive characterization of such a young woman may be found, not surprisingly, outside the
canon of the NT. As Clark has noted, moreover, recent scholarship (for example, that of Dennis R.
MacDonald) has shown that the Apocryphal Acts develop the “pro-ascetic trajectory” of the ΝT and
especially “Paul himself,” over against an “anti-ascetic” strand typified in part by the Pastorals.25 In
the Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla we find the well-known example of a woman who “deserts
her first troth,” and who is captivated by “strange teaching” into leaving her household. Even before
she departs, however, like the rebellious widow of 1 Tim 5:6 who though living is really dead,
Thecla is considered dead by her household. Her mother wants to see that she is dead, urging the
ruler of Iconium to burn the “lawless one” (τòν ἄνομον), the “unbride” (ἄνυμφον) because she will
not follow custom and marry. In Antioch, this “loose” woman, repudiated by Paul, is taken for just
that, accosted on the public street as if she were a whore. When Thecla again is sentenced to die for
refusing sexual advances, she pleads with Tryphaena, Antioch’s most prominent woman, to be “kept
pure” until her death. We need not go into any more details here: it has been meticulously, and to my
mind conclusively, demonstrated by MacDonald and others that Thecla represents the type of young
woman attacked by the Pastorals, a woman whose understanding of the salvation preached by Paul—
an ascetic life that demands celibacy and includes itinerancy—is the diametrical opposite of the
salvation preached as Paul’s by the Pastorals—childbearing and submission to male control. From
the perspective of the Pastorals, Thecla is a γυναικάριον whose lifestyle is not only “foolish,” it is
religious whoredom.
Yet Thecla, the “bride of Christ,” and the ideal Pastoral woman whose “first pledge” is to Christ
do have in common several of the other saving virtues listed in 1 Tim 2:15: πίστις, ἁγιασμός,
σωφροσύνη—“fidelity, purity, self-control,” particularly the latter. This intersection of virtues shows
not that the Pastorals are anti-ascetic while the Apocryphal Acts are pro-ascetic; in fact, the Pastorals
reserve their greatest vituperation for those who are “insiders” because they understand the direction
and purpose of σωφροσύνη differently. This is also true of the trajectories in the NT customarily
thought of “pro-ascetic” and “anti-ascetic.” I prefer to think of them in terms of a “renouncer” ascetic
ethic and a “householder” ascetic ethic.26 The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, following a
“renouncer” ethic, portrays self-control following 1 Cor 7 as sexual self-control exhibited through
celibacy, celibacy taken two steps further. In the canonical 1 Cor 7, Paul’s advice is directed
primarily to men; the Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla include and even highlight women as the
recipients of Paul’s ascetic advice. Furthermore, in 1 Cor 7 celibacy is the preferred but not the only
appropriate means of sexual self-control for Christians; however, in the Apocryphal Acts of Paul and
Thecla, it is the only one. As my students frequently point out, you cannot have a community
reproduce itself that way. To the Pastorals, then, “self-control” means the control of chaotic
individual desires that primarily exhibit themselves as sexual. The Pastorals understand sexual
gratification as included within and limited to heterosexual marriage, with the intent of reproducing
orderly individual “households” and thus building up the community or “household of God.” The kind
of asceticism approved by the Pastorals, therefore, is not that of the “renouncer” of households and
family ties; this is not appropriate self-control but rather an unhealthy concentration on self. Further,
since moralistic literature of this period characteristically uses women to symbolize these unruly;
hard-to-control sexual desires, the Author of the Pastorals likewise uses “foolish” and “deceived”
women to show that they cannot in fact control their own sexual appetites, but they need “heads,”
rational males, to direct them. Thus, in the rhetoric of the Pastorals, ascetic behavior by women that
includes the “choice” of celibacy must be shown to be “false” because it follows a pattern contrary to
that directed by the male heads of the οίkία as household and the church. The γύναιkάρια, then,
according to the Pastorals, are not simply bad girls: they are bad ascetics and spiritual whores.
NOTES
1. Mary Rose D’Angelo, “Eusebeia: Roman Imperial Family Values and the Sexual Politics of 4 Maccabees and the Pastorals,”
BibInt 11, no. 2 (2003): 139-65. See also Joanna Dewey, “1 Timothy,” in The Woman’s Bible Commentary (eds. Carol A. Newsom and
Sharon H. Ringe; expanded ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 445; Jouette Bassler, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (ANTC;
Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 58.
2. Like nearly all modern commentaries on these letters (e.g., Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles: A
Commentary; trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro; ed. Helmut Koester; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972, 356), I
assume a single author; failing that, a unified viewpoint that presents itself as catholic and “orthodox.”
3. These intriguing descriptors are offered in another context by Anne Mendelson, “Carving Out Community,” Gourmet (November
2003): 80-81.
4. Bassler, 1 Timothy, 58.
5. Cf. 2 Tim 3:6.
6. Cf. 1 Tim 5:13-14.
7. Attempts to soften the negative impact of using this diminutive (e.g., Bassler, 1 Timothy, 160) are about as successful as attempts
to turn Jesus’ insulting reference to Gentiles as kύναρια (“puppies”) in Mark 7:27 into a cuddly domestic scene of playful pups. See T.A.
Burkill, “The Historical Development of the Story of the Syrophoenician Woman (Mark 7:24-31)” NovT 9 (1967): 161-77. According to
William W. Goodwin, A Greek Grammar, “Diminutives sometimes express endearment, and sometimes contempt” (London;
Macmillan, 1965), 188, §845.
8. Among these are Dibelius and Conzelmann, Bassler, and Dewey; see Gail Corrington Streete, “Askesis in the Pastoral Letters,” in
Asceticism and the New Testament (eds. Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush; New York & London: Routledge, 1999), 302. I also
assume that the women mentioned, although of different communities, share a similar commitment.
9. Elizabeth A. Clark, Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1999), 369.
10. See Bassler, 1 Timothy, 93.
11. See Gail Paterson Corrington, “The Headless Woman: Paul and the Language of the Body in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16,” PRSt 18,
no. 1 (1991): 223-31.
12. The Greek participle used here, “σπαταλω̑σα,” to describe a merry widow better off dead, is also used in the Pythagorean letter
of Pseudo-Theano (Letters 4.4) as a term of criticism for mothers who allow their children to “live for pleasure;” ET in Abraham J.
Malherbe, Moral Exhortation: A Sourcebook, Library of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), no. 35, 83-84.
13. John Chrysostom, Homily 15 on 1 Timothy 1 (NPNF1 13.459), cited by Dennis R. MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle:
The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983), 120, n. 18. See also Clark, Reading Renunciation,
367.
14. See, for example, the collection of epitaphs in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Maureen B. Fant, Women’s Life in Greece and Rome: A
Source Book in Translation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1982), 133-38.
15. Catullus 51.13-16.
16. “πϵρίϵργοζ,” LSJ, 1373.
17. It is tempting here to translate νϵωτϵριkὰζ as if it referred to the “νϵωτϵ́ραζ” of 1 Tim 5:14: i.e., “flee the passions of younger
women.”
18. See Dewey, “1 Timothy,” 447, on the connection between Eve’s deception and seduction by the serpent.
19. Bassler, 1 Timothy, 190.
20. Michael V. Fox, commentary on Prov 7:1-27 and Prov 9:1-18, in The Jewish Study Bible: Jewish Publication Society Tanakh
Translation (eds. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 1459-60, 1463.
21. D’Angelo, “Eusebeia”161.
22. See, for example, Bassler, 1 Timothy, 57-58; D’Angelo, “Eusebeia”,139
23. Mary R. Leftkowitz and Maureen B. Fant, Women’s Life in Greece & Rome: A Source Book in Translation (Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982), #107, 104-105.
24. Musonius Rufus, Fragment 3 (That Women Too Should Study Philosophy), in Malherbe, Moral Philosophy, no. 53, 132-33.
25. Clark, Reading Renunciation, 26.
26. See my discussion in Streete, “Askesis,” 299-316. Such an understanding of the tension between two modes of constructing the
spiritual self in relation to community might go a long way towards defusing the current conflicts over whether the Jesus movement or
the early church was originally egalitarian and itinerant or always situated in familial household hierarchies. See, for example, John H.
Elliott’s rather contentious attack, primarily on Elisabeth Schűssler Fiorenza’s In Memory of Her (1983), “The Jesus Movement Was
Not Egalitarian But Family-Oriented,” BibInt 11, no. 2 (2003): 173-210.

McCabe, Elizabeth A. - Women in The Biblical World - A Survey of Old and New Testament Perspectives. (Vol. 1) - University Press of America (2009)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

McCabe, Elizabeth A. - Women in The Biblical World - A Survey of Old and New Testament Perspectives. (Vol. 1) - University Press of America (2009)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Women in

the Biblical world

A Survey of Old and

UNIVERSITY PRESS OF AMERICA,® INC.

4501 Forbes Boulevard

All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

British Library Cataloging in Publication Information Available

Library of Congress Control Number: 2009931150

MSG The Message

“Is a masculine term used to designate humankind?”

Rev. Karen Fitz La Barge

The Reason for Purity Laws

All Genital Discharges Were Impure in Ancient Israel

According to these descriptions in Leviticus, a woman’s menstrual blood was seemingly

A Biological Consideration for the Purification after the Birth of a

Disparity Based Upon Genesis and Entrance into the Garden of

Talmudic Disparity Based on the Number of Days to Form an

Daughters, Because of the Curse of Ever Were Considered

Julie Faith Parker

The Debt Collateral Children (2 Kings 4:1-7)

The Shunammite Woman’s Son (2 Kings 4:8-37)

The Sons of the Cannibal Mothers (2 Kings 6:24-31)

Lynn B.E. Jencks

Historical Evidence Supporting Women Diakonoi

Σοφία, ἡ διάκονος, ἡ δϵυ)-

Discussion of Diakonoi as Women in 1 Tim 3:1131

Proistēmi in the New Testament

Classical Usage of Prostatis and Prostatēs

Possible Origins for Prostatis as “Helper”

Women Functioned as Prostatides in Antiquity

Recognition of Phoebe by Church Fathers

Lucian, Dialogues of the Dead 438:

1. Paul Intended to Restrict Women’s Participation in Worship

2. Paul’s Restrictions upon Women Have a Contextually Limited

3. Paul’s Words in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Echo a Slogan of Men in

4. First Corinthians 14:34-35 Is a Non-Pauline Interpolation

1) Paul composed 1 Corinthians without 14:34-35 in the early to mid 50s.

Gail P.C. Streete

In the Pastoral Epistles, piety (ϵὐσϵ́βϵια, θϵοσϵ́βϵια), faithfulness or trustworthiness (πίστις),

You might also like