Since there seems to be much ignorance, bigotry and fear surrounding this subject, I thought a well known Theologian and Catholic Professor I know should help to clarify. His credentials are at the end.

Yes....... JESUS WAS A FEMINIST

By Leonard Swidler

Perhaps today is the Kairos when this last rampart will finally yield to the power of the combination of the model of Yeshua and the grace of the moment, the contemporary secular movement toward a full, equal human development of women: feminism. What is the model of Yeshua's encounter with women? If we look at the Gospels not with the eyes of male chauvinism or the eternal feminine, we will see that the model Yeshua presents is that of a feminist: Yeshua was a feminist. A feminist is a person who is in favor of, and who promotes, the equality of women with men, a person who advocates and practices treating women primarily as human persons (as men are so treated) and willingly contravenes social customs in so acting.

To prove the thesis it must be demonstrated that, so far as we can tell, Yeshua neither said nor did anything which would indicate that he advocated treating women as intrinsically inferior to men, but that on the contrary he said and did things which indicated that he thought of women as the equals of men, and that in the process he willingly violated pertinent social mores.

The negative portion of the argument can be documented quite simply by reading through the four gospels. Nowhere does Yeshua treat women as "inferior beings." In fact, it is apparent that Yeshua understood himself to be especially sent to the typical classes of "inferior beings" such as the poor, the lame, the sinner--and women--to call them all to the freedom and equality of the reign of God. But there are two factors which raise this negative result exponentially in its significance: the status of women in Palestine at the time of Yeshua, and the nature of the gospels. Both need to be recalled here in some detail, particularly the former.

1. The Status of Women in Palestine

The status of women in Palestine during the time of Yeshua was very decidedly that of inferiors. Despite the fact that there were several heroines recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, according to most rabbinic customs2 of Yeshua's time--and long after--women were not allowed to study the Scriptures (Torah). One first-century rabbi, Eliezer, put the point sharply: "Rather should the words of the Torah be burned than entrusted to a woman.... Whoever teaches his daughter the Torah is like one who teaches her lasciviousness."3

In the vitally religious area of prayer, women were so little thought of as not to be given obligations of the same seriousness as men. For example, women, along with children and slaves, were not obliged to recite the Shema, the morning prayer, nor prayers at meals.4 In fact, the Talmud states: "Let a curse come upon the man who (must needs have) his wife or children say grace for him."5 Moreover, in the daily prayers there was a threefold thanksgiving: "Praised be God that he has not created me a gentile; praised be God that he has not created me a woman; praised be God that he has not created me an ignorant man."6 (It was obviously a version of this rabbinic prayer that Paul controverted in his letter to the Galatians: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus," Gal. 3:28.) Women were also greatly restricted in public prayer. It was not even possible for them to be counted toward the number necessary for a quorum to form a congregation to worship communal (a minyan)7--they were again classified with children and slaves, who similarly did not qualify (there is an interesting parallel to the canon 93 of the 1917 Roman Catholic Codex Juris Canonici, CIC--valid until 1983--which grouped married women, minors, and the insane). In the great temple at Jerusalem they were limited to one outer portion, the women's court, which was five steps below the court for the men.8 In the synagogues the women were also separated from the men, and of course were not allowed to read aloud or take any leading function.9 (The same is still true in many Orthodox synagogues today--canon 1262 of the 1917 CIC also stated that "in church the women should be separated from the men.")

Besides the disabilities women suffered in the areas of prayer and worship there were many others in the private and public forums of society. The "Proverbs of the Fathers" contain the injunction: "'Speak not much with a woman.' Since a man's own wife is meant there, how much more does not this apply to the wife of another? The wise men say: 'Who speaks much with a woman draws down misfortune on himself, neglects the words of the law, and finally earns hell.'"10 If it were merely the too free intercourse of the sexes which was being warned against, this might signify nothing derogatory to woman. But since a man may not speak even to his own wife, daughter or sister in the street,11 then only male superiority can be the motive, for intercourse with uneducated company is warned against in exactly the same terms: "One is not so much as to greet a woman."12 In addition, save in the rarest instances, women were not allowed to bear witness in a court of law.13 Some Jewish thinkers, as for example, Philo, a contemporary of Yeshua, thought women ought not leave their households except to go to the synagogue (and that only at a time when most of the other people would be at home);14 girls ought even not cross the threshold that separated the male and female apartments of the household.15

In general, the attitude toward women was epitomized in the institutions and customs surrounding marriage. For the most part the function of women was thought of rather exclusively in terms of childbearing and rearing; women were almost always under the tutelage of a man, either the father or husband, or if a widow, the dead husband's brother. Polygamy--in the sense of having several wives, but not in the sense of having several husbands-- was legal among Jews at the time of Yeshua, although probably not heavily practiced. Moreover, divorce of a wife was very easily obtained by the husband--he merely had to give her a writ of divorce; women in Palestine, on the other hand, were not allowed to divorce their husbands.

Rabbinic sayings about women also provide an insight into the attitude toward women: "It is well for those whose children are male, but ill for those whose children are female."16 "At the birth of a boy all are joyful, but at the birth of a girl all are sad."17 "When a boy comes into the world, peace comes into the world: when a girl comes, nothing comes."18 "Even the most virtuous of women is a witch."19 "Our teachers have said: Four qualities are evident in women: They are greedy at their food, eager to gossip, lazy and jealous."20 The condition of women in Palestinian Judaism was that of inferiors.

2. The Nature of the Gospels

As noted earlier, the gospels are not the straight factual reports of eye witnesses of the events in the life of Yeshua of Nazareth as one might find in the columns of the New York Times or the pages of a critical biography. Rather, they are four different faith statements reflecting at least four primitive Christian communities who believed that Yeshua was the Messiah. They were composed from a variety of sources, written and oral, over a period of time and in response to certain needs felt in the communities and individuals at the time; consequently they are many-layered. Since the gospel writer-editors were not twentieth-century critical historians, they were not particularly intent on recording the very words of Yeshua, the ipsissima verba Christi, nor were they concerned to winnow out all of their own cultural biases and assumptions. Indeed, it is doubtful that they were particularly conscious of them.

This modern critical understanding of the gospels, of course, does not impugn the historical character of the gospels; it merely describes the type of historical documents they are so their historical significance can more accurately be evaluated. Its religious value lies in the fact that modern Christians are thereby helped to know much more precisely what Yeshua meant by certain statements and actions as they are reported by the first Christian communities in the gospels. With this new knowledge of the nature of the gospels it is easier to make the vital distinc- tion between the religious truth that is to be handed on and the time-conditioned categories and customs involved in expressing it.

3. Yeshua as Source and as Jew

When the fact that no negative attitudes by Yeshua toward women are portrayed in the gospels is set side by side with the recently discerned "communal faith-statement" understanding of the nature of the gospels, the importance of the former is vastly enhanced. For whatever Yeshua said or did comes to us only through the lens of the first Christians. If there were no very special religious significance in a particular concept or custom we would expect that current concept or custom to be reflected by Yeshua. The fact that the overwhelmingly negative attitude toward women in Palestine did not come through the primitive Christian communal lens by itself underscores the clearly great religious importance Yeshua attached to his positive attitude-- his feminist attitude--toward women: Feminism, that is, personalism extended to women, is a constitutive part of the Gospel, the Good News, of Yeshua.

It should also be noted here that although in the analysis that follows it is the image of Yeshua as it emerges from the four gospels that will be dealt with, the feminist character that is found there is ultimately to be attributed to Yeshua himself and not to the Church, the evangelists or their sources. Basically the "principle of dissimularity" operates here. That principle, devised by contemporary New Testament scholars, states that if a saying or action attributed to Yeshua is contrary to the cultural milieu of the time, then it most probably had its origin in Yeshua. In this case the feminism of Yeshua could hardly be attributable to the primitive Church.

As is seen already in the later New Testament writings, the early Church quickly became not only non-feminist, but also anti-woman. For example: "The women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says" (1 Cor. 14:34); "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent" (1 Tim. 2:11-12). The misogynist slide continued after the New Testament: In the second century Tertullian, the "father of theology," said of woman: "You are the devil's gateway";21 in the next century Origen wrote: "What is seen with the eyes of the creator is masculine, and not feminine, for God does not stoop to look upon what is feminine and of the flesh";22 in the fourth century Epiphanius said: "The devil seeks to vomit out his disorder through women."23

As seen in some detail before, in the Jewish culture women were held to be, as the first century Jewish historian Josephus put it, "in all things inferior to the man."24 Since it was out of that milieu that the evangelists were writing and from which they drew their sources, neither of them could have been the source of the feminism found in the Yeshua of the gospels. Its only possible source was Yeshua himself. In fact, given the misogynist tendency exhibited in both in the Judaism of Yeshua's time and in the early Christian Church, there is every likeli- hood that the strong feminism of Yeshua has been muted in the gospels, as can be seen for example by the fact that the story of the woman taken in adultery (Jn. 8:2-11) is absent from the earliest Greek manuscripts and almost did not make it into the canon of the New Testament at all.25

A further word of caution is needed here. The Jewish culture of the time of Yeshua indeed treated women as inferior to men, as did also much of the surrounding cultures, and Yeshua did in this matter run counter to that culture.26 In the case of women, as in that of other marginalized groups, Yeshua raised a powerful prophetic voice of protest. But it needs to be remembered that raising a prophetic voice was precisely a Jewish thing to do; in this Yeshua was not acting in a non-Jewish manner, but in a specifically Jewish tradition. Moreover, after the first enthusiastic response of the women followers to this liberating feminist move by Yeshua, the Christian Church quickly sank back into a non-feminist, even misogynist, morass until our time. These is no ground here for Christians to claim superiority over Jews, but rather just the opposite. Christians claim to be followers of Yeshua, whereas Jews do not. Christians therefore had far more reason to be, like Yeshua, feminists. But they--we--failed miserably.

4. Women Disciples of Yeshua

One of the first things noticed in the gospels about Yeshua's attitude toward women is that he taught them the Gospel, the meaning of the Scriptures, and religious truths in general. When it is recalled that in Judaism it was considered improper, and even "obscene," to teach women the Scriptures, this action of Yeshua was an extraordinary, deliberate decision to break with a custom invidious to women. Moreover, women became disciples of Yeshua not only in the sense of learning from him, but also in the sense of following him in his travels and ministering to him.27 A number women, married and unmarried, were regular followers of Yeshua. In Luke 8:1 ff. several are mentioned by name in the same sentence with the Twelve: "He made his way through towns and villages preaching and proclaiming the Good News of the reign of God. With him went the Twelve as well as certain women.... who ministered to (diekonoun) them out of their own resources."28 The significance of this phenomenon of women following Yeshua about, learning from and ministering to him, can be properly appreciated only when it is recalled that not only were women not to read or study the Scriptures, but in the more observant settings they were not even to leave their household, whether as a daughter, wife, or member of a harem.

5. Women and Resurrection from the Dead

Within this context of women being disciples and ministers, Yeshua quite deliberately broke another custom disadvantageous to women. According to the gospels Yeshua's first appearance after his resurrection to any of his followers was to a woman (or women), who was then commissioned by him to bear witness of the risen Yeshua to the Eleven (Jn. 20: 11ff.; Mt. 28:9f.; Mk. 16:9ff.)? In typical male Palestinian style, the Eleven refused to believe the women since, according to Judaic law, women were not allowed to bear legal witness. Clearly this was a dramatic linking of a very definite rejection of the second-class status of women with a central element of the Gospel, the resurrection. The effort centrally to connect these two points is so obvious--an effort certainly not attributable to the male disciples or evangelists--that it is an overwhelming tribute to male intellectual myopia not to have discerned it effectively in two thousand years. In this case the source obviously was the women followers of Yeshua.

The intimate connection of women with resurrection from the dead is not limited in the gospels to that of Yeshua. There are accounts of three other resurrections in the gospels--all closely involving a woman. The most obvious connection of a woman with a resurrection acount is that of the raising of a woman, Jairus' daughter (Mt. 9:18ff.; Mk. 5:22ff.; Lk. 8:41ff.). A second resurrection Yeshua performed was that of the only son of the widow of Nain: "And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her and he said to her, 'Do not weep.'" (Cf. Lk. 7:11ff.) The third resurrection Yeshua performed was Lazarus', at the request of his sisters Martha and Mary (Cf. Jn. 11). From the first it was Martha and Mary who sent for Yeshua because of Lazarus' illness. But when Yeshua finally came Lazarus was four days dead. Martha met Yeshua and pleaded for his resurrection: "Lord, if you had been there, my brother would not have died. And even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you." Then followed Yeshua's raising of Lazarus from the dead. Thus, Yeshua raised one woman from the dead, and raised two other persons largely because of women.

There are two further details that should be noted in these three resurrection stories. The first is that only in the case of Jairus' daughter did Yeshua touch the corpse--which made him ritually unclean. In the cases of the two men Yeshua did not touch them, but merely said, "Young man, I say to you, arise," or, "Lazarus, come out." One must at least wonder why Yeshua chose to violate the laws for ritual purity in order to help a woman, but not a man. The second detail is in Yeshua's conversation with Martha after she pleaded for the resurrection of Lazarus. Yeshua declared himself to be the resurrection ("I am the resurrection and the life."), the only time he did so that is recorded in the Gospels. Yeshua here again revealed a central element in the Gospel--the resurrection--to a woman.

6. Women as Sex Objects

There are of course numerous occasions recorded in the gospels where women are treated by various men as second-class citizens. There are also situations where women were treated by others not at all as persons but as sex objects, and it was expected that Yeshua would do the same. The expectations were disappointed. One such occasion occurred when Yeshua was invited to dinner at the house of a skeptical Pharisee (Lk. 7:36ff.) and a woman of ill repute entered and washed Yeshua's feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair and annointed them. The Pharisee saw her solely as an evil sexual creature: "The Pharisee...said to himself, 'If this man were a prophet, he would know who this woman is who is touching him and what a bad name she has.'" But Yeshua deliberately rejected this approach to the woman as a sex object. He rebuked the Pharisee and spoke solely of the woman's human, spiritual actions; he spoke of her love, her unlove, i.e., her sins, her being forgiven, and her faith. Yeshua then addressed her (it was not "proper" to speak to women in public, especially "improper" women) as a human person: "Your sins are forgiven.... Your faith has saved you; go in peace." A similar situation occurred when the scribes and Pharisees used a woman reduced entirely to a sex object to set a legal trap for Yeshua (Jn. 8:2-11). It is difficult to imagine a more callous use of a human person than the "adulterous" woman was put to by the enemies of Yeshua. First, she was surprised in the intimate act of sexual intercourse (quite possibly a trap was set up ahead of time by the suspicious husband), and then dragged before the scribes and Pharisees, and then by them before an even larger crowd that Yeshua was instructing: "making her stand in full view of everybody." They told Yeshua that she had been caught in the very act of committing adultery and that Moses had commanded that such women be stoned to death (Dt. 22:22ff.). "What have you to say?" The trap was partly that if Yeshua said Yes to the stoning he would be violating the Roman law, which restricted capital punishment, and if he said No, he would appear to contravene Mosaic law. It could also partly have been to place Yeshua's reputation for kindness toward, and championing the cause of, women in opposition to the law and the condemnation of sin. Yeshua of course eluded their snares by refusing to become entangled in legalisms and abstractions. Rather, he dealt with both the accusers and the accused directly as spiritual, ethical, human persons. He spoke directly to the accusers in the context of their own personal ethical conduct: "If there is one of you who has not sinned, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." To the accused woman he likewise spoke directly with compassion, but without approving her conduct: "'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one, Lord.' And Yeshua said, 'Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.'"

(One detail of this encounter provides the basis for a short excursus related to the status of women. The Pharisees stated that the woman had been caught in the act of adultery and according to the Law of Moses was therefore to be stoned to death. Since the type of execution mentioned was stoning, the woman must have been a "virgin betrothed," as referred to in Dt. 22:23f. There provision is made for the stoning of both the man and the woman, although in the gospel story only the woman is brought forward. However, the reason given for why the man ought to be stoned was not because he had violated the woman, or God's law but: "because he had violated the wife of his neighbor." It was the injury of the man through the misuse of his property-- wife--that was the great evil.)

7. Yeshua's Rejection of the Blood Taboo

All three of the synoptic gospels insert into the middle of the account of raising Jairus' daughter from the dead the story of the curing of the woman who had an issue of blood for twelve years (Mt. 9:20ff.; Mk. 5:25ff.; Lk. 8:43ff.). What is especially touching about this story is that the affected woman was so reluctant to project herself into public attention that she, "said to herself, 'If I only touch his garment, I shall be made well.'" Her shyness was not because she came from the poor, lower classes, for Mark pointed out that over the twelve years she had been to many physicians--with no success--on who she had spent all her money. It was probably because for twelve years, as a woman with a flow of blood, she was constantly unclean (Lv. 15:19ff.), which not only made her incapable of participating in any cultic action and made her in some sense "displeasing to God," but also rendered anyone and anything she touched (or anyone who touched what she had touched!) similarly unclean. (Here was the basis for the Catholic Church's not allowing women in the sanctuary during Mass until after Vatican II--she might be menstruating, and hence unclean.) The sense of degradation and contagion that her "womanly weakness" worked upon her over the twelve years doubtless was oppressive in the extreme. This would have been especially so when a religious teacher, a rabbi, was involved. But not only does Yeshua's power heal her, in one of his many acts of compassion on the downtrodden and afflicted, including women, but Yeshua also makes a great to-do about the event calling extraordinary attention to the publicity-shy woman: "And Yeshua, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, 'Who touched my garments?' And his disciples said to him, 'You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, "Who touched me?" And he looked around to see who had done it. But the woman, knowing what had been done to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. And he said to her, 'Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.'" It seems clear that Yeshua wanted to call attention to the fact that he did not shrink from the ritual uncleanness incurred by being touched by the "unclean" woman (on several occasions Yeshua rejected the notion of ritual uncleanness), and by immediate implication rejected the "uncleanness" of a woman who had a flow of blood, menstruous or continual. Yeshua apparently placed a greater importance on the dramatic making of this point, both to the afflicted woman herself and the crowd, than he did on avoiding the temporary psychological discomfort of the embarrassed woman, which in light of Yeshua's extraordinary concern to alleviate the pain of the afflicted, meant he placed a great weight on teaching this lesson about the dignity of women.

8. Yeshua and the Samaritan Woman

On another occasion Yeshua again deliberately violated the then common code concerning men's relationship to women. It is recorded in the story of the Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob (Jn. 4:5ff.). Yeshua was waiting at the well outside the village while his disciples were getting food. A Samaritan woman approached the well to draw water. Normally a Jew would not address a Samaritan, as the woman pointed out: "Jews, in fact, do not associate with Samaritans." But also normally a man would not speak to a woman in public (doubly so in the case of a rabbi). However, Yeshua startled the woman by initiating a conversation. The woman was aware that on both counts, her being a Samaritan and being a woman, Yeshua's action was out of the ordinary for she replied: "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?" As hated as the Samaritans were by the Jews, it is nevertheless clear that Yeshua's speaking with a woman was considered a much more flagrant breach of conduct than his speaking with a Samaritan, for John related: "His disciples returned, and were surprised to find him speaking to a woman, though none of them asked, 'What do you want from her?' or, 'Why are you talking to her?'" However, Yeshua's bridging of the gap of inequality between men and women continued further, for in the conversation with the woman according to John he revealed himself in a straightforward fashion as the Messiah for the first time: "The woman said to him, 'I know that Messiah is coming'.... Yeshua said to her, 'I who speak to you am he.'"

Just as when according to the gospel Yeshua revealed himself to Martha as "the resurrection," and to Mary as the "risen one" and bade her to bear witness to the apostles, Yeshua here also revealed himself in one of his key roles, as Messiah, to a woman--who immediately bore witness of the fact to her fellow villagers. It is interesting to note that apparently the testimony of women carried greater weight among the Samaritans than among the Jews, for when the villagers came out to see Yeshua: "Many Samaritans of that town believed in him on the strength of the woman's testimony." It would seem that John the gospel writer deliberately highlighted this contrast in the way he wrote about this event, and also that he clearly wished to reinforce thereby Yeshua's stress on the equal dignity of women.

One other point should be noted in connection with this story. As the crowd of Samaritans was walking out to see Yeshua, Yeshua was speaking to his disciples about the fields being ready for the harvest and how he was sending them to reap what others had sown. He was clearly speaking of the souls of men and women, and most probably was referring directly to the approaching Samaritans. Such exegesis is standard. It is also rather standard to refer to "others" in general and only Yeshua in particular as having been the sowers whose harvest the apostles were about to reap (e.g., in the Jerusalem Bible). But it would seem that the evangelist also meant specifically to include the Samaritan woman among those sowers for immediately after he recorded Yeshua's statement to the disciples about their reaping what others had sown he added the above-mentioned verse: "Many Samaritans of that town had believed in him on the strength of the woman's testimony."

9. Marriage and the Dignity of Woman

One of the most important stands of Yeshua in relation to the dignity of women was his position on marriage. His unpopular attitude toward marriage (cf. Mt. 19:10: "The disciples said to him, 'If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.'") presupposed a feminist view of women; they had rights and responsibilities equal to men. It was quite possible in Jewish law for men to have more than one wife (though this was probably not frequently the case in Yeshua's time, there are recorded instances, e.g., Herod, Josephus), though the reverse was not possible. Divorce, of course, also was a simple matter, to be initiated only by the man. In both situations women were basically chattel to be collected or dismissed as the man was able and wished to; the double moral standard was flagrantly apparent. Yeshua rejected both by insisting on monogamy and the elimination of divorce; both the man and the woman were to have the same rights and responsibilities in their relationship toward each other (cf. Mk. 10:2ff.; Mt. 19:3ff.). This stance of Yeshua was one of the few that was rather thoroughly assimilated by the Christian Church (in fact, often in an over-rigid way concerning divorce, for here Yeshua was offering a goal ethic, not a minimum ethic--but, how to understand the ethical prescriptions of Yeshua is another subject), doubtless in part because it was reinforced by various sociological conditions and other historical accidents, such as the then current strength in the Greek world of the Stoic philosophy. However, the notion of equal rights and responsibilities was not extended very far within the Christian marriage. The general role of women was Kirche, Kinder, K che--and only a suppliant's role in the first.

10. The Intellectual Life for Women

However, Yeshua clearly did not think of woman's role in such restricted terms; she was not to be limited to being only a housekeeper. Yeshua quite directly rejected the stereotype that the proper place of all women is "in the home" during a visit to the house of Martha and Mary (Lk. 10:38ff.). Martha took the typical woman's role: "Martha was distracted with much serving." Mary, however, took the supposedly "male" role: she "sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching." (It should be noted that this is a technical term for being a disciple--which is even reflected in contemporary English speech when we say: I sat at the master's feet.) Martha apparently thought Mary was out of place in choosing the role of the "intellectual," for she complained to Yeshua. But Yeshua's response was a refusal to force all women into the stereotype; he treated Mary first of all as a person (whose highest faculty is the intellect, the spirit) who was allowed to set her own priorities, and in this instance had "chosen the better part." And Yeshua applauded her: "It is not to be taken from her." Again, when one recalls the Palestianian restriction on women studying the Scriptures or studying with rabbis, that is, engaging in the intellectual life or acquiring any "religious authority," it is difficult to imagine how Yeshua could possibly have been clearer in his insistence that women were called to the intellectual, the spiritual life just as were men. There is at least one other instance recorded in the gospels when Yeshua uttered much the same message (Lk. 11:27f.). One day as Yeshua was preaching, a woman from the crowd apparently was very deeply impressed and, perhaps imagining how happy she would be to have such a son, raised her voice to pay Yeshua a compliment. She did so by referring to his mother, and did so in a way that was probably not untypical at that time and place. But her image of a woman was sexually reductionist in the extreme (one that largely persists to the present): female genitals and breasts. "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!" Although this was obviously meant as a compliment, and although it was even uttered by a woman, Yeshua clearly felt it necessary to reject this "baby-machine" image of women and insist again on the personhood, the intellectual and moral faculties, being primary for all: "But he said, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'" Looking at this text it is difficult to see how the primary point could be anything substantially other than this. Luke and the tradition and Christian communities he depended on must also have been quite clear about the sexual significance of this event. Otherwise, why would he (and they) have kept and included such a small event from all the months, or even years, of Yeshua's public life? It was not retained merely because Yeshua said blessed are those who hear and keep God's word (for the evangelist had already recorded that elsewhere), but because that was stressed by Yeshua as being primary in comparison to a woman's sexuality. Luke, however, seems to have had a discernment here, and elsewhere, concerning what Yeshua was about in the question of women's status that has not been shared by subsequent Christians (nor apparently by many of his fellow Christians), for, in the explanation of this passage, Christians for two thousand years did not see its plain meaning--doubtless because of unconscious presuppositions about the status of women inculcated by their cultural milieu.

11. Women in Yeshua's Language

Yeshua's attitude toward women is also reflected in the very language attributed to him in the gospels. First, Yeshua often used women in his stories and sayings, something most unusual for his culture. Secondly, the images of women Yeshua used were never negative, but rather always positive--in dramatic contrast to his predecessors and contemporaries. Thirdly, these positive images of women were often very exalted, at times being associated with the "reign of heaven," likened to the chosen people, and even to God herself! Fourthly, Yeshua often taught a point by telling two similar stories or using two images, one of which featured a man and one a woman. This balance, among other things, indicated that Yeshua wanted it to be abundantly clear that his teaching, unlike that of other rabbis, was intended for both women and men--and he obviously wanted this to be clear to the men as well as the women, since he told these stories to all his disciples and at times even to crowds. These sexually parallel stories and images also confirm the presence of women among his hearers; they were used to bring home the point of a teaching in an image that was familiar to the women. The sexually parallel stories and images used by Yeshua range from very brief pairings to lengthy parables. Their frequency in the synoptic gospels is impressive--nine of them. For example, the reign of heaven was likened to a mustard seed which a man sowed and to leaven which a woman put in her dough (Mt. 13:31-33; Lk. 18-21), or, in the final days one man of two in the field and one woman of two grinding corn will be taken (Mt.24: 39-41).29 The ultimate in sexually parallel stories told by Yeshua, however, was the one in which God was cast in the likeness of a woman.

12. God as a Woman

Yeshua strove in many ways to communicate the notion of the equal dignity of women. In one sense that effort was capped by his parable of the woman who found the lost coin (Lk. 15:8ff.), for here Yeshua projected God in the image of a woman. Luke recorded that the despised tax-collectors and sinners were gathering around Yeshua, and consequently the Pharisees and scribes complained. Yeshua, therefore, related three parables in a row, all of which depicted God's being deeply concerned for that which was lost. The first story was of the shepherd who left the ninety-nine sheep to seek the one lost--the shepherd is God. The third parable is of the prodigal son--the father is God. The second story is of the woman who sought the lost coin--the woman is God! Yeshua did not shrink from the notion of God as feminine. In fact, it would appear that Luke's Yeshua included this womanly image of God quite deliberately at this point for the scribes and Pharisees were among those who most of all denigrated women--just as they did the "tax-collectors and sinners." There have been some instances in Christian history when the Holy Spirit has been associated with a feminine character, as, for example, in the third-century Syrian Didascalia where, in speaking of various offices in the Church, it states: "The Deaconess however should be honored by you as the image of the Holy Spirit." It would make an interesting investigation to see if these images of God presented here by Luke were ever used in a Trinitarian manner--thereby giving the Holy Spirit a feminine image. A negative result to the investigation would be as significant as a positive one, for this passage would seem to be particularly apt for a later Christian Trinitarian interpretation: the prodigal son's father is God the Father (this interpretation has in fact been quite common in Christian history); since Yeshua elsewhere identified himself as the Good Shepherd, the shepherd seeking the lost sheep is Yeshua, the Son (this standard interpretation is reflected in, among other things, the often-seen picture of Yeshua carrying the lost sheep on his shoulders); the woman who sought the lost coin should "logically" be the Holy Spirit. If such an interpretation has existed, it surely has not been common. Should such lack of "logic" be attributed to the general cultural denigration of women, or the Christian abhorrence of pagan goddesses--although the Christian abhorrence of pagan male gods did not result in a Christian rejection of a male image of God?

13. Conclusion

From this evidence it should be clear that Yeshua vigorously promoted the dignity and equality of women in the midst of a very male-dominated society: Yeshua was a feminist, and a very radical one.

NOTES

1 Hanna Wolff, Jesus der Mann (Stuttgart: Radius, 1979), pp. 80f. While Dr. Wolff is very insightful regarding the psychological character balance of Yeshua and his lack of a hostile animus, she herself retains an extraordinary animus against all things Jewish. Moreover, she not only is aware of and rejects the work of Christian and Jewish scholars who are recovering the manifold dimensions of the Jewishness of Yeshua, she positively rails against them. Not being a Scripture scholar herself, or anything near it, she simply polemically insists that their work must be mistaken. In this she continues the age-old Christian anti-Judaism, and perhaps also the modern German anti-Jewish animus. As is well known, this animus is especially dangerous.

2 In rabbinic writings, e.g., the Mishnah (codified 200 C.E.), the Tosephta (codified just afterwards), the Palestinian Talmud (400 C.E.), the Babylonian Talmud (500 C.E.), there are many references to persons and things to as far back as 200 B.C.E. Thus, as discussed in notes above, in many matters we can know what the rabbis of the time of Yeshua taught, even though caution must be exercised since the later codifier might have adjusted texts for his own purposes. Nevertheless, until cogent arguments and evidence are brought forth that substantial revision did occur in the pertinent passages, good scholarship dictates that the available texts be utilized with due care. For a broad treatment of this subject, see Leonard Swidler, Women in Judaism. The Status of Women in Formative Judaism (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1976), and Leonard Swidler, Biblical Affirmations of Woman (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979).

3 Mishnah, Sota 3,4.

4 Talmud, bKid. 33b; Mishnah, Ber. 3,3.

5 Talmud, bBer. 20b.

6 Tosephta, Ber. 7,18; Talmud, pBer. 13b; bMen. 43b.

7 Mishnah, Abot 3,6.

8 See Josephus, Antiquities, XV, 418f.; Jewish War, V, 5, par. 198 f.; Mishnah, Middoth 2,5.

9 See Eliezer L. Sukenik, Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece (London, 1934), pp. 47 ff. See also Bernadette J. Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), where the author raises serious questions about how early the physical division of men and women was reflected in the synagogue architecture. By the nature of the issue, she cannot offer positive proof that there was no such architectural separation (which, as we know definitely existed later, and still up to the present in some synagogues); she does however make the usual claims that it did exist at the time of Yeshua less than certain. Nevertheless, looking at all the evidence, I am persuaded that it is more likely that women and men were separated in the synagogues at the time of Yeshua. Dr. Brooten also argues for some modicum of leadership roles for women in ancient Judaism, albeit as exceptions. Her scholarship is superb and her case solid. But the exceptions that she adduces, important as they are as "useable history" for women, remain so much just that, that they become the proverbial "exceptions that prove the rule"; the general description of ancient Jewish women as largely officially excluded from leadership roles still stands.

10 Mishnah, Aboth 1,5.

11 Talmud, bBer. 43b.

12 Ibid.

13 Mishnah, Shab. 4,1; Talmud, bB.K. 88a; Josephus, Antiquities, IV, 219.

14 Philo, Flaccus, 89; De specialibus legibus, III, 172.

15 Philo, De specialibus legibus, III, 169.

16 Talmud, bKid. 82b; cf. also bSan. 100b.

17 Talmud, bNid. 31b.

18 Ibid.

19 Mishnah, Terum 15; Talmud, pKid. 4,66b, 32; Soferim 41a in The Minor Tractates of the Talmud, ed. by A. Cohen (London, 1971), p. 288.

20 Midrash, GnR. 45, 5.

21 Addressing all women Tertullian says: "And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway; you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert--that is, death--even the Son of God had to die." De cultu feminarum 1.1, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 40, pp. 117f.

22 Origen, Selecta in Exodus XVIII.17, in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 12, cols. 296f.

23 Epiphanius wrote: "For the female sex is easily seduced, weak, and without much understanding. The devil seeks to vomit out his disorder through women.... We wish to apply masculine reasoning and destroy the folly of these women." Adversus Collyridianos, in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 42, cols. 740f.

24 Josephus states: "The woman, says the law, is in all things inferior to the man." Against Apion, II,201.

25 For a discussion of this "wandering" story of Yeshua and the adulteress see Swidler, Biblical Affirmations, pp. 185f., 250f., 275f., where the evidence for its having first been recorded by a woman "evangelist" is discussed.

26 This whole essay of course attempts to present evidence sustaining this point. In this regard it is interesting to note that there are at least two early New Testament textual variants which directly accuse Yeshua of running counter to the culture and "leading women astray." In Luke 23:5 there is a variant manuscript reading attested to by the fourth-century Palestinian- born Church father Epiphanius: The chief priests said to Pilate of Yeshua, "He is inflaming the people with his teaching all over Judea; it has come all the way from Galilee, where he started, down to here"--to which Epiphanius' attested text adds, "and he has turned our children and wives away from us for they are not bathed as we are, nor do they purify themselves (et filios nostros et uxores avertit a nobis, non enim baptizantur sicut nos nec se mundant)." The second text is even earlier, the first half of the second century, when some of the New Testament itself was still being written. It is attested to by Marcion (d. 160 A.D.) and occurs in Luke 23:2: "They began their accusation by saying, 'We found this man inciting our people to a revolt, opposing payment of the tribute to Caesar'"--to which Marcion's attested text adds, "leading astray the women and the children (kai apostrephonta tas gynaikas kai ta tekna)." For these variant texts and references see Eberhard Nestle, ed., Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine (Stuttgart, 1954), p. 221, and Roger Gryson, The Ministry of Women in the Early Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1976), p. 126.

27 For a brief discussion of the implications of the Greek word used for "ministering," diakoneo, see Swidler, Biblical Affirmations, pp. 194f. There is also a specific reference in the Acts of the Apostles to a woman by name as a disciple of Yeshua: "At Jaffa there was a woman disciple (mathetria) called Tabitha, or Dorcas in Greek" (Acts 9:36).

28 Cf. also Mk. 15:40f. and Mt. 27:55f. where the women are also reported to have "ministered" (diekonoun) to Yeshua. A fascinating second-century Gnostic document refers to the seven holy women named in the gospels as disciples on a par with the Twelve Apostles: "After he had risen from the dead, when they came, the twelve disciples (mathetes) and seven women who had followed him as disciples (matheteuein), into Galilee,...there appeared to them the Redeemer." Sophia Jesu Christi, in E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), vol. 1, p. 246. See Swidler, Biblical Affirmations, pp. 195f. for further similar texts.

29 For further discussion of sexually parallel stories in the New Testament see Swidler, Biblical Affirmations, pp. 164ff.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ INSTITUTE FOR INTERRELIGIOUS, INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE JOURNAL OF ECUMENICAL STUDIES -- CENTER FOR GLOBAL STUDIES Religion Department, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122 Tel: 215-204-7251 (off.); 477-1080 (home); FAX: 477-5928 or 204-4569 Leonard Swidler, Prof. of Catholic Thought & Interreligious Dialogue +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-- Joan Storey (godessss@mindspring.com), April 07, 2002

Answers

Here's more evidence of revisionist history, shown in a passage from this link.

"The most influential feminists in American history were Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and much attention is especially being paid to them since March [was] Women's History Month.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton organized the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, N.Y., in 1848. Her persistent ally was Susan B. Anthony, a founding officer of the National Woman Suffrage Association in 1869.

Both were the subjects of a Public Broadcasting System documentary last November. It was called "Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony," and has been repeated since.

Both women were unremitting opponents of abortion. Yet that fundamental element of their lives was omitted from this widely publicized and reviewed, but selective, documentary.

Susan B. Anthony on abortion: "The woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life. It will burden her soul in death."

Elizabeth Cady Stanton: "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit. There must be a remedy even for such crying evil as this (abortion). But where shall it be found? At least, where begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women."

It's a shame that many leftist feminists censor these women who truly wanted women's rights. In this instance, the Catholic Church identifies with these heroines of America's women's rights movement more than the abortionist feminists.

Jesus has concern for both men and women, but he has nothing in common with modern leftist feminists. But you knew that, didn't you Joan.

Enjoy,

Mateo

PS- Joan, if you are so educated, why don't you share your thoughts instead of massive cut-and-paste? At the very least, could you simply give us a link with a description?

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 07, 2002.

You don't get it, Joan... I don't care. I don't care about feminism. Do you think everyone will wake up one morning and champion your agenda? Like I said, raise an army and force this kind of thinking on people. Until you do, forty-five hundred years will come and go and nothing will change, because talk is cheap and feminism contradicts mother nature's default settings. But just for the sake of argument, lets say you got to the end of one day, and had actually managed to accomplish this feminist agenda... throw in a few others too, like world peace, and, say, saving the environment; so you're all done, sitting on the couch basking in the glow of success. Think maybe that would be a good time to pick up God's agenda?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 07, 2002.

Godde's agenda IS THE FEMINIST AGENDA, EMERALD. AND...the Feminist Agenda is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith, whether you like it or not. You will not speak for me or any other Catholic...you do not own the Church, neither does Chris or Mateo.

AND...there are others that read what is posted here besides the few who respond. There are many intelligent folk who do not fear understanding of how their faith arrived to where it is, who do not fear threatened by historical or scientific fact and are able to enhance their spirituality and their religious views by such. You may not appreciate such knowledge or be able to incorporate it into the narrowness of your faith, and that is fine, but there are others who grow and flourish through truth and awareness. Please feel free not to read anything I post. But I am a Catholic also, and you have no authority or corner on Catholicism. Joan

-- Joan Storey (godessss@mindspring.com), April 07, 2002.

Joan's versions of Capital Punishment.

"Godde's agenda IS THE FEMINIST AGENDA, EMERALD."

1) Please, just say no to using Caps-Lock.

2) This, once again, is projection. My agenda is God's agenda. Joan, you criticize the orthodox Catholics by charging that they are simply taking their own beliefs and projecting them on to God. Then, you turn around and do the exact thing that you accuse the Catholic Church of doing. So, given a body of millions of theologians who have pondered these issues for more than 2000 years, you expect us all to choose your theology? How many years have you formulated your new theology? 30 years? 40 years? On top of that, you want to remove the consistent teachings of the Church and proclaim that you hold the One True Catholic Faith for us? Catholics aren't Catholic...only Joan is Catholic. Sounds like a cult. :-)

Joan wrote:

"AND...the Feminist Agenda is part and parcel of the Catholic Faith, whether you like it or not."

The Catholic Church stands with one goal--spread the Gospel of Jesus for the Salvation of Souls. The Bible doesn't defend the radical agenda that you hold; the Bible contradicts that agenda. Some more interesting "Joan" facts:

1) You ignore the facts that the true feminist movement was founded by women vehemently opposed to your modern "feminist agenda."

2) You call yourself a Catholic, yet I have never seen you personally quote a line from scripture (excluding your long cut-and-paste posts from other authors).

3) You refuse to answer a number of basic questions that many of us have posed here. I think that the answers will show that you have some nostalgic attachment to Catholicism's ritual; but you have no need for Christianity unless you can manipulate it to support your leftist agenda.

Joan wrote:

"You will not speak for me or any other Catholic...you do not own the Church, neither does Chris or Mateo."

What? I don't own the Church? ;-)

This "the Truth is determined by the people" position is an extremely un-Christian belief. Don't forget, the Southern Slave owners didn't think that Nothernerns had a right to speak for them either. Thank goodness they didn't get the choice.

I will repeat that I have no doubt that nominal Catholics protest every doctrine held by the church. Martin Luther, with some political help, convinced a number of Catholics that he understood the Bible better than the Catholic Church. He taught an anti-Biblical teaching that we can all arrive at the same truth by reading the Bible, without the Church's Magesterium. He disagreed with the Church, and his pride was so important to him that he left the Church instead of learning and teaching the doctrines that the Church established under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Joan, just like Martin Luther, you are free to leave the Church. To this day, I have not seen one belief of yours that remotely resembles the Christianity. I'm waiting to be shown otherwise.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 07, 2002.

My wife is a beautiful being. My daughters are something to behold. I would go to the ends of the earth for them. If this is what you want from men, you got it. I'm all over it. The feminist agenda is poison to women and turns men into beasts. It deprives women of their glory. It turns them into sex objects by thwarting the procreative nature of women. It literally kills children. Let me tell you something... as a man I will defend my wife and my children from any and all threats. It is my nature to do so. As long as there are men around like me the feminists will get nowhere. God makes men what they are. I would defend you too, any time. What good is being a so called 'intellectual' if it takes you further and further away from obvious first premises derived from the simple observation of nature?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 08, 2002.

I was at First Saturday Mass with my four year old daughter last week. During the Creed, she leaned over and asked "Daddy, are the altar boys regular boys?" I asked what she meant by that, to which she responded "Do they just go home after Mass?" I told her that yes, they were just regular little boys that helped Father, but had homes just like everyone else. She then said "I want to be an altar girl." My response: "Honey, there's no such thing."

--

jake

-- jake (jake__@msn.com), April 09, 2002.

Why, you sexist swine, Jake!!! (k-k-k-hh h >;)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 09, 2002.

As long as the Traditional Latin Mass survives, as far as my childern are concerned, there ARE no such things as altar girls. My oldest is 4. She's *never* been to a Novus Ordo.

-- jake (jake__@msn.com), April 09, 2002.

Gene

I want to know this: When is Joan ever going to give proper respect to the Lord's name? 'Godde' is not a word in the Bible. Does she need glasses of some type to help her to read. If she was a Jew they probably would stone her for disrespectful behavior.

Also, are you saying you have no problem with altar girls?

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 09, 2002.

Fred; I think Jake is aware I must be joking, when I said that. I was imitating what Sister Storey could be thinking. You DO have some sense of humor, don't you?

I privately have wondered if Joan Storey doesn't say ''Godde'' as a slight way of having fun with men. It's not respectful to God. But God, believe it or not, has a sense of humor, Fred. Imagine what he thinks, seeing you with a shiny sword and ostrich feathers. Mighty funny! Almost as funny as Godde.

Learn to laugh, Fred. It won't cost you your immortal soul. Cursing and anger will.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 09, 2002.

Gene

I have spent my entire life trying to catch up with everyone. I started to live "literally" at 6 years of age due to a severe hearing loss. The only person who can humor me well is my wife as she does understand me well. Also I have spent too many years as a technical analyst and graphics technicianwhich I took to heart quite seriously for over 35 years.

Being retired I have in the past 14 years have had a strong yearning to know GOD spiritually to the point that I take everything to heart. It is without fear of death that I am spending my remaining years knowing that I am now on the other side of life enjoying it to the best I can with a gal who has made my last 2 years the best ever. Now she has finally come home to our Church as a Catholic and loving all of it too. I tickles me once in a while whenever I look at her and say "Hi Cathoolic" and watch her glow with happiness. We have spent many hours seeing the countryside last summer on the motorcycle and just absorb all that GOD has given us in his nature. WOW. What a trip.

So God has Blessed me with a new life and I am enjoying it to the fullest and Thanking him all the way.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), April 09, 2002.

Hey, I'm firmly in favor of your happiness, Fred. I know we've had words, but don't let it bother you. I can extend the hand of friendship. But just remember; always on condition. I respect who respects me. I learn from experience just like others; not to trust in my feelings too much. They can lead me into sin, for sure.

If we really want to serve God, we let Him do the talking. His grace can come to us for a moment, and after we serve Him, we must realise the grace is renewed ONLY when we remain without sin. Once sin enters, grace goes out the door.

You and your good wife must be each others' DEVIL'S ADVOCATES. Know what that is? She makes you toe the line, in all your actions; and if you ball it up her command will be there, to help you return to God's grace. You also, have a duty to serve her as a devil's advocate. Hold a mirror to her face; and tell her: ''How can I remain in grace, if your example is failing?''

My wife is there, when I need a dressing down. I'm no saint. But in all my waking moments, I have the duty to set a Christian example or else, she becomes a devil's advocate and accuses like the demon himself!

I wouldn't have it any other way. My guardian angel hardly ever opens his mouth to me. But my wife? Ha! I'm very careful not to start her going. She's the original Niagara Falls! I watch myself!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 09, 2002.

There have been altar girls for years in Canada. Does it detract from the Mass or something? I think not. Get the facts straight. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), April 09, 2002.

What "facts" might those be, and what are your sources for said "facts?" Are you going to back them up with statistics on Mass attendance in Canada? Wait. Better not. They're abyssmal. How about priestly vocations? Oops. That road's closed, too. How about numbers of Catholics openly dissenting with Church doctrine? Nope, that's no good.

I hope your facts weren't hard to find. I'm waiting.

-- jake (jake__@msn.com), April 09, 2002.

(1) To the guys talking about Miss Storey's "Godde" ...
It is her goofy attempt to work a compromise between the words God and Goddess. [Note her e-mail address.] Like a typical rad-fem, she doesn't want to think of God as Father nor refer to him with masculine pronouns.

(2) Miss Storey wrote: "Please feel free not to read anything I post. But I am a Catholic also, and you have no authority or corner on Catholicism. Joan"
This is pure bunk, because she is NOT "a Catholic also." She has admitted to escorting expectant moms past pro-life sidewalk counselors and pickets, to take them into an abortion mill where their kids are murdered. Being a direct part of process of procuring an abortion has resulted in Miss Storey's being automatically excommunicated (says Canon Law). She is a former Catholic.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.