Ben C Smith

Bernard Muller writes:

According to my research, "Luke" was a Gentile Roman Christian woman from Philippi; see this page for explanation.

Following that link yields some interesting indirect arguments for the author of Luke-Acts being a woman; these arguments consist mainly of the old observation that Luke-Acts often focuses on women where parallel texts do not.

Muller is not the only one who has ever postulated that this Christian author is a woman; but I want to consider this possibility on this thread.

For Muller, so far as I can find, does not discuss the direct evidence for the author being a woman, namely the participle παρηκολουθηκοτι (having followed) in Luke 1.3, which modifies the pronoun that applies to the author (to me). This participle is masculine, not feminine.

I am interested in any comments on what this masculine participle does with regard to the hypothesis that Luke was a woman. If Luke was a woman, why did she use the masculine participle to describe herself? If Luke was a man, why did he focus so much on women and on womanhood?

Ben.

gstafleu

That surely would be the easiest of almost unconscious interpolations by a scribe who expected a male author, wouldn't it?

Gerard Stafleu

Lawtonfogle

Maybe Luke was a male interested in females. I doubt that this is that rare back then.

Toto

The idea that gLuke was written by a woman originates AFAIK with Randel Helms in Gospel Fictions (or via: amazon.co.uk). "Luke" not only writes about women, but writes from a woman's point of view (as when the future John the Baptist leaps within Elizabeth's womb.)

But are we sure that the prologue was written by the same person who wrote the rest of the gospel? The prologue might well be the final editor.

Ben C Smith

I remember that. IIRC, Helms does not mention the masculine participle, either.

I for one am not altogether sure, but this is exactly the sort of thing I would like to see from those who hold that Luke was a woman, to wit, an explanation (later addition in this case) for the masculine pronoun.

So what is your best case for the prologue being a later addition?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Those must be rare.

But I think the idea is that Luke-Acts seems written almost more from a female perspective rather than from the perspective of a male interested in females.

Ben.

Toto

The prologue is by the final editor of Luke, who says that he consulted many sources. Perhaps he incorporated a lot of material written by a woman. Maybe a female relative?

That's not much of a case, just a hint of a possibility. But Jay Raskin has a much more elaborate case for the gospels being based on a play originally written by a woman. I got half way through his book when I had to pack up a lot of books because of a flood in my apartment, and I never got back to it. That's a long story that is totally irrelevant here. But as I recall, Jay had some interesting support for an idea that sounded pretty far out at first glance, including the status of women in the first century Roman Empire.

Evolution of Christs and Christianities (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Jay Raskin.

Ben C Smith

How do you know (A) that there were multiple editors of the gospel of Luke (as opposed to multiple traditions incorporated by a single editor) and (B) that the prologue comes from the last of those editors?

I have probably read too much by Jay Raskin on this board to be duly impressed by this. But perhaps I will give his book a whirl. Sometimes ideas come from the least likely sources.

Thanks.

Ben.

Toto

I don't know that, but it is sufficient if the prologue comes from a male editor at some point.

You might be surprised. You start off thinking what is Jay smoking, but gradually he builds up his case and you start to think maybe there is something here. Then, of course, he leaps to something much more improbable. . .

Doug Shaver

What do you mean by "so much"? What makes his focus so anomalous that it demands an explanation?