Interpret Scripture Correctly

by Ivoni Richter Reimer

Women Mentioned Briefly, or Not at All

To conclude this investigation, I want to recall the women who are mentioned only briefly in Acts, or are not explicitly named. The form of this chapter will be twofold: In an initial step I will briefly introduce some women who, although they are not explicitly mentioned in Acts, may be presumed to be included in generic masculine terms applied to several persons or to groups of persons, in accordance with Luke’s androcentric usage. In a second section, I will comment on the passages in which women are mentioned explicitly, but only briefly.(1) It is clear that only these two steps taken together can yield a more accurate and complete picture of women in Acts.

A Remembrance of Unnamed Women

Making the unnamed women in Acts visible is only possible because there are passages in which women are explicitly mentioned. We may call this a process of deduction from what is said to what is unspoken.(2) The resulting movement of reading is as follows: We read a long section within one part of Acts, and suddenly we come to a passage in which, without introduction, the text mentions women. We can cite Mark 15:40-41 as a typical example of this kind of writing: it is only at Jesus’ crucifixion that women are expressly mentioned, but we learn that they had always—from the very beginning—been with him and followed him:

‘There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem. ‘(3)

Consequently, in order to reconstruct the history of women we have to read stories not only from front to back, but from back to front. What is true of Mark is also true, for the most part, of Luke:

‘Mark makes clear that so far he had been using the androcentric linguistic use common in antiquity, where women are included in the terminology that talks about men. He also makes clear that he is not critically predisposed toward this linguistic use. He shares this uncritical androcentric linguistic use with all other evangelists of the New Testament. (4)

Therefore, when Acts describes Peter’s or Paul’s preaching and it appears that only men are addressed as their audience, we should also presume the presence of women. Androcentric language is inclusive language: it is a language referring to men, but nevertheless presuming that women are included in its meaning.

‘Such androcentric inclusive language mentions women only when their presence has become in any way a problem or when they are “exceptional,” but it does not mention women in so-called normal situations. … In other words, androcentric language is inclusive of women, but does not mention them explicitly. Such androcentric inclusive language functions in biblical texts the same way as it functions today—it mentions women only when women’s behavior presents a problem or when women are exceptional individuals. (5)

The androcentrism of Luke’s language is especially marked in the book of Acts. The introductions to the speeches (1:11, 16; 2:22, 29, 37; 3:12, 17; 5:35; 6:3; 7:2; 13:15-16, 26, 38; 14:15; 15:7, 13; 19:25, 35; 21:28; 22:1; 23:1; 28:17) apparently make it clear that there are no women within the groups that make up the respective audiences. But some of these passages show plainly that women are subsumed under certain masculine terms. For example, in 13:15-16, 26, the “god-fearers” who are addressed include women, especially since they constitute the majority of this group. (6) It is difficult to imagine that women are not addressed in Peter’s first speech, since it is emphasized in 1:14 that women were always part of the group of the saints. It is striking that only Peter speaks publicly: immediately after the ascension of Jesus, all are gathered together (1:13-14), and although Peter addresses the group of 120 as “men, brothers” (1:15-16), we must suppose that after his speech and before the choice of the twelfth apostle both men and women were present, since 1:24 speaks of the prayer of all. Again, according to 2:1-4, they were all together on the day of Pentecost—that is, a tongue of fire rested on every woman and every man: “All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.” But it appears that only Peter addresses the crowd who heard the Spirit-filled believers speaking (2:14-39). In Peter’s Pentecost speech it is evident that women have also participated in the Pentecost miracle, for in Acts 2:17-21 Peter quotes Joel 3:1-5 and interprets the Pentecost event as a fulfilment of this prophecy. According to the text of Joel, God will pour out the divine Spirit upon all flesh: “and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy . . . even upon my slaves, both men and women, in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.” This last assertion, “and they shall prophesy,” is an addition to the LXX text. Had it been Peter’s (or rather Luke’s) intention to exclude women from the Pentecost event, would this Old Testament text have been chosen, when it clearly says that both women and men will equally receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Would this text have been chosen to describe Christians’ understanding of what had been fulfilled among them, and with the addition of the statement that slaves, both men and women, would prophesy? The presence of women prophets in the Jerusalem community and elsewhere is attested by Acts 21:9, among other passages. (7)

It appears to me that there are two elements within Acts that stand in tension with one another: The text itself uses an androcentric language that allows us to conclude the existence of a patriarchal society. And yet, the text is unable to write out of existence the presence and importance of women. Nevertheless, because Acts is constructed on the stories of “great individuals,” the text concentrates on them. In the construction of Acts, central importance is given to Peter, Stephen, and Pau.- Other women and men are only mentioned when they come into contact with them in the course of the mission. Women are mentioned primarily for two reasons: when some particular point requires emphasis or when these women were outstanding figures in the history of the Christian mission.(8)

Since Acts places special emphasis on the spread of Jewish-Christian belief through the work of Peter and Paul, it overlooks people, other than Peter and Paul, who were engaged in the work of preaching th word. In Acts, this applies especially to Mary Magdalene. Although she had a central role in the whole story of Jesus’ life, she is not even mentioned in Acts. This is a dubious procedure, not only because Luke begins Acts 1:1 at the very point at which the Gospels conclude with her report of the resurrection, but also because Acts 1:21-22 and 13:30- 31 make being an eyewitness a criterion for apostleship. The fact that Mary Magdalene is not mentioned by the author in this context means that he did not understand or accept her as an apostle. (9)

Women Mentioned Briefly and By Name

Acts leaves unmentioned some important, actively engaged women who worked alongside or independently of Peter and Paul for the gospel of Christ: Mary Magdalene, Thecla, the widow Lemma and her daughter Ammia. (10) On the other hand, Acts mentions a great many women who do not appear in other books. The reason cannot be that Luke only mentions women by name if they are subject to the authority of Peter or Paul, for Tabitha, Lydia, and Priscilla, to name several examples, worked and organized independently of those two circles, as we can see from the passages in which they appear. Thus Acts is not a complete chronicle of the women and men who appear in it. Those who are remembered in it, however, can contribute to our development of a picture of the church’s beginnings. In the following section I want to look more closely at the passages in Acts in which women are briefly mentioned. My interest focuses on the discovery of their role within Acts as a whole. I will follow the traditional outline of Acts. (11)

The first major section of Acts describes the witness and events in Jerusalem (1:1—8:3) and beyond (8:4—12:25). Initially, the major center of the Jewish-Christian community is Jerusalem. Antioch becomes the second great center, where, in particular, those who are driven out of Jerusalem gather (11:19-21). These two centers are closely united (11:22-26). The second major section begins at 13:1 and extends to 28:32. The mission of Paul and Barnabas as witnesses to Jesus Christ begins in Antioch (13:2-4), but after the end of the first missionary journey they both remain connected with Jerusalem (15:1-35). Paul and Barnabas’s second missionary journey begins at Jerusalem (15:36) and ends in Antioch (18:22); its purpose is to revisit the communities in which they had already preached the word. Beginning at 16:6, this journey of visitation becomes a missionary journey: The missionaries travel through Asia Minor and enter Macedonia and Greece. Through their preaching, many women and men are converted. Paul’s third missionary journey begins in Antioch (18:23) and ends in Caesarea or Jerusalem (21:16-17). This journey is characterized by farewell visits. Nothing is said directly about conversions, although 19:18 may be a conversion story. Beginning with 21:17, the text concentrates on Paul’s account, or defense, of his mission before the elders in Jerusalem, his imprisonment there and in Caesarea, the negotiations with the Roman authorities, and his journey as a prisoner to Rome.

The Witnesses to the Risen One in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria: 1:1—12:25

The Women First Named (1:14)

After the account of Jesus’ ascension (1:12-13), the text reports the return of the eleven Galilean men from the nearby Mount of Olives to Jerusalem. “When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying. … All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers.” Here in v. 14, then, for the first time we learn that there were also women who were constantly gathered in the upstairs room. The word huperôon, “upstairs room” is used by Luke only in the book of Acts (1:13; 9:37, 39; 20:8). According to Jürgen Roloff this word describes:

… an additional room built on the flat roof of the taller houses, accessible only by an outside stairway, whose function, unlike that of the large living room below, was not to serve the ordinary, daily functions of life (sleeping, cooking, eating, etc.). The upstairs room is a quiet place to which one can withdraw for prayer and study of Scripture (1 Kgs. 17:19ff. . . .). It is the preferred place for scribal discussions. (12)

According to Rudolf Pesch, (13) this was “the gathering place of the eleven,” that is, the eleven apostles. But he himself shows that the text (See 1:6; Luke 24:9, 33) does not think of the apostles alone, and that women also belong “to the community awaiting Pentecost.” (14) In our text the upstairs room is the place where this community—and not ( only the eleven apostles—continually gathers. The word katamein, “to stay,” appears only here and in a variant in 1 Cor. 16:6 (P 34 B etc.; Nestle-Aland, 25th ed.), where Paul emphasizes that he wishes to stay a while in Corinth (“with you”); he wants to remain there. It has the same meaning as the alternative reading in 1 Cor. 16:6, paramenein K A C D [F G] (?)075. 088 (?)Nestle-Aland, 26th ed.), “to stay,” “to remain.” (15) Thus it is possible that the Galileans were staying in the upstairs room in Jerusalem because they were in prayer while awaiting the Pentecost event. This was a room known to Jews as a place for prayer, study of Torah, and as living space.(16) Quentin Quesnell’s investigation of the verbs and concepts in the texts that are important for the description of the disciples’ stay in Jerusalem supports the thesis that in Jerusalem the upstairs room served as a constant dwelling place for the (Galilean) women and men. (17)

In v. 14, two “groups” of women are mentioned: those who are not named, and Mary the mother of Jesus, in whose company Luke also mentions Jesus’ “brothers.” It is difficult to determine what tradition Luke is following here, (18) since Matt. 13:55-56 also mentions the mother of Jesus (Mary) together with his brothers (James, Joses, Simon, Judas) and sisters (unnamed); John 7:3 also mentions his brothers. Is Luke including Jesus’ “sisters” in speaking of his “brothers”? The other group of women would seem to include those, perhaps all, who followed Jesus from Galilee and afterward (Luke 8:2-3; cf. 23:55; 24:10). Another text tradition, that of Codex D, stands contrary to this interpretation: it adds “and children” after “women,” transforming the women who are mentioned as independent persons into the wives and children of the apostles. In this way, the disciples of Jesus become the “holy family of the earliest community.” (19) Although many commentators oppose the textual change in D and emphasize that the “women” should not be understood as the wives of the apostles, but as “the group of Jesus female disciples,” (20) the contrary tradition in exegesis still exists and continues to follow Codex D. (21) As will appear in other cases (e.g., 17:4, 17; 18:1-2), Codex D often changes passages in the text in which women appear. It attempts to suppress women by subordinating them to men.

If the women mentioned in 1:14 are to be thought of as the same women who met Jesus in Galilee and followed him from there until his death, resurrection, and ascension, they have been done a great injustice both by the text and by the tradition of interpretation. This injustice consists, first of all, in their not being named, in contrast to the men Acts 1:13, and differently from Luke 8:1-3; 24:10. With their names, the memory of their deeds is also extinguished. Moreover, these women were not considered when it came to the choice of the twelfth apostle. The objection does not sound so absurd if we look more closely at the reconditions and requirements for “candidacy” for election as an apostle Acts 1:21-22 reads: “So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.” The Synoptic Gospels attest the discipleship of women as followers of Jesus (from Galilee): Luke 8:1-3; Mark 15:40-41; Matt. 27:55-56; Luke 23:55. (22) These women disciples accompanied Jesus on the way until his bitter death on the cross, and according to Mark 16:1-8 they were the first witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection. According to Luke 24:-10 they were given the task of proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection to the others. If the other disciples did not believe them (24:11, 22-24), it was not because they were women, but rather because the event itself was incredible. (23) But they were witnesses from the beginning! As such, they fulfilled the conditions for diakonia and for the apostolate (Acts 1:25). (24) But at this point Luke considers men exclusively.

Men and Women Become Believers (5:14)

Acts 5:14 is part of the so-called third summary (5:12-16) and contains a brief notice about the spread of Jewish Christian faith in Jerusalem. This verse contains the third “notice of growth,” and here, for the first time in Acts, women are explicitly mentioned: “Yet more than ever believers were added to the Lord, great numbers of both men and women, so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on cots and mats, in order that Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he came by” (5:14-15). In 2:41 it had been said that three thousand psuchai (“persons”) were added; 4:4 says that the number of andres (“men”) had risen to about five thousand; finally, 5:14 mentions women and men who were added. This growth in numbers of disciples ls associated with miracles. After the sad story of Sapphira and Ananias it is said that many miracles were done through the hands of the apostles; some people remained at a distance, but others “held them in high esteem.” Then comes the notice of growth in v. 14. It is at first somewhat disturbing that v. 15 begins with a hôste, “so that,” clause. Exegetes have asked whether v. 15 should follow v. 13b or v. 12a: that is, v.14 is seen as a Lukan insertion into a pre-existing tradition (25) But is that appropriate? Luke has made an effort, following the disruption in the community caused by the story of Sapphira and Ananias, to coordinate a variety of information: the miraculous deeds done through the hands of the apostles; the (other?) gathering place in Solomon’s portico in the Temple; the various reactions to Jewish Christian faith, which include the conversions; the information about Peter’s healing shadow. The fact that he begins v. 15 with hôste could be connected with the circumstance that he includes the notice of conversions in v. 14 among the various reactions of the people toward the Christians. The hôste clause can thus refer to all the reactions, or be understood as a consequence of them all. (26) The notice of growth can continue to stand at the center of the summary, without causing disturbance; nothing need be omitted in order to make the statement comprehensible. (27) It can also be understood as a reference to a kind of chain reaction: The women and men who are being added to the community constitute a connection backward (reactions to the effectiveness of the Christians) and forward (more and more sick people hear about the miracles and are brought to be healed). Thus it is possible that Luke had no problem about describing conversion in the context of service to the sick. All are to be healed as a sign of the inbreaking reign of God. There is no reason to suppose that those converted did not help to bring the sick people to be healed, or to lay them on cots and mats. Luke may have had that image in mind when he wrote the sentence. It is improbable that he inserted v. 14 at random; instead, it may be a direct reflection of his own experiences with early Christian communities.

The Neglected Hellenist Widows (6:1)

This is the first point in Acts at which we learn that Hellenist widows were part of the community of saints in Jerusalem. As early as 2:5-11 there was mention of people from the Greek-speaking diaspora, (28) but none of them (apparently) women. They appear here explicitly for the first time, but only in the form of widows: “Now during those days, when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food [diakonia]” (6:1). (29)

The words “during those days” connect Acts 6:1-6 with what has gone before. “During those days” refers to the days in which the apostles had asserted themselves, in spite of the order of the Sanhedrin remain silent, and had not ceased “in the temple and at home . • • teach and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah” (5:42). This is immediately followed by the information that the number of disciples was growing.(30) It seems to me that, by this, Luke is attempting to explain why it happened that the Hellenist widows (31) were neglected in the “daily distribution of food,” and also why the number of organized workers had to be expanded. Whether the reason given in Luke’s account for the neglect of the Hellenist widows corresponds to the reality must remain an open question, for “Luke spends no time in examining who was at fault.” (32) The rest of the story, in 6:2—8:8, indicates that the source Luke is using may have been “focused on the conflict between the ‘Hellenists’ . . . and the ‘Hebrews.'” (33) Luke attempts to explain this conflict as the consequence of a difficulty in the matter of diakonia. That is why the widows among the Hellenists are mentioned here. The expression “daily diakonia,” which appears only here in the New Testament, has presented interpreters with significant difficulties, and continues to do so. This problem is more serious than a correct translation of the word; it seems to me that at this point the subject of the debate is the treatment of women in the primitive Christian communities.

Not only the expression diakonia kathêrmerinê, “daily diakonia,” but also the verb paratheôreisthai, “to be overlooked,” “to be neglected,” appear only once in the New Testament. The use of this verb in the imperfect suggests the conclusion that the text is not speaking of a single instance, but that the widows “were frequently neglected.” (34) To understand more precisely what could be meant by this, exegetes have inquired into the praxis of diakonia in the environment in which the early Christian communities existed.

A consensus in research holds that the daily diakonia was an example of “poor-relief.” (35) This praxis was known both among Jews and in non-Jewish contexts. (36) Joachim Jeremias and Paul Billerbeck collected enough sources to attest to a well-organized ancient Jewish system of care for the poor. (37) A daily diakonia in the sense of “table service,” that is feeding of the impoverished, existed in Judaism. The institution that organized it was called tamhuy, “the poor bowl,” from which itinerant paupers could receive at least two meals daily.” (38) It seems likely that Acts 6:1 refers to something similar, since the “Hellenists” were also regarded as foreigners (see 2:5, 9-11, oi katoikountes, “sojourners,” “settlers”). There is a fundamental agreement among exegetes that the Hellenist widows were being neglected by the “Hebrews,” That is the Hebrew or Aramaic-speaking Jews. (39) This understanding is based on the reading of Codex D, which adds “in the Hebrews’ diakonia the end of 6:1, and on the expression in 6:3 according to which group of Hellenist men is to be selected to “wait on tables.” Seven men are chosen by the community, but in the rest of the book they are not mentioned in connection with table service; instead, they preach and act as missionaries. Even if 6:2 tries to distinguish between “table service” and “service of the word,” the work of the Seven nevertheless shows that the two were not separate.

However the assertion in v. 1 must not necessarily mean that the Hellenist widows were being overlooked or neglected by the “Hebrews” in the daily distribution. H. W. Beyer had already pointed out that the expression diakonein trapezais (6:2) refers “not merely to the provision of food but to the daily preparation and organisation.” (40) This may lead us to think that the Hellenist widows were overlooked “in the organization of the community meals.” We may interpret this to mean that the conflict was not restricted to bad treatment of the widows; their neglect is explained as “a difference of opinion about whether the Hellenist women were to be part of this community at table, and thus part of the community, or not.” (41)

Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza presses the question farther in this direction. (42) She does not dispute that in that period the distress of widows and orphans was very great, and for that reason they depended on institutionalized care for the poor. But she does not see it as completely clear that Acts 6:1 is about service to the poor, since “nothing is said in Acts 6 to indicate that the widows of the Hellenists were poor.” (43) She attempts to understand the table service in Acts 6:2 by reference to 1 Cor. 10:21. According to Schüssler Fiorenza, in 1 Cor. 10:21 the ” ‘table of the Lord’ was the eucharistic table. Table ministry, therefore, was most likely the eucharistic ministry, which included preparation of a meal, purchase and distribution of food, actual serving during the meal, and probably cleaning up afterward. Such eucharistic table sharing, according to the Lukan summary statement in 2:46, took place ‘day by day.’ ” (44) From this she concludes that it is possible “that the conflict between the Hellenists and the Hebrews involved the role and participation of women at the eucharistic meal.” (45)

The reference to Luke’s summary notice in 2:46 is important and helpful. We could also cite 2:42 and 4:35 in this sense. Luke attempts to paint a picture of unity and solidarity in the Jerusalem community, any of the signs of cohesion that characterize this community (see 2:42) were to be neglected or destroyed, the unity of the community of saints would be damaged. If widows are neglected in the daily diakonia, that is a sign that there are deep conflicts within this community that is of “one heart and soul” (4:32). Thus it seems to me that daily diakonia should not be restricted either to the daily distribution of food to those in need or to community meals: it refers to a much more comprehensive “service,” as described also in Matt. 25:35-40. All took an active part in this service (Acts 2:42-47). The ignoring or neglect of the Hellenist widows could thus apply both to the daily distribution and to active participation in the “cultic” activities that were part of the daily life of this community. Their daily life was their religious life. However, the fact that this everyday living was not as free of tension as Luke’s account makes it appear at first glance is evident from the stories of Sapphira and Ananias and that of the Hellenist widows. It is striking, in this connection, that women are explicitly named precisely when and where such conflicts appear in Luke’s narrative and are explicitly named. The widows are mentioned in connection with a crisis in the community that directly affects those who are engaged in the distribution of community goods to those in need (4:35).

The Persecution of Women and Men (8:3)

Acts 8:3 says that “Saul was ravaging the church by entering house after house; dragging off both men and women, he committed them to prison.” According to v. 4, this persecution of Christians was followed by a scattering of many throughout Samaria. Thus 8:3 creates a bridge between the Jerusalem community of saints and the spread of Jewish-Christian belief beyond Jerusalem. What is especially significant about Saul’s persecution of Christians in Jerusalem, therefore, is that it brought about an important change. One result of persecution is exile, but the exiles reorganized themselves and preached the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Another important observation is that this is the next mention of women in Acts. No woman appears in the whole of the “Stephen story” (6:8—8:2), but this story of the first martyr is immediately followed by this notice about the many female and male victims (8:1-4). This shows that women were already there during the whole story of Stephen, but the interest of the author was to concentrate the portrayal of the theological self-concept of a number of Jerusalem sisters and brothers— many of them from the Jewish diaspora (6:9)—in the narrative and speech of Stephen. The martyrdom of Stephen can be dated to the years 32-34. (46) Thus we can derive from it a dating for the “great persecution” of the sisters and brothers in Jerusalem.

The conflicts surrounding the community of the saints in Jerusalem were increasing. The last previous mention of women was in the context of an intracommunity conflict (6:1) that was solved at the same level. But now the frame expands, and there is no longer a positive solution to be found at the local level. The sisters and brothers must flee, or rather, they are driven out of Jerusalem. Paul now appears for the first time in Acts, in the context of this persecution (8:1-3), accompanied by the first use of the word diôgmos, “persecution.” It is supposed to have been very “severe,” so that “all” (except the apostles) were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. The adjective “severe” indicates the intensity of the persecution, as is then explained in v. 3: “But Saul was ravaging the church by entering house after house; dragging off both men and women, he committed them to prison.”

Several groups of people are mentioned in 8:1-3: v. 1 emphasizes the scattering of all except the apostles; v. 2 asserts that “devout men” buried Stephen (in Jerusalem); (47) and v. 3 emphasizes the pursuit of people into their houses, with Paul dragging out both women and men and throwing them into prison. Scholars have pointed out that it appears from the wider context (6:1-7; 8:4-5; 11:19-20) that those who are scattered are the Hellenists, i.e., “the Greek-speaking part of the community that was critical of the Law.” (48) This can be taken as a suggestion for interpretation. In any case, it is correct to say that not all the Jewish Christian sisters and brothers were driven out of the city, because there continued to be house churches there (8:3; 12:12-17).

Saul’s violence is powerfully emphasized here. Women are not excepted from his vicious attacks. (49) Saul the persecutor forced his way into houses, that is, into the sphere that was central to the life of the community of the saints: this was the place where they broke bread (2:46), the place where, in addition to the Temple, they taught and preached (5:42), the place where the sisters and brothers gathered (12:12-17). According to Jürgen Roloff, Saul as the “principal agent of the persecution . . . searched houses and threw the Christians he found there into prison.” (50) On the one hand, it is pleasant to observe that in interpreting this text exegetes admit to the existence of dictatorial political tactics such as “searching houses.” On the other hand, it is deeply disappointing to see them omit any consideration of the women, especially in the reading of this passage in Acts 8:3. They speak of “Christians” and “Hellenists” (both terms in the masculine in German), even though the text is careful to mention both women and men. (51) It is another matter when Acts 9:13 characterizes the women and men persecuted by Paul in Jerusalem as “saints,” for that enables us to read other passages that speak of the “saints,” or use similar terms, as including both women and men. The persecuted women and men are saints.

Saul himself is the persecutor. Nothing is said of anyone else having carried out the persecution, so that Paul could be understood to be “only” the supervisor or commander of an attack group: “He is the persecution in person. ” (52) The result of Paul’s conversion is that the early Christian communities enjoy a period of peace (9:31). Luke emphasizes this again in Acts 26:9-23, in Paul’s speech before King Agrippa. It is crucial also, in the last analysis, that Paul himself does not deny this fact. He confirms it in 1 Cor. 15:9 and Phil. 3:6, where he describes those he persecuted as “the church of God.” That in Acts 8:1-3 he had already received authority from the high priest to capture Christians and bind them (as in 9:1) is possible, but cannot be determined with certainty.

The purpose of the persecution was the destruction of the Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem, but the repressive tactics adopted and applied by Paul had exactly the opposite effect to what was intended. What was dispersed was not destroyed, but grew with renewed energy (8:4-8). The communities were scattered, but not extinguished. In this context the word diaspeiremai, “to be scattered,” can even be an expression of hope in persecution, because it awakens associations with the “scattering” or “sowing” of seed. (53)

Men and Women Are Baptized (8:12)

In the wake of the dispersion, the missionary work of those scattered spread Jewish Christian belief throughout the region of Samaria. There women and men were baptized by Philip because they believed in the reign of God that he preached, and in the name of Jesus Christ. It was not just “the Samaritans” who were baptized, (54) but (some) Samaritan women and men now confessed the Jewish Christian faith.

Men and Women Put in Danger by Saul (9:1-31)

In their flight from Saul’s persecution, some of the believers reached Damascus. Although considerable numbers of disciples were in Damascus (vv. 1 and 19), the only one mentioned by name is Ananias (vv. 10-17). Saul travelled to Damascus to expand his persecution. He was following on the heels of those who had been scattered. At this point the notice that both women and men were affected by his actions is repeated. Every woman and every man he found belonging to “the way” would be bound and brought to Jerusalem. In v. 2 it is again clear that the mathêtas tou kuriou mentioned in w. 1 and 19 include both women and men: they are all disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul did not travel alone to Damascus, but took some men with him (9:7-8). his makes the situation of the persecuted seem even more threatening. we should emphasize that “Saul himself, not the unnamed High Priest … is the driving spirit of the persecution;” (55) Paul only receives “letters” from the High Priest to the synagogues, giving him authority to act. In the context of the journey to Damascus, vv. 4-5 acquire an unusual theological-ecclesiological relevance: The risen Jesus intervenes in the course of events on behalf of his community. The question he addresses to Saul shows how Jesus identifies with the community of the saints: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (9:4; cf. v. 5). What is done to the disciples because of their confession of Christ is done to Jesus himself! (56) “Persecuting me” is synonymous with persecuting Christians.

Mary, the Mother of John Mark, and Rhoda the Slave (12:12-17)

Acts 12 tells of conflicts between the Christians and the powerful ruler Herod Agrippa I. He behaved viciously toward them: James, the brother of John, was killed with the sword, an event that recalls the murder of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas (Matt. 14:6-12). Herod Agrippa I also has Peter arrested (Acts 12:3), but Peter is delivered from prison and goes to the house of Mary, the mother of John (Mark). It seems to me important for the context to observe that the death of King Herod Agrippa I is not directly connected with the liberation of Peter from prison. It happens later, during a speech the king is making without having given glory to God. Luke, however, joins vv. 1-23 within a compositional unit, thus apparently interpreting the king’s death retrospectively in terms of his wicked deeds (vv. 1-3). The death of Herod and the periods of persecution could be separated in time. King Herod Agrippa I died in the year 44 C.E.; his actions against some members of the Jewish-Christian community can be dated as early as the year 41. (57) According to 12:3, the king’s behavior is meant to appease the Jews. “After he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also,” intending to bring him before the people after the Passover feast (v. 4). The following verses list details of Peter’s imprisonment. He was not alone in his prison cell: he was kept under guard, and the community continued in constant prayer for him (vv. 4-5); during the night before the day on which Herod intended to bring him out, he slept between two soldiers, and was bound with two chains, while other soldiers stationed before the door kept watch (v. 6); nevertheless an angel came to him. This last observation indicates that God has hear the prayer of the community. Peter is then delivered from the prison.

In the next scene, Peter comes to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark. (58) It is striking that Mary is not described with reference to her husband, but to a son. This may indicate that there were a number of Marys in the community. Describing her as the mother of John Mark can, however, indicate as well that both of them were very important in the spread of the Jewish-Christian faith. We learn more of her son later (12:25; 13:5, 13; 15:37; cf. Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Phlm. 24; 1 Pet. 5:13).

There, in Mary’s house, many people are gathered to pray (v. 12): this illustrates what was said in v. 5. They are not praying individually, but together. This, in turn, corresponds to the picture of the community in Acts 2:42-47. And all this takes place in Mary’s house. When Peter arrives, it is still night; this, in turn, conveys the idea of the persistence of the community’s continual prayer. Not only that: they are gathered in the Passover night, for worship (sunathroizô, cf. Luke 24:33). These women and men certainly have many events and many people to call to memory. Memory also incorporates present events in the prayer. It may even be that they have gathered in the place where they assembled after the ascension of Jesus (1:14—2:4), and that this is the reason why Peter went to that house.(59)

According to v. 13, Peter comes there and knocks on the door in the outer gate (pulônos, “gate house”). There is consensus that the pulôn is a “gateway which separated the courtyard from the street.” (60) But Gottfried Schille, for example, denies that this requires us to interpret huperkoyein as a description of the action of the paidiskê (“slave woman,” “maidservant”) in “answering” the door as being “used technically for the task of the doorkeeper.” (61) The statement of the text is clear: Mary has a house in which “many” can gather; nothing is said about its actual size. (62) The single reference to a pulôn seems to me too little to permit us to conclude that Mary had great wealth, especially since it is also said that the house of Simon the tanner had a pulôn (10:19). In the latter case, however, exegetes utter not a word about any supposed wealth of the despised tanner!

‘The case of John 18:17 may be different: Here we read of a slave who is a doorkeeper (he thurôros), but the text speaks not of a pulôn, but of a door. Still, as early as v. 15 it is clear that it is referring to the palace (!) of the high priest. This passage is, incidentally, the only one in the New Testament in which the feminine article is used with thurôros ; otherwise it is men who do this work: Mark 13:34; John 10:3.’

In Mary’s house there is a paidiskê , a “slave woman.” The text does not say that Mary is her owner. If she was Mary’s slave, opening the door may have been one of her tasks, but it need not have been her sole occupation. Much more important than this discussion, it seems to me is the observation that the master-slave relationship is not expressed in the story, in sharp contrast to Acts 16:16-19. The slave woman Rhoda behaves as if she were not a slave. According to v. 14 she recognized Peter’s voice, which indicates that she knew him well. She may have heard him teaching. Thus the slave woman Rhoda was not someone separate from the group of those who were gathered together. Her membership in the community may also be reflected in her great joy at seeing Peter again. In her joy, she ran into the house, forgetting to open the door. Is that a likely reaction on the part of someone whose responsibility it was to guard and open the door? Verse 15 also reflects something other than the ordinary master-slave relationship: Although the people inside do not believe the slave woman’s statement that Peter has come, it is not because she is a slave; it is because the news she brings them is incredible in itself. (63) To stare a miracle (Peter’s liberation from prison) in the face: that is just unbelievable! The slave woman stuck to her assertion, even though the others called her “crazy” (v. 15). She is determined to succeed, for the sake of the truth; she holds out against all those who do not believe her. She fights for her right to see the truth before all the others. A slave woman asserts herself in Mary’s house! This fact indicates that she had a “space” in which to do so. It says that in this community in Mary’s house the barriers between masters and slaves were broken down; here there are neither slaves nor masters/mistresses, but all are one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). The narrative shows that the slave woman was right: Peter was really there, and he finally entered, saw his sisters and brothers again, and then departed. Before he left, however, he asked that the story of his deliverance be told to James and the “brethren.” According to Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, this brief note in the text means that “they [i.e., James and the ‘brethren’] were not present at the meeting.” (64) She therefore concludes that only Hellenists were members of this house church. Even if that was not the case, it is clear from the text that a community gathered in Jerusalem at Mary’s house, and we may certainly conclude from this that Mary was engaged in the daily work of organization and preaching.

A last, very important, but only briefly indicated idea is contained in 12:18-19. The whole community of the saints in Jerusalem must already have known about Peter’s deliverance by the next morning. The soldiers were in commotion, because they were in great danger. They we responsible for the prisoners, and when Herod’s people could not find Peter the guards were tortured and finally, at the king’s orders, put to death. In other words, they were personally responsible for their prisoners. When Herod learned that Peter had escaped from prison, he had the soldiers “led away,” which in this case means being led away to execution, just as Jesus was “led away” (Luke 23:26). Failure to carry out their duty meant capital punishment for the guards. (65) In saying this, Luke is not simply emphasizing the great cruelty of Herod; rather, the account corresponds to reality. This explains the panic of the guards in Acts 16:23-24, 27. But in this account of the cruel law of the ruling order a tiny spark of solidarity emerges: after Peter’s deliverance, Herod and his soldiers were not able to discover where he was hiding. In this point, the community held together: no one betrayed the fugitive Peter. There were no denunciations within this group; they remained steadfast (see Luke 16-18), and after the death of Herod, the word continued to spread.

The Witnesses to the Risen One “to the Ends of the Earth” (1:8): 13:1—28:31

I indicated above, on pp. 230-31, the reasons why I am treating the passages that follow according to the commonly accepted outline of Acts. Paul is undoubtedly the principal figure in the second major portion of the book of Acts. During his missionary journeys, he encounters many disciples of the Lord who worked independently, before and after him. In his missionary activity, Paul always begins in the synagogue communities: As a Jew, he first goes to people living according to the Jewish way of life (for more detail on this topic, see chapter 3, on Lydia in Acts 16:13-15). In the course of his work he met women in various contexts outside Palestine. Now I want to say something more specific about these women, who are explicitly mentioned and sometimes even named.

Paul’s First Missionary Journey (13:1—14:28)

The Devout Women of High Standing in Antioch (13:50)

This is the first passage in which Luke explicitly mentions women in the Pauline mission: “But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, and stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their region.” Thus from 9:41 to 13:50 we have been immersed in a language, or style of historical writing, that refers to women and men together under androcentric terms. There were certainly also women present in Salamis (13:15-16) and here in Pisidian Antioch (13:14-16, 42-43, 44, 48) before the appear in 13:50, for this is not the first context in which “the devout ” or “god-fearers,” a group that always included many women,(66) have appeared. They have already been seen in 13:43, where they followed Paul: that is, they believed in Jesus Christ. But at 13:50 women are concretely mentioned, because the intention is to emphasize something special: this is the first reaction against Paul within the context of the synagogue. (67) Luke asserts that “the Jews incited” two groups of people in the city. Whatever the action in question may have been, not all the god-fearers were stirred up (cf. v. 43), but only the women of high standing among them; an aloof attitude is thus established toward these women. A particular group within the city’s upper classes comes together to act against this spreading popular movement (vv. 44-45, 48). Therefore it is important to Luke to say that these were the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city. He is using sociological categories here: The women of high standing belong to the upper social class of the city, probably the noble families,(68) while the “leading men of the city” were “those who were socially prominent by birth or office or a significant degree of wealth.”(69) There is no reason to suppose that these women of high standing were the wives or mothers of the “leading men of the city,” as recently asserted by Jürgen Roloff and Jose Comblin. (70) There were, as we have already demonstrated above, social groups who were able to make their influence felt at the city level. They do not confess faith in Jesus Christ, and they do not join his community. Instead, according to Luke’s account, they combine against it and cause Paul and Barnabas to leave the place. The disciples, however, remain in the city (v. 52), filled with joy and the Holy Spirit. In spite of persecution by the important people in the city, a “flourishing community” remains behind. (71)

Paul’s Second Missionary Journey (15:36—18:22)

During Paul’s first missionary journey there was mention of a group of devout women of high standing who acted against Paul and Barnabas. Nothing was said about any woman during the “apostolic council” in “Jerusalem, which undertook the “regulation of the Gentile mission ” (72) (15:1-33). On the other hand, many individual women are mentioned during Paul’s second missionary journey. This is probably connected with the fact that 15:36—18:22 describes the principal episodes in Paul’s propagation of the gospel. Here we find the most conversion accounts, and here Paul very often comes into contact with people who practiced the Jewish religion although they were not Jews: the proselytes and, in particular, the god-fearers.

The Jewish Woman Who Was a Believer (16:1)

In Lystra lived a Jewish woman believer whose name has been lost to the book of Acts. She and her Greek husband are mentioned only because of their son, who had become widely known through his partic- ipation in the Pauline mission. The mother of Timothy is mentioned because Jewish mothers bring up their children in the Jewish faith and teach it to them. The dominant exegetical opinion is that the phrase “a Jewish woman who was a believer” means that this Jewish woman had become a Christian. The adjective “believing” is said to be synonymous with Christian belief. (73) But she could also have been a Jewish believer, that is, a woman who did not have to separate herself from her Jewish faith, not even when she, together with her son, confessed the risen Christ—otherwise, Luke would no longer call her a “Jewish woman.” The mother of Timothy, whose name Luke does not know, is also mentioned in 2 Tim. 1:5, along with his grandmother: the mother’s name is Eunice. Here it is also emphasized that she stands within a very strong tradition of faith, within which she raised Timothy, who has been of service to so many. Timothy’s line of descent is very closely bound up with his upbringing, for which his mother was responsible. (74)

“Not a Few of the Leading Women” of Thessalonica (17:4)

The Pauline mission had already been at work for a long time. Many people had accepted the Jewish Christian faith. Several conflicts with rulers and leadership groups had taken place. Paul and Silas’s “missionary method” was the same everywhere: They entered a city and made contact with the Jewish population, going repeatedly to the synagogue and preaching. At this point they are in Thessalonica, a city near the Roman colony in Philippi (16:11-40). As elsewhere, a conversion takes place in the context of the synagogue, but a special detail is the emphasis on a particular social group: not a few of the “leading women” join Paul and Silas. Luke and the tradition have found it necessary to accent this fact, which means in the first instance that the conversion of such groups was not a matter of course (see 13:50!). (75)

“Not a Few Greek Women . . . of High Standing” in Beroea (17:12)

Here we find a conversion story similar to that in 17:4, again concerning a group of god-fearing women of high standing. This time, men are also mentioned. Thus in Thessalonica and Beroea we for the first time encounter the report that not a few of the leading women, persons of high standing, have accepted the Jewish-Christian faith. This fact, so deliberately stated, is restricted to these two cities. The passages at 13:50; 17:4, 12 show that Luke makes a clear emphasis when the “newly-converted” include high-ranking or well-to-do people. In addition, it is striking that in Acts, in contrast to the Gospel, Luke does not use the word ploysios, “rich,” and its cognates even once. He substitutes the words, euschêmôn“of high standing” (13:50; 17:12), and prôtos, “first,” “leading” (13:50; 17:4), which indicate social rank. These two groups—those of high standing and those described as “leading”—cannot be equated, as we saw above in the discussion of 13:50. (76) While in 13:50 this leadership class in the city arose against Paul and Barnabas, now some of them adopt belief in Jesus as the Messiah. Luise Schottroff (77) emphasizes that “it is not remarkable here that women are mentioned in the first place but that upper-class men are won over at all.” Ernst Haenchen (78) correctly observes that, nevertheless, the women are unable to avert the reaction by some of the Jews of Thessalonica and Beroea who stirred up “the people.”

Damaris on the Areopagus at Athens (17:34)

Acts 17:34 contains a report of conversions: “But some of [the people] joined him and became believers, including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.” The “brethren having managed to get Paul out of Beroea (w. 14-15), some of them have accompanied him to Athens, where he argues both in the synagogue and in the marketplace (v. 17). He comes into contact with some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers who want to know more details about the “new teaching” he kainê … didachê v. 19). Verse 21 asserts that the Athenians, as well as the foreigners living in Athens, were especially interested in telling or hearing new things. Paul then stands up before the Areopagus (79) and makes a long speech. Although he addresses the crowd as “men of Athens” andres athênaioi, there are also women present, as is clear especially from v. 34. It is therefore necessary to read the whole story in light of the last verse. The fact that Damaris is mentioned alongside Dionysius the Areopagite (80) attests also to her own significance in that circle. As a result, alterations have been made in the text to deny the existence of Damaris. Codex D reads: “… including an Areopagite of high standing and others with them.” It omits Damaris and makes the Areopagite a man of high standing. Codex E does not deny Damaris’s existence, but adds that she was timia“respected.” Exegetes have also made Damaris the wife of Dionysius, beginning with John Chrysostom. (81) Even those who are mentioned after Damaris in v. 34 “may have been part of their families or circle of acquaintances.” (82) This implicitly says that this woman, Damaris, would not have been able to come to the Areopagus on her own in order to participate in the discussions there.

However there were women philosophers. When, for example, Euripides (83) says that a mother has instructed her children in philosophy and cosmology, this means that she herself must have been instructed in those subjects. Klaus Thraede concludes from his investigation of the educational opportunities of women that Greek women in particular were able to study and even to write books. He lists a great number of women who were philosophers. Important in our context is his statement that “it was known particularly of the Epicureans that they favored women as students [!] and even as teachers [!]. . . . The Stoa also considered the possibility of female membership, as demanded by its fundamental rule of equality.” (84) However, the opposition to such women must have been very strong, especially from educated men. For example, Livy writes:

What sort of practice is this, of running out into the streets and blocking the roads and speaking to other women’s husbands? . . . Our ancestors permitted no woman to conduct even personal business without a guardian to intervene in her behalf; they wished them to be under the control of fathers, brothers, husbands; we (Heaven help us!) allow them now even to interfere in public affairs, yes, and to visit the Forum, and our informal and formal sessions. (85)

Monika Eichenauer (86) has collected material on women who engaged in Philosophical study and even taught.

It is wonderful that at least this tiny bit of information is retained in Acts 17:34. It was possible for philosophically engaged women to join early Christianity, in whatever form, for, because of her independence and her association with the Areopagus, Damaris should be regarded as a philosopher. It is marvelous that we can conclude from this that such women were also able to devote themselves to the service of God’s righteousness (17:31) in the Christian community of equals.

Paul’s Third Missionary Journey (18:23—21:16)

Taking Leave of the Men, Women,
and Children in Tyre (21:5-6)

It is striking that no woman is explicitly mentioned in the account of the third missionary journey, even though Paul traveled through regions where he had previously been and visited communities founded by his mission: not even when further conversions are mentioned, as in 19:18, and in Macedonia, of all places, where so many women had come to believe in Jesus Christ and were actively working for the gospel (e.g., 16:13-15; 17:4, 12). The account of the third missionary journey is silent about them (see esp. 20:1-5). But the content of 21:5-6 again demands that we consider women always present in the preceding accounts. Here they are mentioned because the text wants to make clear that the whole community, without exception, takes part in the great farewell to Paul. The text thus shows that it takes for granted the existence of women and children in the communities, and it only needs some special reason to mention them at any given point.

The Four Prophetic Women of Caesarea (21:9)

Although Acts has spoken several times about Philip (6:5; 8:5, 26-40), his daughters, the four virgin prophets, are now mentioned for the first time, at the end of Paul’s missionary activity. The information about them is very sparse. According to the passages just cited, these four prophets must belong to those who were driven out of Jerusalem. They have therefore taken part in the proclamation of the gospel. Even they are very briefly mentioned in 21:9, we find there some important information about them, for example that they were “virgins” who were active as prophets. It is possible that they were so well known that Luke could not avoid mentioning them. (87)

Philip’s four daughters are described as parthenoi, “virgins.” It is difficult to determine whether this simply means “unmarried,” (88) or “girls of marriageable age,” (89) or whether it refers to a necessary condition for prophetic activity.(90) According to Eusebius (91) at least one or Philip’s four daughters was married. They should be regarded as women in whom the Old Testament prophecy has been fulfilled by the working of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:18). (92) Virginity is often connected with prophecy, not only outside Christianity, but within it as well. (93) Other women and men in later prophetic-ascetical movements drew inspiration from women like Anna (Luke 2:36-38) and the four daughters of Philip. (94) Origen opposed them, arguing (against biblical texts like Luke 2:36-38) that “these women prophets did not speak in public or in the assemblies, but only in private.” (95) The struggle against prophetic women reached a climax in the third century, when “what was at stake was not a doctrinal issue but a competition between radically different church structures and Christian self-understandings.” (96) This struggle had certainly begun as early as the end of the first century, (97) but there is no trace of it in Acts 21:8-9. Although in vv. 10-14 it is Agabus who prophesies, and not the women, I see the reason for this in the fact that he had come directly from Judea and could give prophetic interpretation to the situation in Jerusalem. It is not a case of competition between the two prophetic parties.

Women Mentioned During Paul’s Captivity and Trial (21:17—28:31)

No other women from the Christian community are mentioned in this section, except for a few who are recalled by Paul at 22:4. There are no more accounts of conversion in this last major section; instead, it is entirely concentrated on Paul, his defense, and his activity in Rome. However, in 28:23, 30-31, for example, we may presume the presence of women, in harmony with Rom. 16:1-16.

Recollection of Persecuted Women and Men (22:4)

In Paul’s defense speech before the Jewish people (21:40—22:21) he refers to his own past, including his persecution of men and women and taking them prisoner, as reported in 8:3 and 9:2, 14. The women appear here in Paul’s memory, alongside the men, at the time when he persecuted them because of their faith. Now he finds himself in a similar situation and seeks to defend himself.

Paul’s Sister (23:16)

Paul is imprisoned in a barracks (23:10). In this situation, we learn for the first time that he has a sister. In v. 16 it is said that “the son of Paul’s sister” comes into the barracks to tell him that an ambush is being planned for him (see w. 12-15). We learn nothing more of the sister; Instead, it is the nephew who plays the important role here. (98)

Drusilla, the Wife of Felix the Governor (24:24)

Luke first mentions Drusilla in v. 24 in the overall context of Paul’s hearing before the governor and his imprisonment in Caesarea (24:1-27). She is described as Felix’s wife, and as a Jew. She accompanies her husband into Herod’s praetorium, where Paul is held prisoner (23:35; 24:23). We know more about her through Josephus: (99) She had been married to King Azizus of Emesa, but Felix arranged for her to be divorced and married to himself, though he was not a Jew. She was his third wife. Although Acts 24:24 is brief, it gives some of the same details. The fact that Luke depicts her as present here indicates that she will also listen to Paul’s speech: (100) He discusses justice, self-control, and the coming judgment of God, but vv. 25b-26 report only the reaction of Felix. Drusilla, who was also a sister of Agrippa II and Bernice,(101) does not play any active role according to this account. (102)

Bernice, the Wife of King Agrippa II (25:13, 23; 26:30)

Two years have passed, and Paul is still a prisoner (24:27). Felix has been replaced by Festus as governor. Paul has appealed to the emperor (25:10-11); that is, according to Luke’s account he wishes to be tried by the emperor’s court in Rome. In the mean time, King Agrippa II and his wife, Bernice, (103) come to Caesarea to visit Festus. Only after they have been there several days do they learn about Paul. In 25:22, Agrippa expresses an interest in hearing Paul. The king and Bernice come on the next day and, accompanied by the military tribunes and the prominent men of the city, enter the audience hall (v. 23). During the following scene and Paul’s defense speech, only King Agrippa and Festus, the governor, are addressed, but 26:30 shows that Bernice was present the whole time. Neither Drusilla nor Bernice says a single word, nor do they decide anything. They probably exercise no influence on the events. According to 26:31, Agrippa, Bernice, and all the others are aware that the prisoner, Paul, does not deserve to die because of his Jewish-Christian missionary activity, but the process is not stopped. (104) None of the powerful people in Caesarea is won over to accept the gospel of justice, self-control, and hope for the coming judgment of God (see 24:25; 26:20, 24-28) by Paul’s final missionary attempt there (see vv. 26, 28-29).

Summary and Retrospect

Many women adopted the (Jewish) Christian faith: many working and traveling women, and other women who were learned, women who had high standing in their communities. According to Luke’s account in Acts, there was one group of women (and men) who were not brougn to faith in Christ and solidarity with the believers: the small, but powerful group of the ruling class. Paul had indeed preached the word before kings and queens (see 9:15 and chs. 24-26), but he had no “success” with them. They did not believe the word of justice and resurrection.

Acts does not give a unified picture of women, because these women did not constitute a unit. They lived in different regions and different cultures. They were interested in different ways of life and made their own decisions about whether they would accept them or not. We encounter them in different life-contexts, where they are mentioned as being in agreement with or at a distance from those who confessed Jesus Christ.

Acts must be read critically, from the point of view of a feminist theology of liberation, especially under the following aspect: like all the New Testament writings, it is couched in androcentric language, which causes women to disappear. This problem can be overcome, however, simply by reading the whole Lukan text from the perspective of those passages in which women are explicitly mentioned. Normally, women are brought to the fore in the context of conversions, but they are also mentioned frequently in connection with another significant topos in Acts: namely, in the persecutions that led to the expulsion of many from Jerusalem! These exiles settled in other places and preached the good news. Out of the attempt to destroy the power of the Spirit that was at work in everyday life emerged a new power, one that planted the seeds of a righteous life in many other places. Among the exiles who preached the word there were certainly women. This can be asserted in retrospect, in light of Acts 21:9. The four prophets, the daughters of Philip the evangelist, are the last women mentioned in the major section 13:1— 28:31. This makes it clear that the mention of them is of central importance. It makes concrete the fact that women were always present, in the work of proclamation as well. Acts 21:9 links with 8:3-4. When 8:4-8 tells of the beginning of Philip’s missionary activity in the city of Samaria, and then in Caesarea (v. 40), this can also mean that his four daughters were equally active in prophesying. Their fame was very great, and is attested in writing. In addition, women belonged to the community of the saints from the very beginning, as attested in 1:14. We may conclude from Acts 2:17-21 that some of them were prophetic missionaries. All were filled with the Holy Spirit. The promise, or prophetic hope, in Joel 3:1-5 was fulfilled: daughters and sons prophesied! The beginning of the Jewish-Christian community of equals and the end of Paul’s missionary activity are thus connected by the prophetic work of women.

Acts needs to be read critically. This is especially true with regard to women’s work of preaching. Luke does not speak expressis verbis even once of women preaching or working as missionaries, with the exception of the passages cited above about women prophets. The silence about women like Mary Magdalene or Thecla is unequivocal proof that Luke’s historical writing has suppressed them. Whether it was a question of power struggles or not, Luke’s work is incomplete. It should not be called “the Acts of the Apostles,” for it concentrates almost exclusively on Peter and Paul.

And yet the very mention of independent women, named apart from any connection with men, also shows that these women were heads of house churches. They, too, bore principal responsibility for “their” house church. Their houses were important centers of the mission, to the extent that they offered space, support, and leadership for missionary movements like Paul’s. But that was not the only source of their importance. They worked, both for the word of God and to earn their living. They were active in their trades and professions and simultaneously in the mission. We know from Paul’s letters that these and other women were equal in rank to Paul himself; they were his fellow-workers and fought equally hard for the gospel. Therefore we can adopt a critical stance toward Luke’s account, and yet we need not abandon the important information to be found there, nor should we be silent about it or neglect it, even when we criticize Luke for playing down the role of women as missionaries and church leaders. There is a significant slice of women’s history contained in the Acts of the Apostles, but it must be read in conjunction with, and augmented by, other accounts, both Pauline and apocryphal.

Notes

1. The other passages from which certain details about the life and activities of women can be gleaned have already been treated separately. These were the stories of Sapphira, Tabitha, Lydia, the prophetic slave girl, and Priscilla.
2. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza expresses this as follows: “Rather than reject the argument from silence as a valid historical argument, we must learn to read the silences of androcentric texts in such a way that they can provide ‘clues’ to the egalitarian reality of the early Christian movement” (In Memory of Her, 41).
3. The translation follows that in Luise Schottroff, “Mary Magdalene”, L. Schottroff explains the translation as follows: “At least in Mark’s view, four (not three) women are mentioned. Mary the wife (or daughter) of James [younger] . . . has to be distinguished from Mary (15:47) the mother of Joses (15:40) . . (pp. 173-74).
4. Ibid., 169.
5. E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 44—45.
6. On this, see ch. 3 on Lydia, pp. 93-98.
7. For the women prophets as “contentious, Spirit-filled fighters” in the Christian tradition, see L. and W. Schottroff, “Hanna,” 44.
8. See E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 44-48.
9. For the importance of Mary Magdalene as a disciple and apostle, see the following note.
10. For Mary Magdalene, see the Gospel of Peter 12-13, and the Gospel of Mary; for Thecla, see the Acts of Paul and Thecla; for the widow Lemma and her daughter Ammia, who joined Paul on his journeys to proclaim the gospel, see W. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha 2:387-90, the translation of an unpublished Coptic papyrus by R. Kasser. It mentions Priscilla and Aquila, and also Procla, a woman in Ephesus who was baptized by Paul, together with her household. She also presided over a house church.
11. On this, see, e.g., P. Vielhauer, Geschichte, 380-81; slightly different is R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte l:36ff.
12. J. Roloff Apostelgeschichte,27-28.
13. R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 1:78.
14. Ibid., 81.
15. BAGD s.v. katemenô; see also Hauck, menô, ktl,” TDNT 4:574-88.
16. See the examples in Billerbeck 2:594-95; also the discussion of Acts 9:37 on pp. 41-44 above.
17. Quentin Quesnell, “Supper,” 59ff., shows that Luke imagines a large group of women and men, not merely the twelve, in the “upper room” ( anagaion, Luke 22:12; huperôon, Acts 1:13) beginning at Luke 22:12.
18. See R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 1:81; J. Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 28.
19. This phrase is from G. Lüdemann, Traditions, 27.
20. Thus, e.g., J. Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 28; see also E. Haenchen, Acts, 154; R. Pesch, Apostelgeschicht 1:81; J. Comblin, Ato 1:83-84.
21. E.g., G. Lüdemann, Traditions, 27, emphasizes the redactional addition of the women mentioned in v. 14 and sees a great deal of probability in Codex D’s suggestion that they are to be thought of as the apostles’ wives, especially since it must have been known to the community “that the apostles had wives.”
22. On this, see especially L. Schottroff, “Women as Disciples,” 91-105; idem, “Mary Magdalene,” 178-79.
23. For an interpretation of the participation of women in the story of Jesus’ Passion and resurrection, see L. Schottroff, “Mary Magdalene,” 168-94.
24. R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 1:88, 90 considers the concepts of diakonia and apostolate as synonymous. For a discussion of the “twelve apostles,” see, e-g., ibid., pp. 92-97. Pesch correctly sees that the “Lukan” criterion for apostolicity means being “‘eyewitness[es]’ (Luke 1:1) to ‘everything Jesus did and taught’ (Acts 1:1).” But in this connection, Pesch does not refer to the group of women who were witnesses. As regards the concept of diakonia, L. Schottroff (“Mary Magdalene,” 176-78) has pointed out that it is historically incorrect in considering early Christian relationships, to make a distinction between “women’s and men’s offices” with regard to diakonia. Nevertheless, we need to investigate more thoroughly why the text of Acts 1:15-26 restricts itself to men precisely at the point where what is at issue is undertaking the task of proclamation. On this, see pp. 195-97 above.
25. Thus, e.g., R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 1:205. See the survey of research in E. Haenchen, Acts, 243—46.
26. Similarly E. Haenchen, Acts, 245. It appears that G. Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 157, is also thinking along these lines. He believes that v. 15 further develops the thought of v. 14, in the sense that “the community … is [increasing] so much in size that, similarly to Mark 2:2, it is no longer possible to convey the sick people who have been brought to it into the available space.”
27. On the various attempts to remove one or more whole verses in order to make sense of the text, see E. Haenchen, Acts, 243-46.
28. For the topic of “Hebrew and Hellenist Jews,” see E. Haenchen, Acts, 260-61, n. 3; M. Hengel, Jesus und Paulus, 151ff.
29. These Hellenistic Jewish-Christians certainly included many women, because in 21:9 there is further mention of four prophets, the daughters of Philip, who fled from Jerusalem because of Saul’s persecution of the Christians. We must suppose that Philip’s daughters were also in Jerusalem with him.
30. This is the first time in Acts that the word mathêtês “disciple,” is used. For this word, see pp. 33-36 above (Tabitha as disciple), and Rengstorf, mathêtês,” TDNT 4:414-61, esp. 457-59.
31. For the subject of widows generally, see G. Stahlin, “Das Bild der Witwe,” 5ff., and the review of research in H.-W. Neudorfer, Stephanuskreis, esp. 86ff.
32. E. Haenchen, Acts, 260.
33. R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 1:227; see also E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 162-68; A. Strobel, “Armenpfleger,” 271ff. The review of research in H.-W. Neudorfer, Stephanuskreis, esp. 86ff., shows that the majority of exegetes argue that it was the “Hebrews” who deliberately discriminated against the Hellenist widows. A chronological review shows that this opinion has been upheld for a long time, but was especially strong as a communis opinio in the 1940s and 1950s!
34. For this interpretation, see also R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 1:227.
35. See, e.g., A. Strobel, “Armenpfleger,” 271ff.; E. Haenchen, Acts, 261; for discussion of this point, see G. Lüdemann, Traditions, 73-79.
36. For more detail, and literature, see M. Korenhof, “Witwen,” 239-40-
37. See J. Jeremias, Jerusalem, Part Two, “Economic Status,” 126-34; Billerbeck 2:643ff.
38. A. Strobel, “Armenpfleger,” 274; see also J. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 131. In addition to this daily service, Judaism also had a weekly institution (quppah) for care of the poor, which provided the local poor with food and clothing every Friday.
39. See, e.g., E. Haenchen, Acts, esp. 268; for more on the whole subject, see R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte l:225ff. For a critique of Luke’s “separation” and “mixing” of sources, see G. Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 165ff.
40. H. W. Beyer, “diakoneô ,” TDNT 2:81-93, at 84. The next quotation is also from here.
41. Ibid., 84.
42. E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 165-66; see also her “Dienst,” 306ff. For the interpretation of diakonia, see also L. Schottroff, “Women as Disciples,” esp. 98-99; idem, “Mary Magdalene,” 176-78.
43. E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 165.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid., 166.
46. Thus J. Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 126; R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 1:267.
47. G. Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 198-99, points out that in reality it would have been impossible for the Christians to carry out a public burial in Jerusalem without endangering themselves, because of the situation of persecution. He thus sees the “devout men” as neutral persons who played a role similar to that of Joseph of Arimathea in Mark 15:42-46. On the danger involved for friends and relatives in burying the victims of persecution, see L. Schottroff, “Mary Magdalene,” esp. 172-74, with notes on sources.
48. R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 265; J. Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 129. E. Haenchen, Acts, 297, thinks that only the “leaders” of the Hellenist group were driven out of the “city of murderers.” The argument that it was precisely the Hellenists who constituted the “part of the community that was critical of the Law” should be questioned in light of Acts 7:1-53. What is criticized is not the Law, but particular actions on the part of ruling circles within Judaism.
49. See L. Schottroff, “Mary Magdalene,” 172-73. For Roman procedures against Christian women, see F. Augar, “Frau,” 5ff.
50. J. Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 130.
51. The same phenomenon may be observed in the works of J. Roloff, R. Pesch, and J. Comblin with regard to this verse.
52. Thus also E. Haenchen, Acts, 298.
53. G. Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 197.
54. Thus, e.g., R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 1:274.
55. E. Haenchen, Acts, 319-20; thus also R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 1: 302-3.
56. Cf. Matt. 5:10; 25:40b, 45; Luke 21:12.
57. On this, see R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 1:368 and 361.
58. “Erchomai + epi with the accusative of the place has, according to BAGD erchomai Iab (p. 310), the sense of “come to” (Luke 19:5; Acts 12:10, 12).
59. See T. Zahn, Apostelgeschichte, 389.
60. H. Conzelmann, Acts, 95.
61. G. Schille, Apostelgeschichte, 272, asserts that this service was onl performed by slave women in exceptional cases; E. Preuschen, Apostelgeschichte 78, thinks we should not imagine that there is a “doorkeeper,” because it is night. The assumption that this refers to a porter’s service is represented, e.g. by H. Conzelmann, Acts, 94-95; R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 1:366; E. Haenchen Acts, 385; J. Comblin, Atos, 213.
62. Exact numbers of persons are absent throughout Acts; hikanoi is an indeterminate large number of people (Acts 14:21; 19:19). For the meaning of oikoia, oikos, see pp. 109-14 and 205-208.
63. The response is similar to that in Luke 24:11, 22-23; see L. Schottroff, “Mary Magdalene,” esp. 193. That this reaction of disbelief is not restricted to women’s words is demonstrated by Acts 26:24!
64. E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 166.
65. R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 1:367.
66. On the topic of the “god-fearers,” see above, pp. 93-98.
67. For this topic, and for a discussion of the relationship and connection of the (Pauline) mission and the synagogue, see W. Stegemann, “Synagoge,” esp. 63ff.
68. One strand of the Syrian tradition, the Sahidic, and Codex C (5th c.), according to T. Zahn, Apostelgeschichte, 455 n. 45, translate the word euschêmonas as “rich;” the word is then applied to “higher rulers.” See the references there.
69. T. Zahn, Apostelgeschichte, 455 n. 45; E. Haenchen, Acts, 414; R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:47 calls them “the leading officials of the city.” These “leading men” are also mentioned in Luke 19:47; Acts 17:4; 25:2; 28:7, 17; Acts of Paul and Thecla 11:26-27.
70. J. Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 210; J. Comblin, Atos, 36.
71. J. Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 210.
72. I take this phrase from R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:68.
73. Thus R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:96; J. Comblin, Atos, 61; E. Haenchen, Acts, 478; I. H. Marshall, Acts, 259; differently T. Zahn, Apostelgeschichte 2:558, who speaks simply of a “believing Jewish woman” educated in the Jewish scriptures; so also H. Conzelmann, Acts, 125 only calls her “a Jewish mother.”
74. However, the fact that Timothy is the son of a Jewish mother and a Greek father does not necessarily mean that he stems “from a Hellenistic Judaism of a lax type,” as G. Schille writes (Apostelgeschichte, 332). The question of lineage is treated by Billerbeck 2:741, according to which the legal situation agrees with the present text: children of a marriage between a Jewish woman and a non-Jew are Jewish; that is, they follow their mother. Hence the report of Timothy’s circumcision would also correspond to Jewish law.
75. Codex D and lat make these “leading women,” mentioned independently of men, into “the wives of the leading men,” thus subordinating the women to rich men.
76. H. Conzelmann, Acts, 135, believes that the women mentioned in v. 4 are equivalent to those in v. 12; so also E. Haenchen, Acts, 507.
77. L. Schottroff, ” ‘Leaders of the Faith,'” 68.
78. E. Haenchen, Acts, 507.
79. There has been an extended discussion among scholars about whether the term “Areopagus” refers to a place or an office. According to R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:135, the definitions are: (1) local: the “narrow hill of Ares, a rocky outcropping to the northwest of the Acropolis; (2) official: “the most important official body in imperial Athens.” According to J. Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 258, this office was responsible for “education and scientific knowledge.” For the status of the discussion, see both these commentators. It is important to emphasize that this scene is not a trial or hearing before a judicial body: Paul is not being accused, but simply asked about the “new teaching.” On this, see also W. Elliger, Paulus, 173ff.
80. According to J. Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 267, the title “Areopagite” can be understood to mean that he was a “member of the council for education and scientific knowledge.”
81. See the reference in R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:141; John Chrysostom, Sacerdotus 4.7.
82. R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:141. J. Comblin, however, differs: he thinks that Damaris was an influential woman in the city.
83. See K. Thraede, “Frau,” 201.
84. Ibid., 203, with notes on literature and sources.
85. Livy 34.2.8-12. From Livy with an English Translation in 14 Volumes, translation by Evan T. Sage. LCL.
86. M. Eichenauer, Untersuchungen, esp. 135-36.
87. According to Eph. 4:11 the call of Philip’s daughters to prophesy and thus the exercise of their “office” was even more important than that of their father, the evangelist—if Eph. 4:11 describes a hierarchy.
88. Delling, “parthenos,” TDNT 5:826-37, at 827.
89. R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:213.
90. This is also a possible interpretation in the New Testament environment, especially since in religious life this designation was known as an expression for a special divine power residing in a woman. See Delling, “parthenos,” 827-28.
91. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 3.30.1.
92. On this, see also L. and W. Schottroff, “Hanna,” 44.
93. On this, see E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, esp. 294-309, 160-204.
94. On this, see ibid., 301-2 and elsewhere, and K. Thraede, “Frau ” 238, 260ff.
95. E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 301; see also K. Thraede “Frau,” 262, with reference to p. 238.
96. E. Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 302-3.
97. On this, see I. Maisch’s essay, “Isebel,” 163ff.
98. On this, see R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:48-49.
99. Josephus, Ant. 20.141ff.
100. This is clearly expressed in a Syriac translation by the addition of the words: “[Drusilla], who wished to see Paul and hear the word; he wanted to please her and. …” According to this, she took the initiative to go to Paul.
101. Thus R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:261; J. Roloff, Apostelgeschichte, 339; E. Haenchen, Acts, 660.
102. Here she has nothing at all to do with those women who accepted this message and way of life (v. 25), as reported, for example, in the Acts of Paul and Thecla; see also the Acts of Peter 33.
103. For Bernice, see Josephus, Ant. 20.145ff.
104. For the legal questions, see R. Pesch, Apostelgeschichte 2:263ff.

Return to Contents page?