Back when I was in college, I took a creative writing class, and occasionally I try to write short stories. But I’m not that good. Among other things, I naturally wind up writing characters that strongly resemble me. And, according to my children, I’m a pretty boring person.
Everyone naturally views the world around themselves from one particular perspective—their own lived experience. Human minds learn by connecting new information to existing. We cannot help but interpret the world through our personal history. It takes a conscious effort to learn to look at things from another’s perspective. And such an effort requires gathering and processing information on others’ thinking and lived experiences. Thus, historians rely on sources from others.
Luke the historian
In a previous blog post I discussed Luke’s claim that his gospel resulted from a careful investigation into the history of Jesus. Studying his writing has convinced me that Luke was a competent historian. So, he should have, like any good historian, relied on primary source material as much as possible. Particularly eyewitness accounts. And to provide the most complete picture, he should have utilized multiple sources. So, can we identify any of them?
Luke opens his gospel with two chapters unique to his work. They contain the Christmas story of angels, shepherds and baby Jesus in a manger. They also describe the birth of John the Baptist and an event during Jesus’ boyhood. This suggests that he utilized a source that the other gospel writers did not.
These first two chapters also differ from most of the rest of Luke’s book in pace and emphasis. The rest of the book recounts Jesus’ words and actions along with people’s response to him in the public sphere. The first two chapters of Luke, in contrast, largely take place within a domestic and family setting. A good portion of them record what angels and different people said about who Jesus and John the Baptist were or would be. Again, this hints at Luke using a unique source for this portion. A source that the evidence has convinced me was a woman.
A woman’s experience
As mentioned above, our values and lived experiences shape how we view the world around us and what we find significant. The lived experience of a first-century Jewish woman deeply shapes Luke 1-2. Let me elaborate.
The first two chapters of Luke focus on the birth and rearing of children, a primary focus of women in that culture. They first introduce Elizabeth, the mother-to-be of John the Baptist. Elizabeth’s inability to have children would have carried great social stigma, so John’s birth brought her great joy and relief. The text alludes to this at least five separate times, describing it as God showing mercy to her.
Then Luke introduces Mary when an angel shows up unexpectedly to inform her that she would bear the Messiah, as well as that Elizabeth is now pregnant. This prompts Mary to go to visit the older woman. Upon her arrival, Elizabeth’s baby “leaps in her womb.” Elizabeth takes this as a sign, prompting an exchange of words about the significance of Mary’s baby. This is one of just a handful of examples in the Bible of female friendship and conversation. Prompted by the kick of an unborn baby.
When my wife was pregnant I tried to be a good, supportive husband. On several occasions I placed my hand on her stomach when she felt our baby moving. But despite my efforts, my reaction usually left her disappointed. Feeling a child move inside of someone else simply doesn’t hold a candle to experiencing it within one’s own body. Only another mother would really understand. Only a mother would have given such a significance to Elizabeth’s baby kicking.
A role reversal
On many occasions conversations with my wife have strayed into “men are like this” and “women are like this.” Of course, we have different biases as to the relative virtue of men and women. We all do. Guys get together and complain about women, and I’ve heard that women do the same. We naturally view things through a bias towards our own gender. And this passage has a bias.
One example can be seen in the contrast between Zechariah’s and Mary’s reactions to their respective angelic birth announcements. Zechariah reacts skeptically, demanding some sort of sign or proof. Which he gets by being struck mute for nine months. Mary, on the other hand, doesn’t question whether it will happen, only expresses confusion over how.
Another example shows up as the women take the initiative to resolve a crisis while their men stand silently by. At John’s naming ceremony, Elizabeth breaks social protocol to ensure her son receives the correct name. Zechariah merely confirms after the fact what she said.
The final story in the set concerns a pre-teen future messiah who chose to hang out at the temple for a few more days instead of leaving for home with his parents. While both parents searched, Mary is the one who speaks up when they find him in a scolding tone that sounds just like a mother. Joseph, in contrast, remains silent the entire passage.
Now, I don’t believe that these men were actually weak or passive. The gospel of Matthew describes how Joseph demonstrated courage and determination to serve as Mary’s protector during her scandalous pregnancy, probably at a cost to his own reputation. No, the gender bias in these chapters comes from Luke’s source material, which must have come from a woman. To be more specific, from Mary.
Mary’s story
Luke’s text describes Mary as an active participant in all but two of the stories. And surely, she also attended John’s naming ceremony, though the text mentions her departure right before (where it better fits the narrative flow). She stayed with Elizabeth during the latter’s third trimester, until around the time of John’s birth. After eating at Elizabeth’s table for three months, she certainly would have stayed at least a few weeks more when Elizabeth needed her the most.
Mary personally witnessed all the events described except Zechariah’s encounter with the angel. But she spent three months with Zechariah and Elizabeth. The latter had already had six months to quiz her husband about what happened in the temple. As it involved one of her deepest desires, she would have eventually extracted every detail from him. Such as the name the angel gave their child.
Another hint as to who served as Luke’s source comes from repeated mentions of Mary’s internal state. The gospels, like most Greco-Roman biographies, mainly describe people’s words and actions, and rarely a person’s feelings or their interior state. Yet three times it mentions Mary’s. It describes Mary’s reaction to the angel’s appearance (Luke 1:29) as being deeply troubled or alarmed. Then twice (Luke 2:19,51) it describes her treasuring and pondering things that happened. Only Mary could have reported on her internal state.
A historical account
Multiple pieces of evidence support the idea that Mary (directly or indirectly) served as Luke’s source for the text in Luke 1-2. They reflect the lived experience of a 1st century Jewish woman. They exhibit a clear female gender bias. Only Mary had knowledge of all the events described, in most cases as an active participant. Only Mary could have reported on her internal state. And the text appears to have been first recorded in Mary’s native language.
Some have claimed that the gospels were made up by the apostles or other earlier church leaders to justify their positions. That claim has multiple difficulties. Among them, I can’t imagine that men could have invent birth narratives so obviously based on a woman’s perspective. Even though I took a college creative writing course, I would struggle to invent such a thing.
Others have claimed the gospels are legends that grew up over the centuries. Again, that presents many difficulties. Think about birth narratives for legendary figures like Hercules and King Arthur. They don’t center on maternal concerns such as babies kicking in the womb, anxiety over getting names right, or pre-teen boys going missing. The gospel of Luke was based on eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life. Including the woman who gave birth and nursed him. The evidence points to that. And I think that claims otherwise are motivated by something else. I have thoughts about that, too. This passage even contains hints of why. But this post is already fairly long, so that discussion will have to wait until the second part.
Leave a Reply