Various Views Of Luke 1&2
[another scripture essay by textman]

- CONTENTS -
INTRODUCTION:
1. On Outlining the Gospel
2. The Logos-Code & Macro-Demarcation

PART ONE: INTERPRETING THE PROLOGUE
3. Fitzmyer on the Prologue
4. On Theophilus
5. Ellis on the Prologue
6. Luke's Two-Fold Method
7. The Prologue Doublets

PART TWO: TWO VIEWS OF LUKE 1-2
8. Luke's Infancy Narratives
9. Semiotics & the Infancy Narratives
10. Three Outlines Analyzed
11. Structure of the Infancy Narratives
12. Social-Science Hermeneutics
13. Commentary on the Infancy Narratives

PART THREE: SCHOLARSHIP FROM THE FLIP-SIDE
14. Feminist Hermeneutics
15. Feminist Commentary on Lk 1-2
16. Protestant Exegesis of Mary
17. Catholic Eisegesis of Mary
18. Reviewing the Magnificat
19. Final Criticisms

CONCLUSION & WORKS CITED

INTRODUCTION:.

   Modern scripture studies often require a synthetic approach to the dozens of disparate methods of interpretation that are available to students of the Word. Such variety occurs because hermeneutics is, at the same time, the science of interpretation, and the art of understanding. In modern biblical studies there are four major hermeneutic paradigms, of which the historical-critical approaches remain dominant. The other supplementary paradigms are the existential, social-sciences, and literary approaches. While there is a certain coherence and uniformity to the historical methods, the other paradigms show considerable variations in methodology and orientation; and not all of these are consistent with historical criticism (eg. the fundamentalist and marxist approaches). However, all of the various methods - whether contradictory or not - contribute to a greater understanding of the world behind the text, the world within the text, and/or the world in front of the text. Often these many interpretations and understandings will clash dramatically, even to the point of being mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, a synthetic or wholistic approach to this modern interpretive diversity is not only possible, but very beneficial.

   This essay begins with a general discussion of what is, perhaps, the most basic aspect of the complicated exegetical method of semiotics (literary analysis); namely, the vital matter of 'cutting the text'. Then we will look into some aspects of Luke's historical Prologue. This brief investigation will be followed by a general analysis and commentary of various features of Luke's Infancy Narratives from three distinct points of view: semiotics, social-science, and feminist interpretation. But now, back to the basics ...

1. On Outlining the Gospel.

   Biblical outlines are important tools for both students and scholars because they function as roadmaps that provide the reader with the general layout of the literary terrain . Given the wide variety of scholarly outlines and schematic narrative-thematic breakdowns of the first chapters of Luke's gospel, all of which are allegedly based upon the same literary qualities of the same text, the careful student of Luke has every motivation to be suspicious of any and all such outlines. While this presents no problems regarding the Prologue (an obvious unit), it does leave us with a mystery: namely, 'Where does the introduction to Luke's story of Jesus end?' Another way to ask this question is: 'Where does the main narrative begin?' If we take our starting point from the text of Luke-Acts, we note that he begins both volumes with the mention of 'the word'. In a very real and significant sense, Luke obliquely entitles his two-part opus as the 'first word' (implied), and the 'second word' (explicit). Following this procedure further, we note that the author may be inclined to 'flag' the start of major subsections of the narrative by further repetition of the same term in the context of an opening verse (eg. Lk 5:1).

   Another cue that can help to isolate or identify any given pericope, is Luke's use of the redactional stitch 'kai' to connect discrete units. This 'kai' is tricky however, and more than one scholar has inadvertently confused two units, judging them to be one pericope because of the deceptive 'and'. Another clue to aid in demarcation will be a further extension of the author's compositional procedure. Now Luke was a skillful editor who, for the most part, organized his narrative units, both large and small, in pairs. Accordingly, we may suppose that the introduction is itself composed of two major sections, each containing groups of inter-related pericopae. With these analytical tools in hand, we can turn to the text and trace out the narrative flow. While the Prologue (1:1-4) introduces the two-part volume Lk-Acts, the section that follows (ie. Lk 1:5-4:44) is the real introduction to Luke's gospel, in that it "prepares the reader or hearer in a variety of ways for the narrative that follows" (Fear 154). In essence, the two parts of the first four chapters (Infaney Narratives l:5-2:4O; Preparation Narratives 2:41-4:44) work together to introduce the coming story that runs in a block (in two parts) from 5:1 to the end of Acts.

   Of course, the Prologue and the gospel introduction work together: literary analysis indicates that the 'from the beginning' of Lk 1:3 "forges a direct link between the proemium and the immediately following narrative" (Fear 93). This means that the good news begins with the announcement of John's birth. In the same way, the 'logoV' of v.2 "may also point towards the beginning of the narrative proper in 5,1" (Fear 95). That is, the repetition of the term in 5:1 is particularly significant in that it also signals the beginning of the main historical-story, such that it functions as a marker (or red flag) to the reader, warning him or her to set off what follows from the preceding introductory narrative. It is of no small significance, then, that the narrative core of Luke-Acts opens with a reference to 'the word of God' (in 5:1) and "closes with a description of Paul's preaching in terms of the two main aspects of the content of this word" (Fear 99).

   While Fearghail views the first four chapters of the gospel as the introduction to the main body of the story (from 5:l to the end of Acts), Fitzmyer presents a rather different breakdown of these opening chapters. First comes the Prologue, which he entitles "A Reliable Account Addressed to Theophilus". Then comes Part One: the Infancy Narrative (1:5-2:52); followed by Part Two: the Preparation for the Public Ministry of Jesus (3:1-4:13); then by Part Three: the Galilean Ministry of Jesus (4:14-9:50); and so on. This scheme seems to be more in harmony with the narrative contours of the text than Fearghail's proposal, and calls for only a minor break between 4:44 and 5:1.

   But, in fact, this is a major break point; just as the one at 9:50-51 is a very minor one (ie. kai). Fitzmyer's scheme also suggests that the introductory narrative unit ends with the last verse of chapter two; and the beginning of the body (thus at 3:1) is strengthened by the observation that once "chap. 3 is begun, Luke's account is evidently influenced by the Synoptic tradition ..." (Fitz 134f). It seems clear, then, that the introduction breaks off between chapters two and three, and the solemn beginning at 3:1-2 is a formal and impressive way to start a major section. However, the final judgment must be based not on the fact that chapter three came first on the road of composition, nor that this is the supposed start of Q, but rather on how the whole of Luke-Acts was ultimately designed as a coherent two-part literary unit. On the micro-level 3:1does indeed look very good as the start of the main body, but on the macro-level it does not readily stand out as expected.

2. The Logos-Code & Macro-Demarcation

   Using the Greek term 'logoV' (logos) as a code to determine the macro-structure of Luke-Acts may well appear problematic; chiefly because the "solemn beginning of the ministry in 3:1-2 has proved an almost insurmountable obstacle ..." (Brown 240). Indeed, most scholars do recognize a major break here, and 2:41 looks a poor beginning by comparison. But this is only because 3:1 was once the original opening of the first draft of the gospel-history (ie. before 1:1-2:52 were composed), and Luke simply did not care to change it. In any case, "the fact that both Mark and John open the Gospel story with the events surrounding the baptism ..." actually supports 2:41 as the author's final intended beginning of the second introductory section prior to the gospel body itself. We must bear in mind two important details: (1) The Infancy Narratives conclude better at 2:40 than at 2:52. (2) Luke's desire for a more complete account will impel him to begin the preparation section at a point in time preceding the starting point of the other three gospels. Moreover, the Luke-John parallels do not indicate a common source (as Brown suggests), but rather indicate the same redactional policy that Luke uses with Matthew [ie. he uses isolated details in a highly original and haphazard manner that does not require "much direct copying of one evangelist by the other" (Bro 238)].

   One final consideration in favor of our logos-code proposal is the observation that the varied outlines of the commentators are themselves problematic at many points. For example, 9:51 is supposedly the start of a major unit, yet it bears far more resemblance to 2:41 than it does to 3:1-2. Moreover, 9:51 is a very weak beginning compared to the conclusion and restart found at 4:44-5:1. Why then should scholars prefer a weak beginning over a strong one in constructing their outlines? Note that Fitzmyer's outline confuses macro and micro-levels of organization. The break at 5:1 is clearly a major point in the gospel, but not in Fitzmyer's outline (compare it with 9:50-51). Note also that Ellis does not bother with the relative appropriateness or weight of the ambiguous introductory cues, but organizes his outline around the rather artificial scheme of 'groups of six units = one section'. Yet Ellis' scheme is no more invalid than the others. When we consider that Luke's favorite redactional stitch is 'kai', many of the starting verses of minor sections tend to slide into the back end of the preceding pericope. For example, are verses 4:14-15 the start of the Nazareth Visit pericope (as Fitzmyer maintains), or the conclusion of the Temptation story?

   All this variety and confusion clearly suggests that the normal and obvious markers are not always available or even reliable. What is needed is a simple code, provided by the author, that supersedes all other indicators, and functions on the macro-level to bring out the basic structure of the whole two-part work. The logos-code supports the canonical division (but not the separation) of Luke-Acts, and further highlights the two-fold structure of the introduction. This two-fold design of the macro-levels also filters down to the micro-level (cf. the infancy narratives where twosomes are found at both the macro and micro-levels). In sum, a semiotic/literary analysis at the macro-level reveals that even the best outlines of the commentators are untenable in various ways. It also supports the logos-code indicator scheme, insofar as the latter assumes and respects the two-tone harmony of the one literary unit called Luke-Acts. [Most outlines of Luke's gospel simply ignore Acts as having no bearing on how the gospel-half of Luke-Acts is structured; always a fatal error!]

   The narrative structure of the historical treatise commonly called Luke-Acts (which is a presentation of two interconnected literary-historical works of the classical genre called 'ancient lives'), can thus be outlined according to Luke's two-fold design, with a little help from the logos-code, as follows:

INTRO TO TWO LIVES: Historian's Prologue (Lk 1:1-4)

INTRO TO LIFE OF JESUS:
Overture -> The Infancy Narratives (1:5-2:40)
Preliminaries -> The Preparation Narratives (2:41-4:44)

THE LIVES OF JESUS & PAUL:
Gospel -> The Story of Jesus (5:1-24:53)
Acts    -> The Story of Peter & Paul (1:1-28:31)

PART ONE: INTERPRETING THE PROLOGUE

 (1) Since many attempted to compile a narrative about the events having been fulfilled among us, (2) just as delivered to us the ones who from the beginning having become eyewitnesses and servants of the word [logou], (3) it seemed good to me also having investigated from the beginning everything carefully, to write to you in an orderly way, most noble Theophilus, (4) that you may know the certainty of the words [logwn] about which you were taught. -- The Gospel of Luke 1:1-4 (New Greek-English InterLinear)

   In the original Greek, the first four verses of Luke's gospel are combined into one long compound sentence. This is standard procedure in ancient Greek writings where all the component clauses relate to each other. Rhetorical and literary analysis provides ample evidence for the idea that Luke's Greek is generally superior to that of the other New Testament authors. Thus it is common knowledge that the Greek of Mark's gospel is rough and barbaric in comparison with Luke's polished style. This is as obvious today as it was in the second century; and this literary fact was doubtless one of the factors that motivated 'Luke' to compose his two-part book; which only later became known as the two separate canonical books called 'The Gospel According to Luke' and 'Acts of Apostles'. Accordingly, this first sentence introduces not just the gospel section, but the whole work; an insight that is essential to a proper interpretation of the Prologue.

   This portion of our study will focus on a relatively straight-forward passage that nevertheless can be (and has been) understood in various ways. Lk 1:1-4 is the opening declaration of Luke's Gospel, and also the author's introduction to the whole of Luke-Acts, which only recently (ie. since Cadbury in 1925) has been widely recognized as a single literary unit. This single, but complex, compound sentence is defined by scholars as a preface or prologue that was typical of ancient historians. One of the functions of such a preface is to provide the reasons for the existence of the historical account that follows. In giving these, the anonymous author distinguishes his two-part work from other early Christian literature in general. On the other hand, from the "manner in which Luke relates himself to the general craft of historical writing, it is evident that he considers his work to fall into that category" (Dank 25).

   But ancient history is not at all the same as modern historical science; rather, it is 'history with a purpose'. Edification, entertainment and education are but the most basic goals intended by the best ancient historians, and 'Luke' likewise shares this understanding of the substance and value of historical documents. However, Luke-Acts is unique in achieving something more than all of these; because it is a fusion of Gospel and History, it is also proclamation and revelation. Moreover, all of this must somehow be squeezed into the only term he uses here to describe it; namely, the 'word' or 'words' referring to the traditions received, and also to this new untitled anonymous first and 'second word' that the author 'writes to you'.

   Luke, then, has 'done his homework' such that his investigation and presentation has the historical virtues of being systematic, complete, accurate, and thorough (ie. 'from the beginning'). If the gospel prologue appears to be interested in 'just the facts', a look at the Acts prologue will reveal what hides behind the polished historian: "The first word [logon] I made about everything, O Theophilus, which began Jesus both to do and to teach, until the day having given orders to the apostles through the Holy Spirit whom he chose, he was taken up." (Acts 1:1-2 / NGEI) In other words, Luke's gospel-proclamation about Jesus is 'the first word'. Yet the gospel's prologue clearly covers both 'words' in that the events of both are the subject of his; orderly two-part account. In any case, his narrative is not that of the secular Hellenistic historian, but rather (apart from these three prologues) Luke's normal literary mode is that of biblical history (eg. LXX stories and sagas).

   A more literary perspective will note, first of all, that this preface is a "model of precisely crafted prose that would make a favorable impression on Greco-Romans across a broad cultural front" (Dank 23). Its form is that of a public decree, with its opening 'inasmuch as', and its resolution ('it seemed good to me'). The intended audience of public auditors will gather from this that the forthcoming narrative-speech concerns some honored VIP who is involved with certain 'events among us'. These words, although vague, are deliberately general in scope, and thus wide enough to encompass the three ages of salvation history: Israel (Lk 1:5f), Jesus (Lk 3:2lf), and Church (Ac 2:2f). In the same way, the author's mention of 'many compilations' is sufficiently genera1 to encompass a broad range of early Christian writings, including those within and without the canon. Rhetorical criticism suggests that we should not interpret the word 'many' to mean just two (ie. Mk & Q), as that would constitute a considerable exaggeration on the part of the author. More likely the solemn tone and generality of the diction are both necessary and accurate, both as to the subject and the sources.

3. Fitzmyer on the Prologue.

   A more historical-critical orientation will certainly agree that the formal Lucan prologue also "betrays the author's intention of relating his work consciously to contemporary literature of the Greco-Roman world" (Fitz 287). Fitzmyer's commentary quickly calls attention to two other passages which resemble it in style, though not in perfection: Lk 3:1-2 and Acts 1:1-2. Comparison reveals that not only do all three texts share prologue-like qualities, but that they are also pure Lucan compositions, free of all source materials. The gospel's prologue has a balanced form: "... the protasis (vv. 1-2) and the apodosis (vv. 3-4) contain three parallel phrases" (Fitz 288). However, these are not easily preserved in the non-Greek translations. There are also three sets of contrasts: (1) many / I too. (2) compile a narrative / write in an orderly way. (3) just as ... / that you ... . Not only the structure, but also the vocabulary is characteristic of the Hellenistic literary prologues, (cf. especially 'Against Apion'; a two-volume treatise by Josephus which probably gave Luke the basic model for his orderly account).

   However, the 'events' Luke refers to here are not mere 'historical facts', but rather the happenings of salvation history; including those prior to the public ministry of Jesus, and also those following (ie. the 'word of the Lord' as it moves to Rome). The vital theme of promise and fulfillment that structures and unifies the two-volume work is used here to qualify and define those particular events which are Luke's subject matter. The happy response to the promises of sacred scripture (ie. the LXX) is here implied.

   Fitzmyer notes that verse two is not easily translated, and offers a version quite different from the NGEI: "... just as the original eyewitnesses and ministers of the word passed them on to us" (Fitz 287). This version has the virtue of making it clear that this is a statement about the reliability of the earlier accounts. The problem with this version - besides losing much that is retained in the NGEI - is that it is unclear whether Luke is referring here to one or two groups (or generations), more or less distinct, "who shaped the early tradition" (Fitz 294). K.Stendahl (1954) thinks that the order of the nouns, and the use of 'kai' supports this understanding. Fitzmyer, however, prefers to think that the verse refers to one group only (the Apostles), and yet he still manages to notice that "Luke is distancing himself from the ministry of Jesus by two layers of tradition (Fitz 294). The 'to us' in this verse allows Luke to distinguish "his own generation of Christians from the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (Fitz 296). Fitzmyer rests easy with the contradiction herein by being unaware that 'eyewitnesses and ministers' obviously refers to the two generations preceding Luke (ie. the apostles followed by the evangelists followed by Luke in the early second century).

   The 'us' of v.1 is more inclusive than that of v.2, and includes the many writers, eyewitnesses, and ministers of the past up to and including Luke's present generation. The sense of 'us' in v.2 is  restricted to the third-generation Christians; and although Fitzmyer dis1ikes such a restriction, this is nevertheless the author's intended meaning. It is easy to see why Fitzmyer dislikes this interpretation, which does not make a lot of sense if Luke-Acts was written c.80-85 (ie. during the *second* Christian generation, from c.60 to c.90CE). However, if Luke-Acts was written in the third-generation (90-190CE) - as the text clearly suggests - then both the 'many' and the 'us' can be fully appreciated. [Note: The period thus implied spans over a century; from before Jesus' birth (c.7BCE) up to the composition of Luke-Acts (c.115CE).]

   The phrase 'from the beginning' simply means the start of the apostolic traditions, and has the same sense as in v.2. The phrase "to put them systematically in writing for you" implies a chronological arrangement, but the emphasis is on a complete presentation of the material. For Fitzmyer, the meaning of 'logon' in v.4 is either simply as a synonym for 'talk' or 'report', or with the added meaning of instruction, teaching, and/or message. Given the context of the term in v.4, Fitzmyer rightly prefers the latter understanding. Of course, the term 'logos' and its variants can have a variety of different meanings, depending on usage and context. In this complex and precise compound sentence it is normally taken with the dominant connotation of 'story'; ie. in reference to the stories and historical narratives about the life of Jesus and his followers. But we should never forget that even in Luke-Acts 'logos' will often have subtle Johannine shades of meaning as well.

   When we bear in mind that 'reading between the lines' means that the bulk of any text is left unsaid (and must be supplied by the astute reader), then it becomes apparent that the particular meaning of any given word can, in certain cases, be extremely important. Whether this meaning is intended by the author, or forced in by the reader, is sometimes a distinction that is difficult to make with any degree of certainty. For example, Fitzmyer notes that the phrase 'have undertaken/attempted' sometimes has a neutral sense, but is also "sometimes used with a pejorative nuance, 'they attempted (but did not really succeed)'" (Fitz 291). Origen suggests that Luke intends the latter in light of his high historical qualifications, which are in sharp contrast with the 'many' who wrote (incompletely) before him. This insight into Luke's view of the written traditions (chiefly Paul and the prior three gospels) goes a long way in explaining not only the curious structure of Luke-Acts, but also the odd manner of his use and treatment of these sources (which is very puzzling to many modern biblical scholars; hence Fitzmyer foolishly claims that these sources are Mk, Q, and L).

4. On Theophilus.

   Luke renders no apology for his efforts, nor does he explicitly judge his sources inadequate. Rather, the author simply offers - in the interest of truth - a more full and 'orderly' account. Danker suggests that the various accounts of the one story (or 'word') caused some confusion for Theophilus. Thus Luke's more complete and systematic presentation promises to banish such problems by providing certainty about the teachings he received. While a literary analysis might conclude that Luke-Acts is a public proclamation addressed to a symbolic generic-individual (significantly named Theophilus), a more literal (ie. simplistic) approach (eg. fundamentalist or historical-critical) will conclude that the 'most excellent Theophilus' was a powerful Roman official and/or noble patron who just happened to have this particular Greek name.

   While this interpretation is not historically impossible, the carefully crafted nature of the preface, combined with the very non-incidental meaning of the name Theophilus=god-lover) strongly suggests that this is not a real individual Luke is writing to. Rather it is a clever literary device (also used elsewhere in Lk-Acts; eg. Joe Justice) that allows the author an instant intimacy with the reader by addressing 'him' directly on a friendly first-name basis.

   As to the phrase "most execllent Theophilus", this, Fitzmyer is certain, refers to a real person: there is, apparently, "no reason to interpret the name symbolically, as if it were a designation for the Christian reader of Luke's writings, someone 'beloved of God' or 'loving God'" (Fitz 300). Of course, Fitzmyer does not know if this noble knight was a Christian or not, but he may have been a respected neophyte. This view suggests that the meaning of this man's name is purely coincidental, and therefore could just as easily have been something else, if his parents had simply bestowed another name. But the sheer complexity and deliberateness of all aspects of the prologue (and the work in general) strongly suggests that such a historical understanding of 'Theophilus' is highly untenable, and goes against our view that Luke is not a modern historian.

   After all, it is plain to see that Luke did not write his two-part opus simply for the benefit of any one man. Fitzmyer apparently recognizes the difficulty of his absurd opinion, for he promptly straddles the fence: "... Theophilus stands for the Christian readers of Luke's own day and thereafter" (Fitz 300). He somehow draws this conclusion from the idea that Luke dedicated both volumes to Theophilus, but logic and consistency demands that he choose one or the other interpretation, since they cannot both be historically correct.

5. Ellis on the Prologue.

   Now practitioners of the historical-critical method like to define things simply and clearly, such that the interpretation of words and phrases tends to correspond to their virtual or overt meanings or references. The virtual meanings (of words) are those listed in dictionaries; but the actual meaning of the word used in any text is ultimately determined by the context (ie. phrase, sentence, pericope, etc). Thus a historical reading of the prologue might conclude that "Luke introduces this Gospel as the narration of the 'Word of God' delivered to him by the eyewitnesses" (Ellis 38). However, this simple statement is unfortunately rife with errors:

 (1) 'Luke' refers to the companion of Paul, who was a first-generation Christian, in contrast with the anonymous author of Luke-Acts, who was a third-generation Christian (who obviously did not meet Paul). The traditions of the churches clearly favor Ellis' option, while the Prologue itself, if understood correctly, denies this pious (but ignorant) view.

 (2) Ellis' reference to 'this Gospel' also betrays the influence of tradition insofar as the early Greek churches soon forgot that Luke-Acts was a single unit. Having thus forgotten the obvious, the 'two scrolls' were able to be separated and finally allotted their current awkward slots in the NT canon. Ellis thus seems to forget that the Prologue introduces not just the gospel, but the whole of Lk-Acts.

 (3) Luke does not refer to his work as either 'gospel' or 'narrative'; in the Prologue he simply refers to it as an orderly (written) account, by which he means two good 'ancient lives' focusing on the particular set of events revolving around these two significant men (ie. Jesus and Paul).

 (4) Again, Luke does not refer to his double-book as 'the word of God'; although the text could be forced to imply this. Ellis' understanding of this phrase is interesting: he notes that the "teaching of Paul is given and received as nothing less than the word of God (1Th. 2:13)" (Ell 37). Thus the 'word of God', as used in the prologue, means 'teaching', as in 1Thes. [This could be taken to imply that Luke was aware of the Thessalonian letters; but Ellis does not list any of Paul's epistles as a part of Luke's sources.]

 (5) The story of Jesus was not delivered to Luke by the eyewitnesses (if Luke was indeed a companion of Paul, then he was himself an eyewitness; at least in reference to Acts), but rather the traditions were handed down through two generations to the third. Thus the eyewitnesses are the first Christian generation, and the ministers or servants of the word (ie. evangelists) are the second.

6. Luke's Two-Fold Method.

  Ellis observes that it may be significant that there is no mention of Paul in the prologue; but given the author's no-name policy, he could easily refer to Paul indirectly through his use of 'servants' (ie. Paul routinely identifies himself as a servant of God/ Jesus/ Lord). [This interpretation would also mean that the use of 'ministers' in place of 'servants' is an extremely bad translation.] Thus we see the importance of Luke's two-fold method. The two-part work as a whole is linked directly to the two tradition-sources whereby the eyewitnesses are the original apostles and disciples, and the servants are Paul and the evangelists. Fitzmyer notices that Luke 'writes as a third-generation Christian'; a feature quite distinct and unlike the other three earlier gospels, and one that is rarely considered by commentators. That is to say, the full meaning and consequences of this item tend to be suppressed, if not entirely ignored, by scholars who assume a first-century point of origin for Luke-Acts.

   All of this also means that the 'many narratives' that the author carefully investigated cannot be restricted to only Mark and Q, but must include Matthew, John, some (all?) of Paul's epistles, and probably a few other sundry documents as well (both canonical and non-canonical). Luke was nothing if not thorough, and his explicit claim to just this virtue surely puts the onus on the Q-advocates to explain how it is that 'many' really means 'not many at all'. This word 'many' is a good example of how a historical-critical hermeneutics can be in direct conflict with the semiotic or literary approach (which assumes that 'many' does actually mean 'many').

   Given the basic two-part structure of the single literary unit Luke-Acts, and the numerous parallels, doublets, repetitions, and other sundry twosomes both apparent and obscure, it seems proper to conclude that 'Lukan dualisms' in general constitute the main literary mechanism which drives the narrative along, and also provides the basic structure(s) of both the macro-texts and the micro-texts. Furthermore, this two-fold narrative mode easily descends right down to the level of words and simple phrases, such that often one finds significant words having two or more equally valid meanings at the same time. The Prologue contains a few good examples of how these 'terminological doublets' function on various levels of meaning (eg. servants, logos, etc).

7. The Prologue Doublets.

   In ancient Israel 'the word of the Lord/God' was understood to refer to the divine oracles and prophetic messages, and/or the scriptures. This understanding of 'word' as 'divine message/story' carries over into the NT with Mark and Paul. For example: "With many such parables, he spoke the word to them ..." (Mk 4:33). But after the Gospel of John, Christians could no longer view 'the word' so simply: 'the word' = 'the Word', and means both scripture and/or salvific teaching, and the very person or being of the Savior (ie. the Eternal Logos). Thus Jesus not only speaks the word of God, but he is himself the Word of God (both in his actions and in his being).

   If the use of 'logos' with the expanded meaning is inadmissible for v.4, and doubtful for v.2, it may help to see how Luke uses the term elsewhere in Luke-Acts. Normally, it only has the traditional meaning of 'story', but not always: "... and the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God ... " (Lk 5:1b). Here it is apparent that both meanings can emerge, and very probably both are intended by the author.  If we now turn back to the prologue, armed with this insight, and do a semiotic reading we discover that there are only two doublets or repetitions in the prologue:

v.2 ... from the beginning ... the word.

v.3 ... from the beginning ...

v.4 ... the words ...

   Now it is a curious thing that the commentators should see no significance whatsoever in this odd two-fold doublet. It is curious because these particular repetitions are very suspicious indeed. Note the following items: (1) Luke's fondness for repetitions, doublets, dual-meanings, and structures. (2) The well-designed nature and style of the prologue (ie. a pure Lucan composition using no sources). (3) The probability that Luke knew, or at least knew of, John's Gospel. Taken together, these three items suggest that Luke's two-fold doubling of these Johannine phrases is anything but incidental or without significance.

   After all, since the author could easily have used other terms in verses three and four, and thus simply avoided all emphasis by repetition, we are impelled conclude that these awkward repetitions are deliberate, with a view to saying, or at least implying, something. This 'something' can only be a reflection of, or pointer to, the dramatic prologue of John's Gospel; which is anything but a good historical preface. Or it may well be the case that this odd dual-doublet of Luke's was intended as a subtle sign to literate Christians that John's Gospel is to be counted among those other compilations that Luke investigated and found wanting in completeness.

   Now, historical criticism sees only the traditional one level of meaning in Luke's flexible usage of 'logos' (here in the prologue). This is not entirely because of the context (as the prologue allows room for double meanings), but rather because most scholars simply assume (incorrectly) that Luke-Acts was written prior to John's Gospel. The "conclusion" that the three synoptics were all written at practically the same moment in history (the multiple emergence theory) is very cute and convenient for biblical theologians, but, in fact, history is rarely so neat and tidy. Indeed, if we discount the irrational and unhistorical intervention of supernatural agencies in the process of canonical formation, it becomes quite apparent that the double-emergence (of Matthew and Luke), required by the Q-hypothesis, is extremely improbable (ie. history is fundamentally sequential, even church history).

   The multi-source theory postulates that Luke made use of both Mark and Matthew. Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that Luke also used bits from John's Gospel; and if the fourth Gospel in time is indeed Luke - as we claim the evidence suggests - then we can gain a whole new perspective on the prologue by simply bearing this in mind. If our reasoning here is at all tenable, then it becomes clear that Luke's prologue constitutes solid evidence for a second-century dating of Luke-Acts. A date of about 115CE for initial publication would be in harmony with both the external and textual evidence, and is both historically and sociologically feasible; and would also take all the wind out of the sails of the Q-advocates.

PART TWO: TWO VIEWS OF LUKE 1- 2

8. Luke's Infancy Narratives.

   Most scholars tend to view these nativity stories in isolation from the rest of Luke-Acts because the events and characters are rarely - if at all - referred to later on in the gospel. But a semiotic analysis of Luke-Acts shows that this cameo-method is a literary device that appears often throughout Luke-Acts (ie. characters and events appear once and gone). This criterion thus does not justify the relative isolating constraints placed upon the infancy narratives.

   Moreover, the use of speeches in these first chapters foreshadows the importance of discourse in the rest of Luke-Acts where speeches are often the vital core of the narrative unit (as they are with John's Gospel). Also, the theme of 'proof from prophesy' that is introduced and highlighted in Luke 1-2 will prove to be a major theological component that dominates and unifies the whole of Luke-Acts. Thus the unity and coherence of chapters 1-2 (with the rest of Luke-Acts) functions on both the macro and micro-levels (eg. themes and words).

   The nativity stories then, should not be seen as an independent and isolated literary unit; even though they were written, composed, and compiled after the rest of Luke-Acts (perhaps just prior to publication). Indeed, "since there are so many marks of continuity in vocabulary, style, structure, and thematic accent ...", it is all but impossible to see these pericopae as coming from independent sources that Luke slightly reworked and tossed on top of the finished 'story-history' as an afterthought (Keck 126).

  On the contrary, the evidence (eg. word lists) suggests that these infancy narratives are prime examples of Lucan composition. Those aspects of Luke-Acts that are unique to Luke's style and diction certainly run all the way through both volumes from beginning to end; but what makes the first two chapters of Luke's Gospel so peculiar in this regard is that they have a higher frequency of these 'Lukanisms' than can be found elsewhere (a detail that also points to composition rather than compilation of sources).

9. Semiotics & The Infancy Narratives.

   Semiotics is a methodological and diagnostic tool that discovers not what the ultimate meaning of the text is (eg. its theological implications), but rather how the text says what it says (ie. how the story is told). It has two main methods of approaching the text; through the larger perspective of narrative analysis that views the parts in relation to the whole, and through the narrower lens of discursive analysis which focuses on the interrelations of these parts. Thus narrative analysis finds and outlines the operations of the story.

   There are three parts to any story or discourse (a discourse is seen as a simplified story): Begin-state, Transformation, and End-state. The second stage constitutes the changes involved in getting from part one to part three. This is a movement that has four basic elements: Manipulation, Competence, Performance, and Sanction. Discursive analysis, on the other hand, looks for the relationships between the semantic values of the words used. This method is concerned with the organization of the language of the text into its main themes and oppositions, and its fundamental coherence (ie. what ideas hold the literary unit together?).

   Although semiotics is a method of studying scripture that is fruitful when pursued according to its own exclusive principles, it actually works best in conjunction with other techniques; especially the 'base-method' of historical-criticism (which itself combines various hermeneutical methodologies: literary analysis, social-science commentary, etc). Perhaps the most potent combination of techniques occurs with semiotics and textual-criticism as the main ingredients. Used together in a brief, but careful, analysis of the first two chapters of Luke-Acts, they can reveal the importance that even a single word can have; not only on scripture, but also on church tradition in general.

.
10. Three Outlines Analyzed.

   With Bible in hand, the first order of business for the semiotic method is to delimit (or cut) the passage to be analyzed, and to properly partition its various discreet periscopae and other, larger and smaller, literary units. As regards the introductory section of Luke's Gospel, it is useful to note that there is considerable variation among the commentators as to the extent of the introduction, its precise dimensions, and the division and naming of its various sections. Thus Fearghail stresses the unity of Lk 1:5-4:44 in that this text "functions as a preliminary narrative unit in the gospel" (Fear 85). This conclusion is based on a careful literary analysis of the text; but of the three commentators whose breakdowns we shall examine, only one (Nolland) begins a major section with 5:1 in partial accord with Fearghail's proposal. A simplified outline of the major sections of Luke's introductory chapters will show the following variations in text-cutting and unit-labeling:

Nolland:
1:5-2:52   The Infancy Prologue
3:1-4:13   Preparation For The Ministry Of Jesus
4:14-44    Preaching In The Synagogue Of The Jews
5:1-6:16   Making A Response To Jesus

Ellis:
1:5-2:40    The Dawn Of The Messianic Age
2:41-4:30   The Inauguration Of The Messiah's Mission
4:31-6:11   Acts Of Messiah: The Nature Of His Authority

Fitzmyer:
1:5-2:52    Part One: The Infancy Narrative
                   A. Events Before The Births            (1:5-56)
                   B. Births And Youth                    (1:57-2:52)
3:1-4:13    Part Two: The Preparation For The Public Ministry
4:14-9:50   Part Three: The Galilean Ministry Of Jesus
                   A. Beginning The Ministry              (4:14-5:16)
                   B. Controversies With Pharisees        (5:17-6:11)

   So we have here three scholars dealing with the same section of Luke's Gospel, yet one finds three discrete units therein, while another finds four, and the third finds five! Such variation at this macro-level of narrative structure implies considerable variation at the level of discrete pericopae (or micro-texts); but in fact, there is more agreement at the micro-level than the above outlines suggest. For example, all three identify 5:1-11 as a single periscope, although each gives it a unique title.  From these outlines we can conclude that the introductory narratives certainly begin at 1:5; but end where? Apparently, the infancy narratives end at either 2:40 or 2:52; while the preparation narratives end at 4:13 or 4:30 or 4:44.

   The first question raised is whether the 'Finding in the Temple' episode belongs at the tail end of the infancy narratives, or at the very start of the preparation narratives. A semiotic approach to this problem will notice that the passage is an independent, but transitional, pericope; a short story that marks a turning point in Jesus' life (namely that moment in a Jewish boy's life when he publicly assumes the status and obligations of manhood, etc). We should also bear in mind that Luke-Acts is a highly structured presentation with various layers of coherence which make it difficult to simply follow the most obvious textual cues as a guide to determining the beginnings and endings of coherent groups of pericopae. Thus while 3:1-2 is a very impressive opening - it was the start of Luke's early draft - it gives the impression that the 'Temple Finding' pericope belongs with the infancy narratives, when, in fact, these self-contained pericopae leave no room for any appendix.

   The fact that all three scholars agree on the limits (start/end) of this 'Temple Finding' passage clearly suggests that it is a unified and self-sufficient episode.  The lack of agreement among our scholars as to whether this passage belongs to the infancy narratives or not also suggests some measure of independence from the surrounding text, such that it appears to be a link or intermediate stage between the introduction and the Gospel body. Therefore it seems that the text can fall either way, and that it is simply a matter of taste as to where one may want to place it.

   Nothing could be further from the truth! There are three significant repetitions in this episode that seem to link it to the preceding narrative: 'Mary kept these things in her heart' (2:19 & 51b), and 'Jesus grew' and 'favor of God' (2:40 & 52). These parallels link the start of the preparation narratives with the infancy narratives by establishing thematic and semantic links between them, but this should not be taken to mean that 2:41-52 thereby belongs to the infancy narratives. Rather, these repetitions signal a break or new beginning, inasmuch as such repetitions do not normally occur in the same literary unit, but function as a transitional device (summing up and pointing forward).

   Moreover, Luke's stated editorial policy of thoroughness and completion mean that it is unlikely that Luke would begin a major section at the same point as the other three gospels. In accord with his intentions, Luke pushes the start of the Gospel story back to an earlier point (as he did with the birth of John the Baptist; just as he pushes his genealogy beyond that of Matthew's; and just as he extends the Gospel story beyond Jerusalem and Palestine). So while Mt and Mk (and even Q) begin the preparation accounts with the events paralleled in Lk 3:3ff, Luke's 'public career' begins with Jesus' entry into public life as a teen. On the basis of the tight-knit coherence of the infancy narratives, and the thematic and editorial links 2:41-52 has with the following (rather than the preceding) passages, we can rule out any scheme that consigns the Temple-finding episode to the infancy narratives (where it seems not to belong). By making the easy error of placing this episode within the framework of the infancy narratives, we can easily overlook its origins and full significance.

11. The Structure Of The Infancy Narratives.

   By thus giving weight to the literary structures on both the macro and micro-levels, we are in a better position to see how our three scholars cut the infancy narratives into discrete parts:

                                 Ellis                     Nolland                                     Fitzmyer
Temple vision          1:5-25                      ->                                               ->
Mary vision             1:26-38                    ->                                                ->
Mary prophesy        1:39-56                    ->                                                ->
Zach prophesy        1:57-80               1:57-66  <John's birth>                    1:57-58
                                                     1:67-80  <Zachariah>                      1:59-80
Shepherd vision       2:1-20                2:1-21    <Jesus' birth>                    2:1-20
Temple prophesy     2:21-40               2:22-40  <JC recognized>                 2:21-40
Jesus & Temple       [part two]            2:41-52                                              ->

   We can see at once that there are three areas of disagreement among these scholars: (1) The passage 1:57-80 is seen differently by all three scholars (as one unit or two). (2) v.2:21 is either the end of one unit or the start of the following. (3) The unit 2:41-52 is either the ending to the infancy narratives, or the opening of the preparation narratives (see above). Luke 1:57-80 is split three ways. Is it one unit (Ellis) or two: 1:57-66 & 67-80 as per Nolland, or 1:57-58 & 59-80 as per Fitzmyer? A careful analysis of this passage suggests that in this case Nolland has the better grasp of the literary units involved. The text from v.57-66 is a complete and independent pericope with a definite beginning, and a well-defined ending. Here again the confusion appears to be caused by the initial 'and' of v.67: "And his father Zachariah ...". This 'and' could simply be a bad translation of Luke's favorite editorial stitch; the Greek term 'kai' is more flexible in its use then the monochrome English 'and'. If we translate the verse with a slight change - 'Then (one day) his father Zachariah ..." - it becomes apparent that we are dealing with two stories that function together and follow a simple chronological order.

   A careful reading of chapter two shows the following items: (A) 'In those days' and the mention of Caesar (thus relating Gospel and history as suggested by the prologue) are the standard cues that Luke uses to begin a new major section. Thus all three scholars are right to identify 2:1 as the start of this pericope. (B) The core of this story is the vision of the shepherds. The results of this event are told, and in v.20 the shepherds return to their flocks praising God, thus bringing the story to a natural conclusion. Nolland's error appears to result from the confusion caused by the first word of v.21 (namely, kai/and). By ignoring this editorial link (gloss?) we can easily see the start of a new pericope: 'after eight days'. Note that the 'and' of v.22 links the following paragraph with v.21. Moreover, v.21 is more coherent in relation to the Temple-prophesy episode than to the shepherd-vision story. Thus the RSV exhibits an editorial error in starting a new paragraph at v.22.

   Of even greater importance for the resolution of the question of the placement of Lk 2:41-52, is the overall unity, completeness, and coherence of the text from 1:5 to 2:40. The basic structure of this well-defined literary unit can be gathered from the titles Ellis gives to its component parts, the key words of which suggest a simple pattern: vision, vision, prophesy, prophesy, vision, prophesy. Here we have three sets of pairs (ie. a prophesy follows a vision three times). This structure is clearly well-balanced, deliberate, unified, and quite self-contained. Thus any attempt to tack the Temple-finding scene onto the end of this structure will upset the balance, and do violence to the text. The delimitation of this text in conformity with the above structure must, of course, find support in the first and last verses of the section. Verse 1:5 provides a good beginning for the whole unit: "In the days of Herod, king of Judea ...". Thus everything that happens in this unit happens in the time of Herod, and this detail at once excludes 2:41-52 from consideration as part of the infancy narratives. This is because by the time Jesus was about twelve years old, Herod had been dead for several years. The significance of this historical detail is clearly missed by both Nolland and Fitzmyer.

   In the same way, 2:39-40 provides a perfect ending to the infancy narratives, whereas 2:52 (an independent paragraph in the RSV) does not. This is so in spite of the fact that v.39-40 is deliberately similar to v.51-52. That is, while the latter parallels the former, it primarily functions within the confines of the Temple-finding scene, and only secondarily links back. On the other hand, v.39-40 is both more general and more specific, and better designed as an ending to the entire infancy section. The results of this analysis are thus clear: insofar as the Temple-finding scene goes, Ellis is justified in excluding it from his 'Dawn of the Messianic Age' section. 1:5-2:40 forms a unified introduction or overture to the following Preparation Narratives, and 2:41-52 thus functions as a transitional tale leading the reader into the cycle of stories that traditionally begins with John the Baptist, the point at which Luke links up with Mark and Matthew (or, if you prefer, to Q).

   While a thorough semiotic analysis will certainly involve more than the process of demarcating, this 'more than' is already a necessary part of the initial demarcation itself. Indeed, semiotics is most useful in just this area of determining coherent literary units, at both the macro and micro-levels of textual organization. As we have just seen, even the best scholars are subject to numerous errors in this vital matter of 'cutting the text'. This issue is particularly important to students, because few things are more helpful to the serious study of any given biblical book than a well-designed outline that follows the coherence and narrative flow as revealed by the text itself!

12. Social-Science Hermeneutics.

   Every text has two parts: the written part which is the text itself, and the unwritten part which "includes the things an author presumes the audience knows about how the world works, which he or she can leave between the lines of text, so to speak, yet which are crucial to its understanding" (Mal 9). This means that the bulk of the meaning of any text derives from the reader's social system (including all unconscious assumptions). "Reading is always a social act. If both reader and writer share the same social system and the same experience, adequate communication is highly probable".

   But since the post-modern Bible-reader is 2000 years (and more) removed from the authors social system, we are required to recover as much data as we can about first-century Greco-Roman society. "Only so can we complete the written texts as considerate readers who, for better or worse, have imported them into an alien world". In other words, if "we which to learn the Gospel writers' meanings, we must learn the social system that their language encodes" (Mal 14).

13. Commentary On Infancy Narratives.

   [1:5-25] Genealogies encoded the data the reader needed to place the actors in their proper social class, position, or status. Here Zachariah and Elizabeth both come from the priestly families, but are not among the elite class. The mention of the couple's righteousness suggests that their lack of children was not a divine punishment, as would be generally supposed by everyone around them (cf. v.25, 36). Being chosen by lot to burn incense suggests that this was a rare and special occasion for any priest thus honored. That Zachariah could not fulfill his obligations in this regard, because of his muteness, could only have been an embarrassing and dishonorable experience for him. Since many benefits (domestic, economic, religious) followed from a male child, baby boys were widely believed to be a divine gift. Elizabeth is secluded for five months only because her neighbors would not believe her until the pregnancy became obvious (ie. it is not a custom).

   [1:26-38] It was common knowledge that if "God communicates with women at all, it is solely about their reproductive functions and gender-based roles" (Mal 286). Luke calls Nazareth a city, which is a considerable exaggeration since it was only a small village with at most 200 people. 'Polis' is one of the Luke's favorite words, which he uses with typical unhistorical imprecision. 'Betrothal' and the modern 'engagement' are two very different things. Marriage in antiquity was a contract between two extended paternal families, rather than between two autonomous individuals who love each other. In the past, marriage was a very serious, very complex, and very social occasion; today it is little more than a permit for unrestrained passion. The God-given name and titles (v.31-35) are a mark of honor; which, unless made public, remains ineffective. Thus the shepherds will later perform the important function of spreading the word (2:17). God is father here in more than just the literal sense; he also assumes the husband's traditional role of empowering and protecting the wife. In a way, Mary actually has two acting husbands: the Lord-God and Joseph. In antiquity, kinship norms determined the "roles people play and the ways they interact with each other" (Mal 289). Thus every person was embedded in the family unit; and bonds between siblings were often stronger than the marriage bond. "Females not embedded in a male (widows, divorced) were women without honor and were often seen as more male than female ..." (Mal 290).

   [1:39-56] Here we learn that Zachariah lived in a small village in the hill country.  As the local priest he "would not have been a member of the central religious establishment" in Jerusalem (Mal 291). Unless for a very good reason, traveling around the land in antiquity was thought to be a rather deviant behavior, even for men. "While travel to visit family was considered legitimate, the report of Mary traveling alone into the 'hill country' is highly unusual and improper" (Mal 291).  Here again Mary's gender-role is stressed. Elizabeth's private talk makes it clear that Mary is 'blessed' (ie. honored) not on her own behalf, but because she carries the honored fetus. John's behavior is not unusual (since prophets are born, not made); and since personalities don't change or develop, children were seen as miniature adults. Thus John acts the prophet even while yet in the womb. The Magnificat contrasts the high and the low, the rich and the poor, in terms of honor and shame, and the reversal of fortunes by divine intervention based on mercy. Also worthy of note is the fact that things could be said in a hymn or poem that were only otherwise allowed in private-talk; thus a prose public-discourse on conception would have been deeply offensive to just about everyone.

   [1:57-80] Here Luke seems unaware that naming a son after the father was not a Jewish custom. Luke's numerous errors in regard to Jewish geography and culture goes a long way in suggesting that his community had no Jewish-Christian members, and lay well outside Palestinian influence. These probabilities are hard to insert into first-century Antioch, where many scholars place the composition of the Luke-Acts.  Notice that in this episode (v.57-66) the neighbors not only provide the needed public forum, but are also the main actor in the scene. For speaker to create a poem from scattered traditional phrases was bound to earn in this way great respect and honor. Besides the religious meaning, circumcision also indicated "acceptance of a child by the father as his own" (Mal 293). This may also explain why circumcision and naming became associated. Oral poetry - very important in illiterate societies - has basically two forms: the public/male recitation of the traditions (brings honor and authority); the private/female poetry, which was informal and spontaneous, and lacking the tradition-mosaic quality that so characterizes male poetry.

   [2:1-20] One of Luke's favorite words (polis) is again a used incorrectly to designate a hamlet of about 100 people. In the Old Testament, it is Jerusalem that is known as the 'city of David' (cf. 1Chr 11:7). Thus it is very shrewd of the shepherds to discern that the reference actually indicates Bethlehem, David's own hometown. It can hardly be a coincidence that Luke's shepherds rank with butchers, tanners, ass and camel drivers, etc, as among the most despised occupations. Being unable to protect their women at night earned them much dishonor; which made them easy targets for accusations of theft (eg. when their flocks grazed on private property). Their presence here provides public recognition; note that Luke is "careful to record their report to others of what they had seen and heard (v.17)" (Mal 296). Moreover, these shepherds are as far removed from Matthew's wealthy astrologers as it is possible to get, socially and status-wise; clearly a deliberate choice made by Luke (one of his many curious 'reversals' of Matthew's Gospel). In any case, they serve the same function, and together with the Angels allows all creation to publicly recognize 'the honor being claimed for Jesus' (Mal 296). Our social-science commentators also point out that it is a very unlikely that Bethlehem had a commercial inn in any case: the Greek word in 2:7 "normally refers to a large furnished room attached to a peasant House, and is best translated 'guest room'". Thus the data that there was no 'place' for them means that the guest room of the house they went to "was already occupied by someone who socially outranked them" (Mal 297).

   [2:21-40] In v.24 Luke's suggests that Jesus' parents, being faithful observers of Torah, offered two birds for the ritual as prescribed. This "indicates that the family cannot afford the preferred lamb and does not have of the land on which to raise one" (Mal 298). Here also, two elders 'testify to the honor of the child'.  "Both are Torah observant. Note also that Anna meets the expectation for honorable widows (cf. 1 Tim. 5:5)" (Mal 298). She not only possesses the virtue of wisdom - expected of older women - but she is explicitly described as a prophet. However, it is unlikely that any woman would be allowed to be a permanent resident of the Temple (v.37).

PART THREE: SCHOLARSHIP FROM THE FLIP-SIDE

14. Feminist Hermeneutics

   According to one of its more moderate advocates, the task of feminist biblical interpretation is to understand and interpret the Bible "in such a way that its oppressive and liberating power is clearly recognized". The feminist approach thus participates in the so-called 'hermeneutics of suspicion' insofar as it "cannot trust or accept Bible and tradition simply as divine revelation. Rather, it must critically evaluate them as patriarchal articulations ..." (Fior x). This is an essential function of feminist hermeneutics because scripture is still used as "a religious justification and ideological legitimization of patriarchy" (Fior xi). In fact, the abuse of the Bible goes beyond this, and feminist biblical hermeneutics recognizes that the Bible "was used to halt the emancipation of slaves and women" (Fior xii).  [Fiorenza here seems to overlook the 'minor' detail that it was Christian *men* and women (mostly Quakers) who first fought and died for the American slaves!]

   The feminist approach is also focused on the idea/reality of 'woman-church', whereby the early-Christian concept of 'ecclesia' is defined as the public assembly of free citizens who determine their own communal, political, and religious well-being: "The goal is women's (religious) self-affirmation, power, and liberation from all patriarchal alienation, marginalization, and exploitation" (Fior xv). This feminist theology of liberation energizes a hermeneutics of critical evaluation that rejects all religious texts and traditions that contribute to oppression in all its forms.  Revelation is not located within the phallo-centric text itself, but in the experience of God's grace and presence among women (and possibly some few like-minded men as well).

15. Feminist Commentary on Lk 1-2

   Luke's compositional techniques often involve the generation of doublets and parallels, including 'gender-pairs'. In the Infancy Narratives there are two such gender-pairs: Zachariah and Mary (at Lk 1:11-20; 26-38; 46-55; 67-79); and Simeon and Hannah (at Lk 2:25-35; 36-38). The author of Luke-Acts shows the reader a world divided by gender, with a culture and tradition "in which men and women within the same community keep each to their own spheres of life" (Seim 731).

  Here men are public creatures, but women's identity is determined by their domestic and biological functions (ie. home and family). "While the angel Gabriel reveals himself to Zachariah in the Temple, the meeting with Mary takes place in the house where she lives (1:26-28). The outpouring of the spirit on Elizabeth and Mary (1:40-56) happens in Elizabeth's home" (Seim 753). The other hand, the widow Hannah (2:36-38) speaks prophetically in the Temple, a very public arena.

   "Woman's gift of prophecy is presented by Luke most often as a charismatic privilege of virginity: the women prophets are often either widows or virgins (see Luke 1:45-55; 2:36-38; Acts 21:9)" (Seim 756). [This reflects the ministerial situation in Luke's Western church of the early second-century rather more than that of first century Judea.] While celibacy was generally disdained by both Greco-Roman and Jewish culture, in Luke the "widows appear to form a special and respected group always portrayed in a positive light. They transcend the roles of victims and receivers and act in such a way that they become prominent examples of faith and piety" (Seim 757).

  The sketch of Hanna in Lk 2:36-38 shows a 'husbandless' life "characterized first by her virginity and then by her widowhood. Hanna is thus first and foremost an ascetic figure, and she represents a model even for young women" (Seim 758). This ascetic liberation of women provided some female believers the opportunity of a meaningful life beyond the confines of patriarchal marriage, and the conventional roles of daughter, wife, and mother.

16. Protestant Exegesis on Mary

   While feminist biblical interpretation is not interested in the wider meaning and significance of the parallels and contradictions between the infancy narratives of Luke and Matthew, it does pay close attention to the protagonists. In Mt, Joseph is the main actor, while Mary is a 'passive instrument' in the drama. On the other hand,  "Luke's infancy narrative conveys a different emphasis. Here Mary is the central figure" (Rue 32). Yet Mary is not just an actor, but a thinker as well. She actively meditates on the significance of these events: she remembers 'all these things', and ponders them 'in her heart'. Indeed, Luke is unique in his portrayal of Mary as 'the ponderer'. Moreover, he "begins that tradition which transforms Mary from being merely the historical mother of Jesus into an independent agent cooperating with God in the redemption of humanity" (Rue 33). The Magnificat shows that her role is the key to salvation history: "She is the initial human agent in the unfolding of a divine revolution in history" (Rue 33). Luke-Acts is thus the 'fountainhead of Mariology'; this despite the fact that Luke originally put the Magnificat in the mouth of Elizabeth!

   Another matter of interest to the feminist perspective is the question of the so-called 'virgin birth'. Ruether notes that some of the New Testament traditions "clearly believed Joseph to be Jesus' biological father" (Rue 34). Thus if Mary conceived before menstruation, this would technically constitute a 'virgin birth'.  Note that this natural interpretation also finds support in Matthew's genealogy, which traces Jesus' Davidic ancestry through Joseph. Therefore some Jewish-Christian groups regarded Jesus as Joseph's natural son. The supernatural conception in the two infancy narratives stems from the Messianic prediction of Isaiah 7:14: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive" (LXX). [The Hebrew Tanakh has something else to say about this!]

   In any case, the point is that Jesus was elected by God from the start. It is not really a statement about Mary: "It is not a declaration of Mary's superior status as a virgin. There is no suggestion in the New Testament that Mary remained a virgin" (Rue 35). On the contrary, the gospels suggest that in all other respects she was a perfectly normal married woman. Also, her attitude toward Jesus' ministry is somewhat ambiguous in the gospels, whereas in the infancy narratives, all is revealed and accepted. [From a literary perspective there is a possible discontinuity and lack of coherence between the portraits of Mary given in Luke's infancy narratives and that found in the rest of the gospels.]

17. Catholic Eisegesis on Mary

   G.Baril, a Dominican missionary, examines the infancy narratives as they relate to the theme of salvific motherhood in scripture. [The 'Great Mother' is a universal theme that can be found in many religions both ancient and modern.] Thus the maternal vocation of Mary is the seed and symbol of the spiritual motherhood of the Church.  As to Lk.1-2, she notes that the parallelism between Jesus and John is intended to smooth the way between the age just ending (John is the last Old Testament prophet) and the new age just beginning (in/with Jesus). On the other hand, the two Annunciation accounts are very different in that the second story is 'intensely focused' on Mary (ie. she is the protagonist), the young virgin from Nazareth who is "called to the unique vocation of being the mother of the Messiah" (Bar 109).

   Baril interprets Mary's declaration of perpetual virginity (v.34) as a clear statement of the theological fact that "this woman totally belonged to the God of the covenant and was totally committed to the coming of the 'kingdom', even before the moment of the annunciation" (Bar 110). When the angel announces the coming birth of the holy child, Mary does not question it, nor asks for a sign (as opposed to Zachariah), but responds with prophetic words: "Here I am, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word" (Lk 1:38). There is no suggestion here of Mary's supposed humility; on the contrary, in the Tanakh the phrase 'the servant of the Lord' is a title of glory and honor. In any case, Mary's faith response makes her the first Christian disciple. Thus Jesus' later 'denial' of the greatness of his mother (cf. 11:27) is actually a direct reference to Mary's action here: "Blessed rather are those to hear the word of God and obey it!" (Lk 11:28). Indeed, Jesus' reply merely echoes Elizabeth's outburst in 1:45. But, in fact, Mary is unique in her significance; she is the 'favored one of God' (1:28), who has 'found favor with God' (1:30,48). "And so, in the vocation of the salvific motherhood par excellence of this humble daughter of Israel ..." promise and fulfillment "reach their summit" (Bar 113).

   The theme of the salvific motherhood is also suggested by Elizabeth's spirit- inspired recognition of the 'mother of her Lord'; and by Mary's hymn which revolves around the theme of the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises, and the mission of Israel, all of which "culminates in the salvific motherhood of the one whom God has chosen to be the mother of the King-Messiah" (Bar 113). In thus fulfilling her maternal mission, Mary's faith is never static, but always dynamic (cf. 1:29,34; 2:19,51). As to the 'Jesus in the Temple' episode (2:41-52) [strictly speaking not an infancy narrative], this "serves as the transition and foretells what the relationship of Jesus with his mother will be during his public life" (Bar 114). That is, although the two part company from 3:1, Mary remains the first disciple.

   Moreover, certain expressions in Lk.1-2 suggest that Mary is the personification of Israel as the eschatological Daughter of Zion (eg. 'God's favored one'). Thus the divine presence mentioned in 1:35 recalls the vision of the cloud covering the Ark of the Covenant (cf. Ex. 40:34-35); ie. the divine presence descends in the same fashion on both Ark and Mary (cf. par 2Sam 6). Also, the 'sword' of 2:35 is identified as the revelation brought to Israel by Jesus, a revelation that separates good and bad, and is thus a 'sword of judgment'. But since this prophesy is addressed to Mary, it only makes sense if she is the personification of the chosen people. More importantly perhaps, the People's ultimate response to Jesus (rejection and murder) will be a source of suffering to Mary. Is Mary's realization of Israel's maternal vocation, and its spiritual and salvific motherhood, unique to her? In other words, did Luke see Mary as the personification of the Daughter of Zion? 'Very probably', says Baril.  After all, in the larger perspective, and through the "Messianic motherhood of Mary, Israel itself becomes pregnant with the Messiah" (Bar 117).

18. Reviewing the Magnificat

   A more thorough feminist interpretation of the infancy narratives will begin with the necessary preliminaries: a brief scan of Luke 1-2 under the light of textual criticism, redaction and form criticism, and (the next logical step) a brief semiotic analysis focusing on the demarcation of passages (in terms of macro and micro-levels of literary organization, etc). All this will very quickly highlight the amazing power of that a single word can have in determining how the entire set of six pericopae in Luke's infancy narratives are understood. This is word is the common name 'Mary', to be found at 1:46 ("And Mary said: ... "). This word is almost certainly a redactional gloss; though one highly favored by the Greek MSS and modern English versions. Note that out of four popular modern versions (ie. REB, NRSV, NAB, NJB), the NRSV is the only one that notes that "other ancient authorities read Elizabeth". But this is one case where the Old Latin texts are closer to the original autograph copy. The switch was doubtless made early on by some pious redactor who felt obliged to "correct" Luke's "error".

   There are, of course, various indicators to back up our view of this textual anomaly. One of these is the father of biblical criticism, Origen of Alexandria: "... this famous translator was also an apologist for Christian interpretation" (Demers 14). Now feminist hermeneutics clearly recognizes that hermeneutics is a multifaceted diamond that demands much from its practitioners: "Interpreters may expound, elucidate, explain, perform, and translate" (Dem 10). Origen did all these and more, and his opinions on Scripture still carry much weight. One of these is that the Magnificat belongs to Elizabeth. There are also various textual cues and clues that doubtless influenced Origen's judgment. For example, the initial phrasing of 1:56 suggests that Elizabeth is the psalm-singer (Dank 45): "KAI [= 'and' or 'so'] Mary stayed with her [ie. Elizabeth] about three months, and then returned to her home." [Note: That Mary leaves mere days before her cousin's big event (v.57f) is very odd in terms of human behavior, but not in terms of Luke's literary and theological designs; ie. Luke wants to keep J.B. and J.C. well apart; hence the contrasting parallelism of the infancy narratives.]

   A semiotic organization of the relevant text will show the unity of the six pericopae comprising the infancy narratives (1:5-2:40). Within this cohesive and interlocking series of parallel events and speeches, the Magnificat appears within the pericope dealing with the prophetic words of Elizabeth (1:39-56). This passage has three parts: the encounter with Mary (v.39-45); the Magnificat itself (v.46-55); and the conclusion (v.56). Various semantic and thematic links between the hymn and the surrounding text tie the psalm to Elizabeth:

1. The mercy remembered in v.54 is granted already in v.58.

2. Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and sings in parallel with her husband Zachariah
(who is also filled with the Holy Spirit and sings a psalm (v.67f)).

3. Phrases such as 'low estate' (v.48) and 'those who fear him' (v.50) fit on Elizabeth far better than they do on Mary.

4. The Tanakh parallels are at work with Zachariah and Elizabeth; but "Mary's Song" (NIV) seriously damages the coherence that Luke's so carefully establishes throughout the
infancy narratives.

5.  And so on.

19. Final Criticisms.

   That Mary has come to be seen as the singer of the Magnificat is more a triumph of popular piety than a conclusion gained from the text, or from sound biblical scholarship. This example (ie. v.46) clearly illustrates the vital importance of a thorough textual and redaction criticism of the text under study before ANY interpretation or theological meditation can commence with some measure of confidence. Indeed, an orderly procedure through the various levels of hermeneutical methods is mandatory to any adequate exegesis. All of this means that it is Elizabeth who should be attracting the bulk of the attention in feminist hermeneutics. She is the prophetess, the Daughter of Zion, who speaks for the humbled and humiliated. It is Elizabeth who was despised and rejected by society for failing to do her biological duty. It is Elizabeth who praises God throughout it all, and so shows us what it means to truly believe; thus demonstrating the continuity between Tanakh and the good news. [A continuity, that would surely incense Marcion, and bring forth his top-heavy editorial axe, thus energizing the process that led to the formation of the New Testament.]

   Luke's portrayal of Mary emphasizes her contemplative nature: she is the great ponderer (cf. 1:29; 2:19). But it is remarkable how short is the way that feminist interpreters carry this image. It could be because, generally speaking, feminist hermeneutics is more oriented to practical action rather than impractical pondering.  Moreover, the feminist interpretation of Mary is greatly - but not entirely - undermined by the insight that the Magnificat is not Mary's after all, but rather Elizabeth's. Does Mary sing the Magnificat hymn, or is it Elizabeth? This ought not to be a controversial question: a semiotic analysis of the infancy narratives will indicate which of the two possibilities is more proper to the text itself. It seems to us that an acceptance of this literary probability would only enhance a feminist understanding of the infancy narratives.

   The reformist biblical scholars (eg. Ruether and Fiorenza), although applying different methods to the text, "share a common approach in that they all attempt to go directly to the text, rather than through the history of interpretation ..." (Mid 233). This ought to provide them with the freedom to create a new understanding of scripture, and they do in fact succeed in this (slightly), but in practice it also tends to lead to very mixed results. For example, Ruether's view of Mary's response to the angel is in direct contradiction to the social-science hermeneutics (cf. Mal 289): "In saying 'yes' to God Mary was not playing the passive victim, but rather in her strength she was exercising her autonomy" (Mid 234). The social-science view of this scene suggests otherwise: that being cornered by a man, especially an angelic-man, left a woman no options in anything, let alone asserting her autonomy 'in freedom and power'. Indeed, Mary had no choice but to acknowledge the superior power of the 'divine-male' will over her own. Clearly, these two views of Mary's 'yes' cannot both be right. Finally, it is apparent that feminist scholarship is very uneven in quality, and often the line between exegesis and eisegesis is all too easily crossed.

Conclusion.

   The Bible is truly a world unto itself; and because of the abundant richness inherent in the text, there is no end to the truth, value, and meaning that can be drawn out of it (exegesis), or to the errors and illusions that can be put into it (eisegesis). Thus it is common knowledge that any particular passage of scripture can be understood in more than one way. By applying different hermeneutical methods to the same passage one will come up with divergent, and even conflicting, results. Despite this unavoidable danger of the pluralistic approach to holy writ, a sound interpretation today must incorporate the three points of view involved in the world's behind, within, and 'in front of' the text. Moreover, it can be very useful to compare and contrast the results obtained from different points of view. Indeed, all three parts of this essay are based upon the assumption that establishing the general scholarly consensus, and initiating movement within it, are best achieved through an "objective" and ruthless, but nevertheless respectful and scholarly, 'butting of heads'.

Works Cited

Baril, Gilberte. The Feminine Face Of The People Of God: Biblical Symbols Of The
   Church As Bride And Mother.  Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991.

Brown, R.E. The Birth Of The Messiah: A Commentary On The Infancy Narratives
   In Matthew And Luke.  New York: Doubleday & Company, 1977.

Danker, F.W. Jesus And The New Age: A Commentary On St. Luke's Gospel.
      Rev.Ed.  Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.

Demers, P.  Women As Interpreters Of The Bible.  New York: Paulist Press, 1992.

Douglas, J.D., Ed. The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament.
      Trans. Brown & Comfort.  Weaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1990.

Ellis, E.E. The Gospel Of Luke.  Rev.Ed.  New Century Bible.  Gen. Eds. Clements
      & Black.  London: Oliphants, 1974.

Fearghail, F.O. The Introduction To Luke-Acts: A Study Of The Role Of Lk 1,1-4,44
   In The Composition Of Luke's Two Volume Work.  Analecta Biblica #126.
      Romas: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1991.

Fiorenza, E.S. Bread Not Stone: The Challenge Of Feminist Biblical Interpretation.
      Boston: Beacon Press, 1984.

Fitzmyer, J.A. The Gospel According To Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation,
   And Notes.  Anchor Bible Vol.28.  New York: Doubleday & Company, 1981.

Harrington, W.J. The Gospel According To St. Luke: A Commentary.
      Westminster: Newman Press, 1967.

Hendrickx, H. The Infancy Narratives.  Rev.Ed.  London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1984.

Jacobson, A.D. The First Gospel: An Introduction To Q.
      Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1992.

Keck & Martyn, Eds. Studies In Luke-Acts.  London: SPCK, 1968.

Malina & Rohrbaugh. Social-Science Commentary On The Synoptic Gospels.
      Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

Middleton, D.F.  "Feminist Interpretation".  A Dictionary Of Biblical Interpretation.
      Eds. Coggins & Houlden.  London: SCM Press, 1990.

Nolland, John. Luke 1-9:20.  Word Biblical Commentary.  Vol. 35a.
      Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

Ruether, R.R. Mary - The Feminine Face Of The Church.
      Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977.

Sanders & Davis. Studying The Synoptic Gospels.  London: SCM Press, 1989.

Seim, T.K.  "The Gospel Of Luke".  Searching The Scriptures.  Volume Two: A
      Feminist Commentary.  Ed.  E.S.Fiorenza.  New York: Crossroad, 1994.

Vogels, Walter. Reading & Preaching The Bible: A New Semiotic Approach.
      Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1986.