Abstract
The story of (H)Anna is a brief description of a faithful prophetess (Lk. 2.36–38) which is consciously paired with the previous and more developed narrative of Simeon (22–35). Hannah’s story is significant to the Lukan Gospel and yet her voice, which men and women visiting the temple heard repeatedly (2.38), is not articulated by Luke. She has been the topic of much research, in as much as three verses in their context can provide, while no one has sought to let Hannah speak for herself. This article aims to do this by exploring her story within the Lukan narrative, considering prophetesses in the Old Testament, and echoing the dynamics of the Jewish story of Judith with which she is intertextually paired.
Letting (H)Anna Speak
(H)Anna is an intriguing woman in the Lukan text. She is an established prophetess in the Jerusalem temple who speaks repeatedly to those gathered and, as a female prophet of YHWH, she stands in a small but clear progression of women that God has used to lead and guide the people. Her story is said by some to be ‘otiose’, yet her role is anything but futile. 1 She is an eschatological preacher who, coupled with Simeon, demonstrates the inclusive and radical nature of the coming kingdom; she is the first of the witnesses who speak the word of God to the people (24.47).
Anna, or more correctly, Hannah, 2 directly enters Luke’s story in 2.36, while the wider narrative begins at verse 22 when Mary and Joseph offer the sacrifice of purification according to the law of Moses (Lev. 12.2–8; Lk. 2.22–23) and present their firstborn (Exod. 13.2, 12, 15; 34.19). There is an additional redemption offering for a firstborn of five shekels, to which Luke does not refer (Num. 18.16). Mosaic law specifies the purification rite for the mother only, yet Luke recalls they came for ‘their’ (autōn) purification and to offer the sacrifice of the two turtledoves or two pigeons (Lev. 12.8). There is a scribal emendation in Codex Bezae (D) that corrected this to the singular form, suggesting this plural was considered inconsistent with the offering, however most manuscripts record ‘autōn’. 3 The plural form could refer to the combined nature of the offerings but this does not give a clear reading of the Lukan text; 4 the focus in verses 22 and 24 is on the female purification rite. ‘They’ could refer to Mary and the baby, although the narrative focus is clearly on the young couple and there is no need for a baby to be ‘purified’, and so it is not likely. This could represent a family dedication, 5 although the text does not appear to be suggesting this is anything other than the maternal purification. Therefore the question is raised as to why Luke includes Joseph in this maternal rite. Perhaps Joseph’s participation in the birth may have left him in need of purity (Lk. 2.6–7) 6 although Luke does not suggest this in any way and it seems unlikely Joseph would deal with impurity by imposing himself into a ceremony for females rather than a visit to the mikveh which we should assume has already occurred; visiting the temple would have certainly been preceded by this common Jewish practice. Luke could have made a grammatical error or been somewhat unclear in his writing, 7 although his clear literary competency is evident from his opening prologue. I suggest that Luke is clear in what he says and he is showing an element of discontinuity with the past where patterns for male and female with regards to the law are shifting; the offering itself, however, shows continuity with the Jewish tradition and the couple’s piety.
The infancy narrative is marked by points of continuity and discontinuity. We have major characters who demonstrate their faithfulness to Jewish tradition: Elizabeth and Zechariah are both described as righteous and walking in the commandments of God (Lk. 1.6); Elizabeth is a faithful barren woman (Lk. 1.7), and Zechariah a faithful priest (Lk. 1.8); Hannah and Simeon are positioned as faithfully looking for the Messiah. Mary and Zechariah’s songs also recall God’s faithfulness (Lk. 1.46–55; 68–79) and both babies are circumcised on the eighth day in accordance with tradition (Lk. 1.59; 2.21). Yet considerable discontinuity is also signalled: Elizabeth and Zechariah name their baby John, breaking the tradition of naming a child within the family line (Lk. 1.60–61); Luke makes much of Bethlehem in the birth narrative; it is Luke’s ‘city of David’ (Lk. 2.4, 11), even though the reader knows that this is Jerusalem (2Sam. 5.6–10). Bethlehem is a town that is low in population and status, a city without even its own water supply, 8 yet it is the place where God’s angels appear and God is found in the form of a baby (Lk. 2.11). Jerusalem, the place of the temple and the centre of Jewish national identity, is sidelined in Luke’s narrative showing a clear point of discontinuity. In Lk. 2.22, therefore, when the young couple make a change to the standard practice of the purification rite, the reader finds yet another element which signals change.
Simeon is introduced before Hannah and is described as righteous, devout, looking forward to the consolation of Israel and with the Holy Spirit resting on him (Lk. 2.25). He is a faithful Jew and is marked out by the Spirit as God’s prophet; it is revealed to him by the Spirit that he will see the Messiah in his lifetime. Led by the Spirit he comes into the temple where the young family has come to make their offering (Lk. 2.27). Hannah, too, is in the temple (Lk. 2.38) and both begin to speak about the child. Luke records Simeon’s words, while the implication in the paired stories is that their messages cohere. The words relate to the consolation of Israel (synonymous with the ‘redemption of Jerusalem’) and God’s salvation in bringing the Messiah. He will be the Isaianic servant who brings light not only to the Jews but to the (gentile) nations (Isa. 49.6; also 55.5; 60.1; 61.9). This is an inclusive salvation aptly described by both a male (Simeon) and a female (Hannah). Because of God’s faithfulness, Simeon can now be ‘dismissed’ in peace, and with Hannah being a widow of approximately 105, no doubt she is also near to her dismissal. Both prophets have a role in the heralding of the Messiah in the temple although, notably, Simeon’s words are to the parents and so private (Lk. 2.33), while Hannah speaks to ‘all’ the people gathered (Lk. 2.38). Simeon speaks of the suffering that Jesus and Mary will experience (Lk. 2.24–25); Hannah does not. While their thematic concerns will cohere, Luke gives only Simeon a voice.
Hannah’s vignette is intriguing. She is a prophetess like Philip’s four daughters (Acts 21.9), the first of the eschatological Spirit-filled female prophetesses promised through Joel (Joel 2.28–29). Indeed she is an exemplar of the post-resurrection disciples who are continually in the temple blessing God (24.53). As Turid Karlsen Seim says, with Hannah’s words ‘everything is orientated towards the birth of the Messiah as the inauguration of the messianic age to come’. 9 She stands as a pivot between the small line of recorded women prophetesses in Jewish history who speak on behalf of YHWH having an established office and the time in history when the prophetic office is a gift of the Spirit. There are only four significant women prophetesses in the biblical text (Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, and Noadiah) 10 in contrast to the 29 men designated as prophets, the eight men who wrote the prophetic books, and the 400 unnamed prophets of Ahab (1 Kgs 22.6) who we should assume are (almost exclusively) male; the women we meet are rare and exceptional.
We will consider Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah as they are given voice in the text and this will help us explore the role of the prophetess, however as Noadiah is only mentioned in one verse and does not speak, we will not include her story. Finally we will turn to Judith, the faithful praying and fasting widow with whom Hannah’s story resonates strongly. Her story is valued greatly in Jewish history and is found in the Greek, Catholic, and Orthodox canons. As Luke used the Septuagint, we know he had access to this book.
Miriam
Miriam is one of three Israelites who exercised leadership in the wilderness (Mic. 6.4). Exodus describes Miriam as Aaron’s sister, a prophetess, and the one who led the women in the celebration song at the Red Sea (Exod. 15.20–21). Later texts list her as sister to both Aaron and Moses (Num. 26.59; 1 Chron. 5.29). We hear relatively little of her as Moses is established as God’s chief spokesperson; this is confirmed in a negative portrayal of Miriam and Aaron who rebel against Moses (Num. 12.1–15), and for which God punishes only Miriam with a skin disease. Miriam dies and is buried at Kedesh (Num. 20.1).
While Exod. 15.20 names Miriam as a prophetess, the text never explains or records why she is attributed that status; that is, she never speaks prophetically. Traditions have arisen to reconcile this lacuna by interpreters giving her a voice in the story of Moses’ infancy where it is supposed her prophetic gift may have been exercised (Exod. 2.4). In explaining this gap Pseudo-Philo says, And Amram of the tribe of Levi went out and took a wife from his own tribe … And this man had one son and one daughter; their names were Aaron and Miriam. And the spirit of God came upon her one night, and she saw a dream and told it to her parents in the morning, saying, “I have seen this night and behold, a man in a linen garment stood and said to me, “Go and say to your parents, ‘Behold, he who will be born from you will cast forth into the waters; likewise through him will the water be dried up.’ And I will work signs through him and save my people, and he will exercise leadership always.” And when Miriam told of her dream, her parents did not believe her. (LAB 9.9–10).
Rabbinic tradition also gives Miriam a voice: Said R. Amram in the name of Rab: Miriam prophesied and said: “My mother is destined to give birth to a son who will save Israel. When he was born the whole house was filled with light.” Her father went and kissed her and said: “My daughter, your prophecy has come true.” (Exodus Rabba 1.22). “Puah” [the midwife mentioned in Exod. 1.15] was Miriam – and why was she called Puah? Because she cried out [po’ah] through divine inspiration and said: my mother is destined to give birth to a son who will save Israel (b.Soṭah 11b).
What is noteworthy is that Jewish tradition acknowledges Miriam’s prophetic role and has sought to articulate her voice; these traditions would not settle for the implied role without filling in the historical gap. This desire to explain and even elevate Miriam the prophetess as a key person in the exodus story continues with events surrounding her death. Commentators note that when Miriam dies, the well that supplies the Israelites with life preserving water dries up, linking her life to God’s grace (Pseudo-Philo, LAB 20.8; Fragment Targum Num. 20:1; Targum Neophyti Num. 21:1; Seder Olam 10; Mekhilta Wayyassa’ 5). This clarification of Miriam’s role stands apart from Western tradition, which has a tendency to explain away Miriam’s designation as a prophetess as an anachronism, believing if the text cannot give an example of her prophetic activity, it must not be true. 11 However, evaluating the lives and public contribution of an individual such as Miriam during the exodus period is not a simple task as the ancient mindset was so removed from the modern world, which evaluates personal roles and individual identity. The Israelite people had a communal mindset, and individual accomplishment was not one that was striven for or even conceived; the wellbeing of the whole community was what mattered. 12 Having said that we can agree that her role is recorded thinly by the writer of Exodus, and if we analyse Miriam’s story from a patriarchal standpoint, a modern method of critique, we might say she is overlooked and even edited out. Ackerman notes that the wilderness time was liminal space where women (such as Miriam) were naturally able to rise to places of leadership, which was not possible with later formalization and centralization of the cult in Jerusalem that was male led. 13
From a contextual point of view, Miriam performed a significant role in the group, which is why she is mentioned by name in the text. As a prophetess in the community she would be valued and well known. Abraham, by whose election Israel was formed, was also known as a prophet (Gen. 20.7); the designation is significant. Although her story is somewhat truncated from a modern perspective, her role amongst the Israelites was clearly valued. That later Jewish tradition ‘gave’ her words shows this to be true.
Deborah
Deborah’s voice recorded in both prose (Judg. 4) and song (Judg. 5) with the song perhaps one of the earliest texts in the Hebrew Bible. 14 She is named as a prophetess in Judg. 4.4 and the fourth judge in Israel’s pre-monarchical period ruling on disputes within the community (Judg. 4.5). Barak’s allegiance to her represents the confidence Israel has in this woman to lead the people with God’s blessing (Judg. 4.6–10). She is celebrated as a ‘mother of Israel’ (Judg. 5.7) whose heart is on ‘what was ordained for Israel’ (Judg. 5.9) showing the readiness with which the nation looked to her as their leader. The song praises God who is faithful to liberate Israel from Canaanite oppression, and who chose Deborah as a ‘spokesperson’ (Judg. 5.7) when there was no other. The song especially suggests she is a female warrior, 15 although the prose also moves in this direction; Barak says he will only go into battle if she also goes (Judg. 4.8) and in Judg. 4.9 Deborah agrees. She commands Barak and the army of 10,000 and appears to lead the army with Issachar down into the valley to fight (Judg. 5.12–13), although the prose omits specific reference to Deborah after she sends Barak into battle (Judg. 4.14). The Ancient Near East (ANE) knew of female warriors and especially the Canaanite warrior goddess Anat, 16 and while the prose is less transparent about her military role, this may relate to the writer or editor’s concern of connecting a woman warrior with the Canaanite warrior goddess. 17
Finally, Deborah sings of Jael’s part in bringing down Sisera, celebrating another woman’s victory against the Canaanites. These two chapters record Deborah’s place as a faithful prophetess and leader and her rule notably contrasts the time before and afterwards, when Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord (Judg. 4.1; 6.1). Under her leadership Israel entered a period of 40 years peace; the standard period of peace brought about by a judge (Judg. 5.31). Lindars comments, ‘the characterization of Deborah … shows an absence of stereotypes and presupposes a freedom of action which suggests a greater degree of social equality of men and women in old Israel than obtained after the rise of the monarchy’. 18
This positive and detailed record of Deborah stands in contrast to Miriam’s shorter exposition, but is understandable in its pre-monarchical (or tribal) setting where lives were centred on the household where women were actively involved in all aspects of daily life. The household was the basic unit of society: the place of leadership, decision-making, and religious life. Meyers notes that in this period the ‘domestic [sphere] is political and the private is public’; 19 women naturally had key roles in family and the community. Of particular note is how women fostered critical links between nearby settlements and not just amongst their own local households; therefore, even though women leave their natal home to join their husbands, they tend to maintain ties with their maternal home which become informal networks that aid socio-political stability. 20 Within this framework, acceptance of Deborah’s role as a prophetess and judge for Israel is more easily understood. There seems no hesitancy by the Israelites to consult her, follow her lead and later record her story. As a judge, prophetess, and warrior, she is a rare and remarkable character in Israel’s recorded history. 21
Huldah
Huldah was a prophetess during the reign of Josiah (2 Kgs 22.14–20), the last faithful king in Israel before the Babylonian exile. She is the sole prophet approached when the Book of the Law is found and the king realizes that Israel has departed from God’s commandments; not only is his faith in her prophetic role clear but his approach presupposes that her prophetic leadership was well established before this incident.
Her prophecy begins with the forceful and repeated ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel’ (2 Kgs 22.15, 18) showing her authority to speak on behalf of YHWH. We know little about her role from the biblical text and how, and if at all, her role is connected to her husband who is ‘keeper of the wardrobe’, but in light of his role with the king and her role as prophetess, they must have fitted within the socially privileged few rather than the majority poor. Female prophetesses were well known in the ANE at this time. 22 They were highly educated and held considerable political power as they informed the king’s actions and policies through their oracles. The king would turn to the prophet and other cultic specialists in all religious, political, and health matters. Pongratz-Leisten describes prophets as the ‘intellectuals of their time’. 23 Jewish tradition records Huldah as having a school for women in Jerusalem where she taught the word of God (Targum II Kgs 22.14), and in light of knowledge we have of prophets at this time in the ANE, this is entirely possible.
Other prophetesses in the biblical text, such as Isaiah’s wife (Isa. 8.3) and Noadiah (Neh. 6.14), are recorded only in passing, and Jewish tradition adds Sarah, Hannah, Abigail, and Esther (b. Meg. 14a). This provides some background to Hannah’s role as a prophetess in the temple at a time when Israel was dominated by Roman rule. She too would have been recognized as a significant leader in the community and they are likely to have taken her prophecies with considerable authority. But Hannah’s story resonates most strongly with that of the woman of fasting, prayer, and action, Judith, to which we now turn.
Judith and Hannah
Judith is a widow like Hannah, and she lives to be 105 years (Jud. 16.23): a key point of parallel. Luke describes Hannah’s age (including the length of her marriage and widowhood) with considerable linguistic space, alerting the reader to the significance of this detail. That is, 21 out of a brief 59 words, or 36 percent of the total word count, describe her age. Luke says,
autē probebēkuia en hēmerais pollais, zēsasa meta andros etē hepta apo tēs parthenias autēs kai autē chēra heōs [or hōs] etōn ogdoēkonta tessarōn
she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity, and as a widow as long as eighty-four years.
In Luke’s description of Hannah’s age there is a labouredness in the use of polus in the phrase autē probebēkuia en hēmerais pollais. Luke has given similar descriptors of Elizabeth and Zechariah without such use:
24
1.7 probebēkotes en tais hēmerais autōn 1.18 probebēkuia en tais hēmerais autēs
This addition suggests Luke wants the reader to slow down and note this detail. He writes in similar style when he accentuates Zacchaeus’ name, with the pleonastic onomati kaloumenos (Lk. 19.2), and the laboured description when he runs (prodramōn eis to emprosthen; Lk. 19.4). Both narrative points are critical to the pericope as they show the Jewishness of Zacchaeus (who the text says is working for the Romans, revealing the narrative problem in the story) and his action of running shows his desire to see Jesus (a positive attribute). Luke’s pleonastic use of polus, coupled with the wordy description of Hannah’s age, are clear indicators of the importance of this information.
The phrase heōs etōn ogdoēkonta tessarōn is somewhat ambiguous in meaning 25 and may also read hōs etōn ogdoēkonta tessarōn, showing minor textual discrepancies. Codex Sinaiticus attests to the latter reading before it was emended by another scribe, 26 and there are a few less significant texts which follow the latter reading; Codex Alexandrinus leaves out heōs altogether. However, the weight of the textual evidence points clearly to the former reading. With respect to any ambiguity and what the 84 signifies, this is almost certainly resolved by noting that it is Hannah’s widowhood that is the subject of the sentence (autē chēra) and she lived a staggering 84 years as a widow. This is quite possible. Bauckham notes a Jewish epitaph in Egypt that records the age of 102 and one from Rome records 110 years. 27 In the Jewish War Josephus records that many Essenes lived upwards of a century (Jewish War II.150 §10).
The way Luke records the various time periods of Hannah’s life is striking, with Elliott noting the significance of the number seven for this text and in Jewish symbolism. 28 Hannah lives seven years as a married woman and 84 as a widow, which, together with the general marriageable age of (13 or) 14, means we find ourselves with Judith’s age of 105, also a multiple of seven. However, there are some factors that may militate against this proposed parallel and which should be addressed. Judith’s age is recorded with a different configuration of years which may lessen an intertextual link (see Jud. 8.4 where she was a widow for three years and four months; also Jud. 16.23 where she lives to 105), and it is noted that Judith dies at 105 (Jud. 16.23) while Hannah is still alive; 29 maybe Hannah is not yet near death! However, Simeon, who is Hannah’s clear narrative counterpart, is now able to ‘depart in peace’ (Lk. 2.29) when he sees the Lord’s Messiah, a euphemism for death. 30 It is quite plausible to suggest Hannah is very near that time too; the link between the two stories still remains strong.
The history of interpretation shows that Elliott is not alone in noting some level of connection between the two pieces of writing. Bauckham suggests Hannah’s age has been ‘artificially schematised and its length deliberately conformed to that of Judith … by the tradition Luke used’, 31 although he does not accept a clear parallel. Robert Price says ‘most likely Luke means us to understand she is 105 or 106 years old, like the Old Testament Judith, another epic widow’, 32 while Scott F. Spencer claims (though does not defend) an intertextual pairing. 33 Barbara Reid notes several points of coherence between the two stories, 34 as does Joel Green. 35
From a textual point of view, Nestle-Aland notes eight allusions and verbal parallels between Luke-Acts and Judith, as the following table demonstrates: 36
The full analysis of Nestle-Aland identifies a total of 14 intertextual links between Judith and various New Testament books, with Luke’s writing overwhelmingly demonstrating the greatest attention to this particular book. If nothing else, this table demonstrates that Luke was well aware of the book of Judith and used it intertextually in a variety of ways. From this we should conclude that there is a good level of satisfaction on Hay’s test for an echo with respect to ‘recurrence’ and an examination of the story is valuable. 37 So, who is Judith and what is her story?
The book of Judith reveals itself to be an intriguing Jewish story rather than the record of an accurate historical event when the opening sentence claims Nebuchadnezzar is king of Assyria and ruling from Nineveh. Nebuchadnezzar was universally known as king of Babylon, not Assyria, and Nineveh was destroyed in 612 BCE, seven or eight years before Nebuchadnezzar became king. Further, if we hold to the accuracy of Jer. 32.1, the twelfth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign equates with the fourth year of the reign of Zedekiah who ruled before the exile; the setting of Judith’s story is post exilic (Jud. 4.3, 6; 5.18–19). 38 Analysis of further historical inaccuracies is not necessary for this study and is well documented, 39 but the opening setting by the author suggests a deliberate attempt to set the forthcoming tale as folklore. This does not mean, however, that it has no authorial intent to convey theological and cultural ideas and themes; neither does it negate its role in Jewish folklore.
Benedict Otzen suggests the following narrative structure: 40
Nebuchadnezzar demonstrates he is God (Jud. 1–3)
Who is God – Nebuchadnezzar or Yahweh? (4–7)
Yahweh demonstrates he is God (8–16)
Toni Craven notes the book begins with a powerful king and ends with the long lasting influence of a woman of Israel, Judith.
41
I would add to this that it begins with a mythical king of Assyria and ends with the grittiness of a plausible woman whose actions demonstrate the strength of YHWH. For Israel, this story may be considered a myth, but its influence remains with its place in the Septuagint (the text used by Luke), the Catholic and Orthodox canon, and is commented on by Clement, who said: Many women were empowered by the gracious gift of God to perform “manly” deeds. The blessed Judith, when her city lay under siege, asked the elders for permission to go out to the foreigners’ camp. And so she handed herself over to danger, going out because she loved her homeland and the people under siege. And the Lord handed Holofernes over to the hand of a female (1 Clement 55.3–5).
The storyline centres on a contest over who is the true lord and master of the world: Nebuchadnezzar or YHWH. The claim is made first that it is the earthly king of Assyria, demonstrated by his recent success over Arphaxad, the Mede from Ecbatana 42 (1.1–15). The victors return from battle to Nineveh where the king commissions his commander-in-chief, Holofernes, to continue their expansion into other surrounding nations. When Israel hears of this, they prepare to defend Jerusalem, the temple, and their people. This involves the help of the High Priest, Joakim, who alerts the surrounding towns to the imminent threat and leads the people in fasting and prayer (4.1–15).
The action of the Israelites causes Holofernes to enquire about this tribe and question the strength of their army from the rulers of Moab, Ammon, and other surrounding regions. Achior, the leader of the Ammonites and one of the narrator’s protagonists, advises Holofernes to avoid battle with these people as their god has proved his miraculous protection of them in the past at the Red Sea, and he is certain their god will protect them again if they are threatened (5.1–21). Those who hear his words are enraged and Holofernes puts Achior’s faith in their god to the test when he demands he go and live with them at Bethulia; the Assyrian army will attack and when they do, if their god is powerful enough to save them, he will be safe; if not Holofernes will ensure he is killed by the sword. The plan is enacted and Achior is bound, and left beside Bethulia where he is found and welcomed by the people. The Bethulians respond to the threat of war with prayer to the God of Israel for help (5.22–6.21); prayer is one of the key aspects that characterizes the tribe and is in contrast to the adversaries who follow human plans. The plot unfolds further as Holofernes displays his entire cavalry in front of the town, but on advisement, decides not to attack but to cut off their water supply, which is outside the city wall. Thirty-four days pass and the people begin to panic: ‘It would be better for us to be captured by them; for we will be slaves, but our lives will be spared’ (7.27), the people cry. Uzziah urges them not to surrender for another five days, and to take courage. This involved story now centres on their despair; ‘we have no one to help us’ (7.25), they say; they are in need of a deliverer.
This detailed scenario in chapters 1–7 sets the scene for Judith, the one who will save them. She is a widow from Bethulia with impeccable lineal and religious credentials; moreover, she is beautiful. Bethulia, a walled town in the Samaritan hills (6.11) which overlooks a valley (10.10), is on the south of the plain of Esdraelon (3.10; 4.6), surrounded by mountains (10.10–11), and has a spring nearby (7.12–13). It is uncertain, but the town may be identified with ancient Shechem (Tel Balata). 43 This location is part of the region of Manasseh and Ephraim in the northern kingdom. Hannah is from the tribe of Asher which is also a northern region of Israel but she is likely from Asherites who became incorporated into the tribal identity of the Ephraimites or Benjaminites in pre-exilic times 44 and was deported to Media, 45 only to return to Jerusalem where the reader finds her fasting and praying. The two personalities, therefore, have some geographical connection; certainly Hannah’s northern tribe connection is rare in the Gospel.
In a lengthy speech, Judith stands up to the leaders of the city who are discussing surrender and who are putting God to the test (8.12–13); surrender will mean the destruction of the temple sanctuary and the likelihood of apostasy; their actions should entreat God to deliver them and set an example to the people. Uzziah comments on Judith’s wisdom and her sound judgment which stands in contrast to their actions which were swayed by the people, and entreats her to pray that God will send rain to fill their cisterns. She responds with her undisclosed plan to act on their behalf; she leaves the city with her maid as the leaders give her their blessing (8.1–36). Judith, a woman of prayer, then cries out to God at length, demanding God not allow devastation such as happened to Dinah at Shechem. She has confidence in God to act for he is the true ruler of heaven and earth; he is the king of all creation (9.1–14).
Moore writes that Judith is ‘a woman of habitual prayer’, 46 a description that coheres with Luke’s portrayal of Hannah. Judith prays when she first realizes she needs to act (9.1–10.1), when she is in the camp of Holofernes where she prays for the ‘exaltation of Jerusalem’ (12.6–8), not unlike Hannah’s prayer for the ‘redemption of Jerusalem’ (Lk. 2.38), and she prays before she kills Holofernes (Jud. 13.4–5, 7). We do not know the words of Hannah’s many prayers in the temple, but as one looking for the redemption of Jerusalem, and with the Jewish expectation of an earthly deliverer, Judith’s pleading to God for action to slaughter the enemy (such as he did to Dinah’s rapist), may be enlightening. Judith displays honesty in her prayers to God, which allows her to claim the divine’s ear. Dinah as a young virgin was defenseless during her brutal attack, and God acted in retribution, and so now she, a widow (which implies her equally defenseless status), wants God to be active on her behalf. She is free in her relationship with God to accuse him: ‘For you are responsible for all these things and for what preceded and what followed them. You designed the present and the future … you judge with foreknowledge’ (9.5–6). She is a warrior in the heavenly court who takes up words to fight. Luke’s Hannah is this woman of words also, spending most of her life in prayer in the temple, not in her home or away from the public. Here her prayers and prophetic activity inside God’s house are more forceful as she holds God to account for his messianic promises; her words to the people may be strikingly bold.
Judith’s prayer reminds God of his nature: ‘you are a God of the lowly; you are a helper of the inferior, a supporter of the weak, the shelterer of the desperate, the saviour of the hopeless’ (Jud. 9.11), echoing thematic concerns in Mary’s song (Lk. 1.46–55) and Lukan themes in general. Further, Judith declares that YHWH is the one true protector of Israel (Jud. 9.14), even as Mary declares that her Saviour has helped his servant Israel (Lk. 1.54). Hannah stands in this narrative framing of articulated prayers (1.46–55; 65–79; 2.29–32), the content of each which must be implied to cohere with her prayers for the redemption of Jerusalem – the consolation of Israel. Prayers of praise are also characteristic of the two widows; Judith praises God when he delivers them (Jud. 13.14) and her song of praise is recorded (Jud. 16.1–17); Hannah is said to praise God when she comes into the temple and sees Jesus (Lk. 2.38) and it is likely a habitual form of prayer.
Hannah and Judith are also widows who fast: Judith fasts all the days of her widowhood (Jud. 8.6), as does Hannah (Lk. 2.37). Ackerman notes that fasting is a liminal characteristic of the wilderness years (Exod. 16.4), and this creates an opportunity for new configurations and change. 47 For Hannah and Judith, fasting was not thrust upon them as in the wilderness; they chose to engage in this subversive activity. Lambert says, ‘While prayer constitutes a verbal articulation of the distress, fasting provides an equally expressive – indeed, physical manifestation. It therefore, shares in the dialogical nature of prayer … It sets the stage for the central movement of appeal to God’. 48
Hannah and Judith fast and pray to call upon God to save the people. Judith’s situation is immediate while Hannah’s may be viewed as no less perilous. As a poorer person, which her widowhood and post-exilic situation seems to imply, she was one who was ideally positioned to bend the divine ear. Further, she was based in the temple where the impact of Roman rule (and oppression) was evident; the Antonia Fortress where Roman troops were stationed was attached to the temple, and the stones from Herod’s temple construction would stand out as images of oppression to a non-elite person based in the temple compound. 49 It is likely that with Hannah’s focus on the redemption of Jerusalem her prayers recalled God’s saving acts in the past: the Israelites crying out in slavery for God to act to save them (Exod. 2.24); Miriam and the exodus; Deborah and Sisera; the exile and return; Judith and Holofernes. This may well have resulted in tears and distress (1 Sam. 1.8; Est. 4.4; Ps. 109.24–26) as she allowed hunger to bring out the depth of her prayers. As a poor person, she, like Mary, may have also declared the bringing down of the rich from their thrones and mercy for God’s people (Lk. 1.51–55). Hannah’s presence in the temple must have brought disquiet to some and encouragement to others.
Judith is most notably a saviour/deliverer figure of Israel, in the same way Moses was in the exodus. It was her actions God used to defeat the Assyrians, just as it was Moses’ actions in facing Pharaoh that God used to defeat Egypt. The memory of Egypt is visible in Judith (5.5–16) as it is in Luke’s Gospel (9.28–36). 50 However, ultimately Judith goes on to enact God’s justice by cutting off the head of Holofernes (13.1–20), while Hannah’s weapons are only prayer and fasting. Luke’s Gospel, and the infancy narrative in particular, is full of the language of salvation (1.47, 69; 2.11, 30), but the Gospel contains a marked movement away from human vengeance, 51 making a considerable contrast with Judith; however, we might say that the relationship between Judith and Hannah shows signs of step parallelism (like that between John and Jesus in the Lukan infancy narrative), where the latter is superior to the former. Judith trusts God and yet she is the one who acts to bring about the tribe’s deliverance, while Hannah relies solely on God to bring about Israel’s redemption.
Judith’s story ends with Holofernes’ head hung on the city walls, and the military defeat of the Assyrians (15.1–7). Achior, advisor to Holofernes, an important protagonist in the story of Judith (Jud. 5.5–21), comes to believe in Israel’s God, and undergoes the rite of circumcision (14.10). This gathering in of a gentile reflects the light of revelation coming to the nations, of which Simeon sings (Lk. 2.32). Joakim then comes from Jerusalem to see what God has achieved for Israel and blesses Judith (15.9–10). Judith’s lengthy hymn of thanksgiving is recorded, which praises God, reveals his mighty acts (much like Miriam and Deborah’s songs), and ends on a ‘woe’ to the nations who try to plot against God, for on the day of judgment they will be punished (16.1–17). An epilogue records the people coming to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to God and Judith’s final peaceful years in Bethulia where she increases in stature and lives to the age of 105 (16.23).
Hannah’s brief story ends with her praising God and speaking about the child to all who will listen. This may in fact prefigure the witnessing of the disciples to all nations, which Jesus commands in 24.48. Hannah has already begun to speak (laleō) about the child, while many will join after his resurrection and ascension as the gospel is proclaimed to the ends of the earth. The word (laleō) is a common Greek word for talking, but Luke often uses it in forms declaring God’s word and in various preaching contexts, which is what Hannah’s context implies. We find the disciples speaking (laleō) of the Scriptures, Jesus, and the plan of God often in Acts (4.1, 17, 20, 29, 31; 5.20, 40; 6.10; 8.25; 9.29; 10.44; 11.14, 15, 19; 13.46; 16.14, 32; 18.25), while God (3.21, 22; 7.6, 44; 9.6; 16.6; 18.9; 22.10) and the angels (7.38; 10.7) speak also. Hannah’s words are most likely declaratory and viewed as words from God by the people.
Hannah’s story, although brief, is rich with information and possibilities for the role she played in the temple in Jerusalem and in Luke’s story of Jesus at the time of Mary’s purification. What we do not have are her actual words, although in harmony with the Lukan infancy narrative and Judith’s story we may suggest what history has left silent.
As Hannah saw the baby and the people waiting in the temple, she said: I praise you my God for bringing your deliverer to us. You have heard my protest cries in the day and the night and acted to rescue Israel from her oppressors. Let the cymbals and the trumpets lift up a shout of praise! Let the young women lead us in dancing! For you have brought us your Messiah – a baby from the city of David; a simple shepherd like David to guide your people in righteousness. As Judith was faithful to the Israelites and Achior the Ammonite was saved, you have shown your faithfulness to the ends of the earth. Let creation rejoice and sing their song of praise to God; O Lord, you are great and glorious, Prodigious in strength, unsurpassable!
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
1.
Howard Marshall I (1987) The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC). Exeter: Paternoster; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 115.
2.
The Greek Alpha takes a rough breathing.
3.
435 pc bopt; Irlat omit altogether.
4.
Bovon suggests it connects the purification with the presentation. Bovon F (2002) Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 99.
5.
Bock DL (1994) Luke, I:1–9:20. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 236; Garland DE (2011) Luke. ZECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 135; Nolland J (1989) Luke, WBC35A. Dallas, TX: Word, 117.
6.
Bock notes the m. Nid. 5.1; 2.5; 1.3–5, but this document has a later dating (c. 200 CE, does not refer to the male’s uncleanness, and does not suggest a formal rite to deal with uncleanness; the use of the mikveh is more likely. Bock DL (1994) Luke, I: 1–9: 50. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 236.
7.
Bultmann R (1963) The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Marsh J (trans). New York: Harper & Row; Oxford: Blackwell, 299; Fitzmyer JA (2006) The Gospel According to Luke I-IX: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, I. New Haven, CT: Yale, 424.
8.
Cazelles H (1992) ‘Bethlehem’, ABD 1.712. New York: Doubleday.
9.
Karlsen Seim T (2004) The Double Message: Patterns of Gender in Luke–Acts. London: T. & T. Clark, 178.
10.
Isaiah’s wife (who is not named) will not be considered as her prophetic ministry is not outlined, appears to be domestic and related to child bearing, and may be an honorific title as the prophet’s wife.
11.
See Burns RJ (1992) ‘Miriam’, ABD 4.870. New York: Doubleday.
12.
Meyers C (2013) Rediscovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 118–21.
13.
See Ackerman S (2002) Why is Miriam also among the prophets and Zipporah among the priests?, Journal of Biblical Literature 121(1): 47–80.
14.
Ackerman S (1998) Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 30.
15.
Ackerman notes Deborah’s name is mentioned four times to Barak’s three and he is never mentioned independently of Deborah. In 5.1 the song is attributed to Deborah by the use of the third person singular verb ‘to sing’, although Barak is also mentioned. In 5.12 it may be Deborah alone is commanded to sing out while Barak is secondary; she is certainly listed first. See Ackerman S (1998) Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 30–31.
16.
Alongside Anat (or Anath), Ishtar (Astarte) was also known as a war-goddess with particular interest in chariots and horses. ANET, 250a.
17.
Rasmussen RC (1989) Deborah the woman warrior. In: Bal M (ed.) Anti-Covenant: Counter-Reading Women’s Lives in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield: Almond Press, 86–87; Ackerman S (1998) Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 29–32, 51–73.
18.
Lindars B (1995) Judges 1–5: A New Translation and Commentary, Mayes ADH (ed.) Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 172.
19.
Meyers C (2013) Rediscovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 123.
20.
Meyers C (2013) Rediscovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 139–46.
21.
As Rasmussen points out, reception to her story is varied and not many scholarly readings embrace her three-fold role, seeing her leadership in its many forms as a problem to be explained. See Rasmussen RC (1989) Deborah the woman warrior. In: Bal M (ed.) Anti-Covenant: Counter-Reading Women’s Lives in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield: Almond Press, 79.
22.
See Pongratz-Leisten B (2006) Cassandra’s colleagues: prophetesses in the Neo-Assyrian empire. Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 1(1): 23–29.
23.
Pongratz-Leisten B (2006) Cassandra’s colleagues: prophetesses in the Neo-Assyrian empire. Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 1(1): 25.
24.
See Elliott JK (1988) Anna’s age (Luke 2:26–27). Novum Testamentum 30: 101.
25.
See Bock DL (1994) Luke, I: 1–9:50. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 252.
26.
א2 K W Γ Δ Θ ƒ1.13 565. 700. 892. 1241. 1424.
27.
Bauckham R (2002) Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 100.
28.
Elliott JK (1988) Anna’s age (Luke 2:26–27). NovT 30: 100–102; Nolland notes, ‘her age (seven-times-twelve years) may symbolize the completion of her waiting for the messiah’. See Nolland J (1989) Luke 1–9.20, WBC35A. Dallas, TX: Word, 125.
29.
Bock DL (1994) Luke, I:1–9:50. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 252
30.
This is a euphemism ‘to let die’. See Arndt W, Danker FW, Bauer W, and Ginarich FW (2000) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 117.
31.
Bauckham R (2002) Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 100.
32.
Price RM (1997) The Widow Traditions in Luke–Acts: A Feminist-Critical Scrutiny. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 48–49; Garland DE (2011) Luke. ZECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 137.
33.
Spencer FS (2012) Salty Wives, Spirited Mothers, and Savvy Widows: Capable Women of Purpose and Persistence in Luke’s Gospel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 225.
34.
Reid BE (1996) Choosing the Better Part? Women in the Gospel of Luke. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 92.
35.
Green JB (1997) The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 151.
36.
Nestle E, Aland B, Aland K, Karavidopoulos J, Martini CM, and BM Metzger (1993) Greek-English New Testament. 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 804.
37.
Hays RB (1989) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 29–32.
38.
Moore CA (1985) Judith: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 46.
39.
See Moore CA (1985) Judith: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 38–49.
40.
Otzen B (2002) Tobit and Judith. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 70.
41.
Craven T (1983) Artistry and Faith in the Book of Judith. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 47.
42.
An ancient city in Media, western Iran.
43.
Noting that the site is not settled and responding to the idea that topographical details are of little importance to some scholars, Moore says ‘the present writer believes the author has some particular site in his mind’s eye and that Shechem probably served as his general model’, Moore CA (1985) Judith: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 151. So too Helen Efthimiadis-Keith. See Efthimiadis-Keith H (2004) The Enemy Is Within: A Jungian Psychoanalytical Approach to the Book of Judith. Boston, MA: Brill, 11.
44.
Bauckham R (2002) Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 81–82.
45.
Bauckham R (2002) Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 85.
46.
Moore CA (1985) Judith: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 194.
47.
Ackerman S (2002) Why is Miriam also among the prophets and Zipporah among the priests?, Journal of Biblical Literature 121(1): 69.
48.
Lambert D (2003) Fasting as a penitential rite: a biblical phenomenon?’ Harvard Theological Review 96: 480.
49.
Lk. 19.40; Jn. 8.59; Jos. War II.422.
50.
Luke uniquely uses the word exodos in the transfiguration narrative (9.31), he uses nephelē three times (9.34 [twice], 35) which may recall the pillar of cloud that led the Israelites (Exod. 13.21, 22; 14.19, 24; 33.9, 10; Num. 12.5; 14.14; Deut. 31.15), and uniquely speaks of the doxa (9.31, 32) which may recall the glory mentioned in Exod. 24.16–17 and Deut. 5.24. Other exodus indicators are given when Luke presents Jesus in a prophet-like-Moses role fulfilling Deut. 18.15. For example, Luke’s use of the Shema in 10.27 (Deut. 6.5), and the sending out of the 70 (10.1; refer 5.1) which may look back to the 70 elders who assisted Moses (Num. 11.16–17, 24–25). The focus in Luke on the Spirit’s presence in Jesus (4.1, 14; 5.17) may also be equated with the presence of God which led the Israelites (Exod. 33.14).
51.
Notably the Lukan Jesus omits the words of vengeance in the Nazareth sermon (Lk. 4.18–19; Isa. 61.1–2), and when he clears the temple, we have a brief description of his actions, which focus on prayer rather than action. Further, the Jerusalem section (19.29–21.37) is marked by Jesus’ teachings, which are his ‘weapons’ to counter the religious leaders.